The Advocacy of Violence is Not Protected Speech

by Robert J. Romano

April 5th, 2004

In ordering the shutdown of a Baghdad semi-weekly publication, al-Mustaqilla, or The Independent, the coalition took a firm stand against not only the incitement of violence, but also the political goals that are forwarded by such incitement.  "The page-two article said those who cooperate with the United States should be killed as a matter of patriotic and religious duty. The paper said it would publish a list of names of Iraqis aiding the coalition." (Quoted from: Global Security.org) That article was published on July 13th, 2003.  On March 28th, 2004, the coalition ordered the shutdown of al-Hawza for sixty days, in a similar stand against the advocacy of such actions which all lawful governments have the right to prevent, including violence.  Also, on January 31st, the Iraqi Governing Council barred the al-Jazeera network from covering council events for a month, after that network disrespected the Iraqi people.  Is speech which incites violence protected under laws which protect free speech? Is free speech the same as speech which incites violence? Advocates of free speech are well aware of the argument waged by Justice Oliver Holmes, in the majority opinion on Schenck v. United States (1919), when he stated, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Advocating violence in a war-zone is not protected speech, though that there is any distinction might cause many to wonder if free speech is so "free." It is, and protecting individuals who are targeted by threats of violence is absolutely necessary.  Protecting liberties and rights, like free speech, does not mean that the people will advocate all sorts of speech as "right," or "good," and it also does not mean that some forms of speech, including issuing orders to kill, will not endanger another individual's right to life.  

        It would be as if a person who ordered the killing of one or many individuals would not be held responsible for the actions which were committed.  It would be as if, "Just because Saddam Hussein ordered the killings, he was just exercising his rights of free speech, and therefore he is not responsible." This is, of course, utter nonsense.  Just because Adolf Hitler, to cite another genocidal tyrant, may not have carried out the mass genocide of millions personally, his advocacy and orders to do so were directly responsible for those actions taking place.  Advocates of specific acts of murder are responsible for those actions when they occur.  The use of powerful propaganda towards the ends of inciting violence, insurrection, mass murder, etc. ought to be closely monitored by any legitimate governmental authority.  Organizations, or individuals, that insist on publishing such advocacies of violence, should be closely watched as a justified precaution against the loss of life, and such operations must be shut down in the midst of a war-zone.  Without security, liberty has no protection, and in protecting against the advocacy of violence against the Iraqi people, and coalition forces, a clear message is sent about what types of speech are protected, and more importantly, what sort of responsibility is attached to maintaining freedom.

        The advocacy of violence against the Iraqi people, and the coalition forces, will not and should not be tolerated.  Making the distinction between protected speech, and the advocacy of violence, is necessary towards differentiating between peaceful political discourse and inciting violent uprisings.  When violence is advocated, when speech is used to order murder, that is where discourse fails.  Any democracy would be hard-pressed to grow if some groups were ordering violence against other groups, and vice versa, reciprocally, the ultimate goal of civil debate and discourse on serving the overall national interest and the common good would be terribly hindered by any prospect of civil strife, let alone in a war-zone.  

        The goal of insurgents in Iraq is precisely to provoke such response amongst the people of Iraq, and it is the people that must choose whether they wish to live in violence, or whether they hope for a more peaceful form of government, where people are not arbitrarily murdered, raped, and arrested, and where peaceful political discourse is protected.  If the situation was reversed, where advocacy of violence was protected, and peaceful political discourse not, a Darwinian situation of survival would supplant any notions of an ordered government.  It is essential that the great body of the Iraqi people determine their futures without fear of violence, and this is precisely why the advocacy of violence ought not to be tolerated.  It will not do for there to be tactics of intimidation and coercion towards affecting the overall outcome of a free Iraq's future.  At the same time, peaceable assembly and meeting of ideas is exactly what ought to be encouraged.  There is always a peaceful way to resolve our differences, through a republican form of government, through representation, and through there being a free and able press which promotes political accountability.  

        The ability to criticize sitting public officials is essential to there being a free nation.  However, we do not threaten our public officials with violence if our goals are not immediately fulfilled.  We work hard on issues with which we disagree, we debate vigorously with our opponents, but we do not resort to violence between them.  Despite our differences, a free people works together to meeting the essential needs of society, that of providing safety, liberty, and prosperity.  Each is essential to the presence of freedom in general, and security is the priority, for without proper protection of life, there will not be any opportunity for the fruits of liberty to grow.  Democratic and republican forms of government are dependent upon peaceful discourse between political factions, without threats of violence, because then those interactions may be free and peaceful, without harming others' liberties.  The ability for power to change hands makes any debate meaningful, and it is up to all people to participate in that debate so as to best ensure a bright and prosperous future for the fate of any nation.

        Comparing the actions to shut down the advocacy of violence with the abridgment of free speech or press is a non-starter.  Shutting down such violent advocacies is essential to promoting a free and fair debate which does not threaten its own participants for working towards the common good.  Working to build Iraq after the fall of Hussein's regime is essential, and this must be done with unity, for in removing the dictator from power, the people will work best and hardest to maintain their liberty from the coercion of one or a few men, as well as defend against insurgent threats which seek to acquire power at the expense of human life.  Terrorists and insurgents will not find safe haven in Iraq.