Daily Archives: June 27, 2017

Mary Assel 12:05 a.m. ET June 27, 2017

Doug Early, of Sterling Heights, holds a "No Sharia" sign during a "March Against Sharia" on June 10 on Telegraph Road in Southfield. Protestors gathered to show their opposition to Islamic law, which they believe is threatening American rights.(Photo: Rachel Woolf / Special to Detroit News)

For all religious, social and political institutions to be effective, it is crucial to establish guidelines, rules and regulations for its supporters. Accordingly, the Quran outlines religious or Sharia guidelines for its believers so that as a religious entity, Muslims may conduct a just, ethical and moral life. Sharia guidelines are found in the canon of Islam as are elements of faith in the canons of Christianity and Judaism. They are intended to protect believers rights in matters such as marriage, education, safety, dietary restrictions, inheritance and peaceful cooperation among themselves and others.

The Quran sets forth a code of conduct for all Muslims to abide by if they wish to remain in compliance with divine revelations. In fact, all monotheistic religions require similar codes of conduct and divine obedience.

According to the First Amendment, it is illegal to deprive anyone from practicing or following the guidelines of religion. Every person in the United States has the right to religious freedom and by condemning those who worship God in ways that differ from ones own, is saying, I can worship God and follow his guidelines, but you cant, unless you worship him my way. Muslims are expressly told to protect non-Muslims in practicing their religion, so why should they be attacked for believing in the standard procedures of their religion?

Muslims believe that the Quran in which Sharia guidelines are found is one of the most sacred religious texts in the history of mankind. Muslims consider it to be the direct word of God transmitted to the Prophet Mohammed through the Angel Gabriel. It emphasizes the importance of believing in God and the afterlife. It outlines the stories of prophets and saints and how to emulate their conduct. In Islam, the most important codes of conduct are the five pillars of Islam: fasting, charitable giving, performing the pilgrimage, daily prayer and the belief in one God.

While living in secular countries, many Muslims choose to abide by the five pillars of Islam and comply with Sharia guidelines in matters such as marriage, inheritance, dietary restrictions, charitable contributions and dress code. Yet, in legal matters they conform to the lawful guidelines of their country of residence. It is clear in the Quran that secular law and the laws set forth by a countrys constitution take precedence over Sharia.

It is Muslims obligation to obey the established civil law enforcement agencies of the country in which they live. They must obey the law of the land and pledge allegiance to its flag as long as it does not deny the existence of God. Hence, Sharia guidelines are not a substitute for civil law, and U.S. courts have never ruled based on its content. In fact, in many instances, Sharia guidelines run parallel to civil law. For example, it forbids incest, alcohol, gambling, prostitution and discrimination based on race, sex and color. If any of the latter are transgressed in Islam, the punishment is harsh, but only in Muslim theocracies. More importantly, is when transgression does takes place, God encourages forgiveness. Also, there is no standardized manual of Sharia guidelines since it is based on the fiqh or the interpretation of the Quran.

There are courts in Muslim countries that do not rule based on Sharia guidelines and if they do, they have their own version of its application. Sharia is more of an interpretation or fiqh created by Islamic scholars. The interpretations are based on their understanding of what it means to live a life that serves the individual and society as a whole. Sharia guidelines are usually separate from the laws of the governing authorities and do not supersede civil law. Its guidelines do not come in a handbook, and it is incorrect to say Sharia urges the declaration of war on non-Muslims, and most certainly, does not subjugate women. There is nothing in the Quran that promotes the subjugation of women. It is more a traditional or cultural trend that has weaved itself into Sharia guidelines of countries with low appreciation for womens rights.

Sharia guidelines prescribe moral guidance and ethical behavior. It is the duty of every Muslim to comply with their standards as long as these actions do not harm or cause grief to others. They have the right to fulfill or not fulfill their religious obligations and cannot be forced to do so since they believe in free will.

Dr. Mary Assel is the retired director of the English Language Institute at Henry Ford College.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2ubukvf

Read the original here:
Column: First Amendment protects Sharia law - The Detroit News

For example, Facebook generally allows the sharing of animal abuse, a category of speech the Supreme Court deemed protected in 2010. But diverging from First Amendment law, Facebook will remove that same imagery if a user shows sadism, defined as the enjoyment of suffering.

Similarly, Facebooks manual on credible threats of violence echoes First Amendment law on incitement and true threats by focusing on the imminence of violence, the likelihood that it will actually occur, and an intent to credibly threaten a particular living victim.

But there are also crucial distinctions. Where First Amendment law protects speech about public figures more than speech about private individuals, Facebook does the opposite. If a user calls for violence, however generic, against a head of state, Facebook deems that a credible threat against a vulnerable person. Its fine to say, I hope someone kills you. It is not fine to say, Somebody shoot Trump. While the government cannot arrest you for saying it, Facebook will remove the post.

These differences are to be expected. Courts protect speech about public officials because the Constitution gives them the job of protecting fundamental individual rights in the name of social values like autonomy or democratic self-governance. Facebook probably constrains speech about public officials because as a large corporate actor with meaningful assets, it and other sites can be pressured into cooperation with governments.

Unlike in the American court system, theres no due process on these sites. Facebook users dont have a way to easily appeal if their speech gets taken down. And unlike a government, Facebook doesnt respond to elections or voters. Instead, it acts in response to bad press, powerful users, government requests and civil society organizations.

Thats why the transparency provided by the Guardian leak is important. If theres any hope for individual users to influence Facebooks speech governance, theyll have to know how this system works in the same way citizens understand what the Constitution protects and leverage that knowledge.

For example, before the Guardian leak, a private Facebook group, Marines United, circulated nude photos of female Marines and other women. This prompted a group called Not in My Marine Corps to pressure Facebook to remove related pages, groups and users. Facebook announced in April that it would increase its attempts to remove nonconsensual nude pictures. But the Guardian leaks revealed that the pictures circulated by Marines United were largely not covered by Facebooks substantive revenge porn policy. Advocates using information from the leaks have begun to pressure Facebook to do more to prevent the nonconsensual distribution of private photos.

Civil liberties groups and user rights groups should do just this: Take advantage of the increased transparency to pressure these sites to create policies advocates think are best for the users they represent.

Today, as social media sites are accused of spreading false news, influencing elections and allowing horrific speech, they may respond by increasing their policing of content. Clarity about their internal speech regulation is more important now than ever. The ways in which this newfound transparency is harnessed by the public could be as meaningful for online speech as any case decided in a United States court.

Margot E. Kaminski is an assistant professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Kate Klonick is a Ph.D. candidate at Yale Law School.

Margot E. Kaminski and Kate Klonick

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Speech in the Social Public Square.

See the rest here:
Facebook, Free Expression and the Power of a Leak - New York Times

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its first decisions addressing the relationship between the First Amendment and the Internet. In Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017), the Court holds that a North Carolina sex offender statute violates the First Amendments free speech guarantee.

The North Carolina statute at issue in Packingham made it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social networking websites that permit access to minor children. Lester Gerard Packingham, the petitioner and a registered sex offender, violated that law in 2010 by posting on Facebook about a traffic ticket. After his indictment by a grand jury, the instant First Amendment issue progressed through the North Carolina courts and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Justice Kennedys majority (incld. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) declares that [a] fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. Packingham, Slip Op. at 4. The Court not only reiterated the basic tenet that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights, but took it further in stating:

While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspacethe vast democratic forums of the Internet in general, and social media in particular.

Id. at 4-5 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The majority opinion, however, cautions that [t]he forces and directions of the Internet are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow. Id. at 6.

The Court ultimately holds that the North Carolina statute suppress[es] lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech and therefore must be held invalid. Id. at 10 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Although a State may enact specific, narrowly tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor, the North Carolina statute was unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens because to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. Id. at 7-8. The Court overturned the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Courts opinion.

Justice Alitos concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, agrees that the North Carolina statute violates the First Amendment but takes issues with dicta of the majority opinion and notes that the three Justices are troubled by the implications of unnecessary rhetoric. Id., Concurrence at 2.

The concurrence notes that if the entirety of the internet or even just social media sites are the 21st century equivalent of public streets and parks, then States may have little ability to restrict the sites that may be visited by even the most dangerous sex offenders. Id. at 10. Expressing the view that [t]he Court should be more attentive to the implications of its rhetoric because there are important differences between cyberspace and the physical world, the concurring Justices recommend that we should proceed circumspectly, taking one step at a time. Id. at 10-11.

The ultimate impact and reach of these opinions, including their application of the First Amendment to social media, will be explored by lower courts, state and federal legislators, and (perhaps) again the Supreme Court (Justice Gorsuch did not participate in this decision).

Read the original:
SCOTUS Gets Social: Does the First Amendment Protect the Right to ... - Lexology (registration)