Al-Timimi

Protected Speech or Unlawful Incitement?

Since the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791, countless criminal court cases have cited the First Amendment as their defense, claiming the actions in question by the court was protected speech and a right of the accused. Although this defense does frequently work, there are many times when the courts have ruled that the accused cannot claim a freedom of speech defense based on the totality of circumstances. In a perfect example of this situation, Ali al-Timimi was convicted in 2005 of multiple crimes, including soliciting hostilities and inciting violence against the United States in relation to the Global War on Terror. Ali al-Timimi’s defense claimed he was exercising his right to free speech, but because he was not pursuing political reform, he was directly linked to terrorist activities by virtue of employment with a terrorist-linked organization, and the real threat of terrorism applied, Ali al-Timimi’s advocacy of violence was not freedom of speech and was indeed a criminal activity.

Not for Political Reform

In a case that has now set a precedent for freedom of speech, the 1969 ruling of Brandenburg v. Ohio set a clear standard by indicating Brandenburg was simply advocating the use of force to achieve a political goal (CITE). In this goal, Brandenburg was leading people to believe the same thoughts as himself and the rest of the Ku Klux Klan, but not inciting violence or posturing for immediate lawless action (CITE). In the case of United States v. Al-Timimi, the accused did not seek political reform by any stretch of the imagination, as he was in search of individuals to carry out violent acts against the United States, failing to match the Brandenburg case due to the incitem...

... middle of paper ...

...an and attend training at a terrorist camp, and (2) al-Timimi was responsible for the actions of these men based on his dinner speech and assisting in the coordination of contact with LET.

Conclusion

Had less facts been known prior to al-Timimi’s trial, it is very possible he may have been found innocent on grounds of free speech, but the courts applied previous case law to the al-Timimi trial in order to set the precedent for terrorist activities in the United States. The United States v. al-Timimi trial can now be a reference for future trials of similar nature, and the fact that the defendant’s 2008 appeal essentially fell on deaf ears in the appellate court clearly indicates beyond a shadow of the doubt that al-Timimi’s speech was not protected. It is now only a matter of time before new case law is created in response to the precedent set by al-Timimi’s case.