The "legal Jihad" on Freedom of Speech

Brooke M. Goldstein, the director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the director of the Children's Rights Institute, here, on the legal Jihad on freedom of speech:

THESE SUITS REPRESENT a direct and real threat to our constitutional rights and national security. Even if the lawsuits don't succeed, the continued use of lawfare tactics by Islamist organizations has the potential to create a detrimental chilling effect on public discourse and information concerning the war on terror. Already, publishers have canceled books on the subject of counterterrorism and no doubt other journalists and authors have self-censored due to the looming threat of suit. For its part, CAIR announced an ambitious fundraising goal of $1 million, partly to "defend against defamatory attacks on Muslims and Islam." One of CAIR's staffers, Rabiah Ahmed, bragged that lawsuits are increasingly an "instrument" for it to use.

U.S. courts have not yet grasped the importance of rebuffing international attempts to restrain the free speech rights of American citizens.

This is troubling. The United States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle of the freedom to criticize religion. Islamists should not be allowed to stifle constitutionally protected speech, nor should they be allowed to subject innocent citizens who talk to other citizens about issues of national security to frivolous and costly lawsuits.

__________

The fact is, I don't really understand enough about how the law in such cases works and what can be done to stem the tide of legal suits. If the plaintiffs' complaints are compatible with the letter and spirit of the law, how can they be curtailed? And isn't the danger in curtailing them greater than having them conclude in whatever manner that is compatible with the law?

I am guessing what will happen is that people will formulate their thoughts with extra care, making sure before writing anything that is hyperbolic or speculative that indeed their facts are irrefutable. This may harm journalists and writers, who have to rely many times on reported stories and verifications, who don't always have direct access to the information. It might actually engender better journalistic ethics. The only thing is, if free speech is suppressed by self-imposed constraints in the subject of Islamist extremes, but remains unhindered in other areas, then the public is being served only part of the picture, and may form positions which are ill-informed and self-damaging.