Sunday, October 05, 2008
Promoting Murder in America
Contrary to public opinion, promoting murder is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Nor is it protected by tax exempt status, as in the case of charitable trusts and organized religions. The only place we find some degree of protection for individuals engaged in promoting murder is in the limited liability of corporations and in the immunity of public officials.
Yet, looking at the history of domestic terrorism in the United States, promoters of murder have consistently found sanctuary in these locations. Looking closer, though, it becomes clear that this has been primarily for the purpose of mobilizing human and financial resources effectively in carrying out a murderous agenda. The ideological protection, however, has been provided in the distorted interpretation of free speech, a protection not provided by law, but rather by practice.
This practice takes two essential forms: lack of prosecution by law enforcement, and lack of challenge by civil society. In fact, civil liberties groups have arguably had as much influence on public misperception about promoting murder as has the Department of Justice. Granted, the existing statutes against promoting murder are applied more vigorously against non-Christian, non-white terrorists than they are against white Christian terrorists, but the public perception of these cases is usually distorted by the added elements of conspiracism and ideological misrepresentation.
Which brings us back to our main topic. Why are charitable organizations like the Clarion Fund allowed to openly promote murder of Muslims in the media and through the U.S. mail? Why are US corporations allowed to promote murder of environmentalists and Native Americans through charitable organizations like the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise?
Is it only institutionalized bigotry, or is there more to it?
Yet, looking at the history of domestic terrorism in the United States, promoters of murder have consistently found sanctuary in these locations. Looking closer, though, it becomes clear that this has been primarily for the purpose of mobilizing human and financial resources effectively in carrying out a murderous agenda. The ideological protection, however, has been provided in the distorted interpretation of free speech, a protection not provided by law, but rather by practice.
This practice takes two essential forms: lack of prosecution by law enforcement, and lack of challenge by civil society. In fact, civil liberties groups have arguably had as much influence on public misperception about promoting murder as has the Department of Justice. Granted, the existing statutes against promoting murder are applied more vigorously against non-Christian, non-white terrorists than they are against white Christian terrorists, but the public perception of these cases is usually distorted by the added elements of conspiracism and ideological misrepresentation.
Which brings us back to our main topic. Why are charitable organizations like the Clarion Fund allowed to openly promote murder of Muslims in the media and through the U.S. mail? Why are US corporations allowed to promote murder of environmentalists and Native Americans through charitable organizations like the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise?
Is it only institutionalized bigotry, or is there more to it?
