Most Americans recognize the essential importance of free speech as part of the foundation of our liberties, but where should the line be drawn between free speech and assault? Assault, as in the first part of “assault & battery,” is the threat of physical harm and is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.”
On Townhall.com yesterday, Mike S. Adams wrote a piece about Kent State professor Julio “Assad” Pino and his jihadist website, Global War. Today, Kent State officials defended Pino while distancing the school from any ties to the website. But when Pino’s department head, John Jameson, referred to Pino as a “good teacher,” was he ultimately defending the indefensible?
Pino’s call for violence against Americans is crystal clear. When asked by students, for example, to explain why burning American flags is so popular among Muslims, Pino replied, “You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of drugs, gambling, the sex trade, spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past, such as AIDS, and turns women into commodities for sale. The ill done to the Muslim nations must be requited. The Muslim child does not cry alone; the Muslim woman does not cry alone; and the Muslim man is already at your gates.”
Why should we continue to permit the damage that is being done to our Constitution by enemies who distort it’s meanings? The writers of the Constitution intended American citizens to freely express opposition to the government. Threats of violence directed at Americans, however, is another thing. It’s called assault and it’s a crime and should be treated as such.