Fighting Islamic Extremists Who Stifle Free Speech
The article “fighting Islamic Extremists who Stifle free speech,” was written by Ayaan Hirsi and Daniel Huff. The report’s main idea involves the proposition of legislation in the bid to succeed the ideological battle against Islamic radicals who utilize threats to steer the modest information out of the widespread discussion (Essay 14, pp. 156-157). The argument involved a strong affirmation of the first modification and weakened the several targets for Islamic extremists.
The article argued that it was now time for the advocators of freedom of speech to borrow an idea from the movement of the right to abortion. This enabled them to lobby for a federal which ruled the act of threatening and intimidating a crime (Dawson, & Adeboje, 2017). The essay educates on the importance of federal law, stating that it would efficiently prevent vicious schemes by concentrating on the challenges. Federal law is also said to entitle the intimidation victims, which would prompt them to step us as private attorneys general through civil damage.
The essay justifies the reasoning behind this argument by stating that the laws that prohibit terrorization are insufficient. The fact that the increased caliber for providing proof prevents the prosecuting officers from looking into the limited resources makes calling for the legislation valid. The reasoning is logical as it gives facts whereby from experience provided concerning movement against the extremists, civil action grounds do not exist, making it challenging to quantify judgment (Taylor, 2015). However, the article proposed legislation does not seem to offer a solution to the Islamic extremists since they only seem to worsen the situation. For instance, the warning provided in the South Park Incident seems to provoke and offend the Muslims more. This explains the death of people like Van Gogh, the fire-bombing of the American book stores, and even several more threats that haven’t received the publicity that it deserves.
Conclusively, the article provides firm reasons for why there is a need to triumph in the ideological wars against Islamic zealots. It does this by providing substantial evidence on how far the threats from Islamic extremists have caused people, ranging from actual murders of activists to even the damages they bring about. The reasoning and the proof provided strengthen the validity of the argument, making it a wake-up call for its readers to rise against the targeted Islamic extremists.
References
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff, Fighting Islamic Extremists who Stifle Free Speech.