Something very ugly could happen today and tomorrow.
A loosely connected group of anti-Muslim activists is at about 20 mosques and American Muslim community centers and organizations . In states with open-carry laws, , protesters are being urged to come with guns. Some of the rallies are scheduled for today, Friday, when communal prayers are held. Other protests are planned for Saturday, when many mosques hold classes for children.
Imagine taking your child to a Saturday morning religion class past gun-wielding demonstrators hurling abuse against your religion.
Of course, anti-Muslim protestors have a constitutional right to assemble and express bigoted and even hateful views. At the same time, it is a core American value to protect the right of worship for American Muslims and all religious groups — and to speak out against prejudice and intimidation. We at the ACLU have been working with targeted American Muslim communities and like-minded allies to support our Muslim neighbors, who are deeply concerned about the rise in anti-Muslim hatred, their security, and the protests’ potential for violence.
A call for nation-wide anti-Muslim protests on this scale is new, but it is sadly unsurprising because it reflects a national environment in which prejudice against American Muslims is running rampant — with devastatingly tragic security consequences for individuals and our country’s future. It’s an environment fueled by pundits like Bill Maher, who falsely ascribes violent intent to “” of Muslims, and an entire industry of foundations and donors that has spent to promote anti-Muslim bigotry in our country.
Critically, it’s also an environment fueled by the rhetoric and actions of politicians and law enforcement at the local, state, and federal level.
Just last month, for example, elected officials and law enforcement leaders in Tennessee, where one of the largest anti-Muslim protests is expected tomorrow, alarmingly xenophobic and anti-Muslim comments. As the ACLU of Tennessee and statewide religious, community, and immigrant rights groups :
Not only do these statements send the wrong message to their respective communities, they stoke the flames of hate that could incite attacks against peaceful Americans.
At the national level, there is an alarming willingness of public officials to attack American Muslim communities for political gain, sending messages that divide Americans instead of uniting them. We need more public officials willing to say what former Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2008, “Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is ‘No.’ That’s not America.”
All of this is exacerbated by policies and practices that stigmatize American Muslims as suspect — like the so-called federal “countering violent extremism” program. Worse still, security measures, such as federal watchlists and surveillance and sting operations, disproportionately and discriminatorily .
This environment feeds not just bigoted rallies, but hate crimes, which are on the rise. Three weeks ago, a man Muslim worshippers in Ohio. When the police arrested him, they found a hatchet under his passenger seat. In Chicago, another man called a Sikh father of two “Osama bin Laden” and . Across the country, Muslim houses of worship are targeted for arson and vandalism. These are just a few examples of a wave of ugliness.
America must be better than this. Ours is a nation founded on shared values of pluralism, freedom of religion or no religion, and equality. And reflecting those values, many Americans are responding to the anti-Muslim hate rallies by denouncing bigotry, speaking up for tolerance and equality, and engaging in actions of .
Please, join in.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.