The flying imams request: Privacy please, part 2

In her Washington Times story on the motion brought by the attorney for the flying imams to exclude press coverage and hold proceedings in closed session, Audrey Hudson notes that blogs are among the thorns sticking in the side of the flying imams:

Mr. Mohammedi did not respond to a request for comment, but he told the judge his clients had received death threats and had been unfairly criticized in press reports and Internet blogs.

As a CAIR functionary serving in a CAIR production, Mohammedi prefers to reserve to CAIR the publicity rights over his clients’ claims. It’s an understandable sentiment, yet lacking in any legal authority. In her letter to Mohammedi denying the motion, Minnesota Federal District Court Judge Ann Montgomery declined to treat the case “in the extraordinary manner you suggest.” She succinctly explained to Mohammedi:

Under the First Amendment, the public and the press have a significant interest in full access to all judicial proceedings, both criminal and civil. You have provided no legal authority supporting your request to limit public access to this case. While it is regrettable that anonymous individuals have threatened violence, the Court Security Officers will insure that the United States Courthouse here in Minneapolis is secure.

CAIR is of course an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas fundraising case pending in federal court in Texas. It prefers to prevent citizens from obtaining information on the basis of which they might say nasty things or think nasty thoughts about its actions, its objectives, and its clients. Next thing you know folks might not take seriously CAIR’s holding itself out as a civil rights organization, or think it’s some kind of a fraud.
To comment on this post, go here.


Books to read from Power Line