The Hutaree militia was a Christian extremist group in Michigan who planned to pursue terrorist bombings on law enforcement.
The charges of terrorism made against them were dismissed based on free speech rights.
Even though there was an uproar for a Muslim mosque to build a religious center near the World Trade Center ruins.
And those two things relate....how? Other than being religion.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder....and Greg Williams ran a bounty scheme. They must be related, they're both concerning football. Or something....
I'm seriously not seeing what you're getting at Samsmart. Notice that Tessa did not say "aren't christian", but stated are largely not Christian. So pointing out that there was a small group of nine people arrested in Michigan doesn't necessarily disagree with that statement.
Additionally, the mosque situation was an entirely different one. In that case the issue was not, by and large, some conspiracy to perform illegal actions but largely a belief that it was disrespectful and/or meant to be a sign actually celebrating what had happened. While an argument can definitely be made that the outrage over it was misplaced, comparing it to the Hutaree is rather off base. Not to mention that part of the large reason the issue came about was due to the highly emotional aspect surrounding the nature of 9/11. Mosque's are erected all over the United States, rarely if ever with any kind of national uproar. The uproar for this was largely tied to its relationship to the entire context of 9/11...something not present what so ever in Michigan. 9/11 was a national story, and thus something relating to it has a larger chance inherently to go national then a relatively local issue in Michigan.
Finally, your rather flippant explanation of the Hutaree, stating it was simply based on "free speech rights", causes questions to arise in terms of your intent. That's an extremely narrow and completely shrunken way of explaining a much larger and more diverse case. The issue was not simply that it was "free speech", but specifically that the "conspiracy" was not presented to have advanced anywhere beyond simply conversation. No actions, based on the judgement of the individual presiding over the case, seemed to suggest that there was any movement forward with the talk to indicate some kind of legitimate agreement to engage in the acts that were talked about. This was as much an issue with the difficulty of the government proving conspiracy when there has not been much forward action yet as it is simply about "free speech". I also somewhat wonder how much the ruling was possibly a judge having issue with the law as it states and taking action against it, something that seems not THAT uncommon, in terms of describing IED's as "weapons of mass destruction" (heh, interesting and admittedly slightly partisanly humorous aside; under the interpretation that the Obama justice department uses, Iraq did have WMD's and Iran does as well).
So really, you're entire post is just somewhat baffling in regards to its purpose, meaning, and intent.
