SFGate printed a rebuttal from CAIR to my column, "Savage vs. CAIR: The Battle over Free Speech" today titled, "Free Speech vs. Hate Speech."
It consists of the usual CAIR talking points and obfuscation and the author, CAIR-San Francisco Bay Area Executive Director Safaa Ibrahim, demonstrates a marked lack of understanding (whether purposeful or not) of the concept of free speech. In addition, she doesn't disprove any of the allegations made in my article. And, if the reader comments are any indication, the American public isn't buying it.
Update (1/5): Conservatarian weighs in on CAIR's "dissimulation" here and Douglas Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network provides some words of wisdom on the subject here.
Update (1/7): House of Eratosthenes chimes in on CAIR's ineffective PR campaign here.
Update II: A reader reminded me of a similar case involving CAIR's Canadian branch, CAIR-CAN, in 2006. CAIR-CAN sued Canadian terrorism expert David Harris for libel because of an utterly innocuous comment he made during a radio interview. But Harris refused to back down and in the wake of the Anti-CAIR victory in the U.S. (and, quite possibly, the prospect of a meddlesome trial), CAIR-CAN dropped its suit.
Harris elaborates on the case here, as does David Frum at National Post. Both he and the publication were targeted by CAIR-CAN in yet another failing bid to silence free speech. Further examples of "CAIR's Growing Litigiousness" can be found at Daniel Pipes' (with whom I work) weblog.
It's interesting to note CAIR and its affiliates' predilection for employing libel law, just like certain Saudi billionaires, to silence criticism. Indeed, using the West's legal system to try and push an Islamist agenda (by, in part, stifling opponents) is all the rage these days. Whether these efforts succeed or fail remains to be seen.