Every accused should have the right to face their accuser and the accuser had better have their facts straight.

The fact that people even ponder the merits of such laws indicate that these are indeed, dangerous times!

I agree that with the current justice system, even while making a justified report, the ‘John Doe’ without this protection, would be required to come up with the funds necessary to answer any suits and that in itself would prevent anyone from making any kind of a sincere report to authorities of such possible threats. It’s time to use common sense and stop allowing ‘Political Correctness’ from utilizing the largest and last line of defense… the citizenry.

“I would expect that if the behavior was suspicious, any jury of their peers would find that the people reporting the behavior were not doing so out of vengeance or racism, but out of sincere concern. Why would they need immunity?”

You may have more faith in a jury than I do, but beyond that these John Doe’s who are being sued will have to pay their own legal fees regardless of the outcome (one reason I support a ‘loser pay’ system). I don’t believe that the Imams will win their suit but such a case could still have a chilling effect on others who might come forward in future incidents.

The reason for this provision is to protect individuals who in good faith report suspicious activity. These Imams are trying to sue individuals who had such concerns. If all these individuals were acting in bad faith, then they still could be sued and/or prosecuted for making a false report. How can the government ask us to be, on one hand vigilant and report suspicious activity while on the other hand, not offer protection to those who do?

Imagine their chagrin – when intentionally creating a situation to set themselves up as ‘victims’ – only later to see nation-wide laws enacted designed to short-circuit their own hubris.

Poetic justice.

Doug,

In a world where these guys could have been pulled away to Gitmo and declared enemy combatants, denied access to a trial, I would say that while there may not be “intent” to specifically injure these imams, it could easily be seen as a likely outcome.

Personally I don’t see any reason to grant people blanket immunity. I would expect that if the behavior was suspicious, any jury of their peers would find that the people reporting the behavior were not doing so out of vengeance or racism, but out of sincere concern. Why would they need immunity?