Interesting aritcle regarding "Freedom of Speech" vs the community in Dearborn, Mi

[leroy]

All:_______________

Ran up on this article on Drudge this morning: Pastor Terry Jones released from custody after his bond is posted

Think about this a bit: The members of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church have "Free Speech Rights" to protest at a military funeral; all upheld by the Federal Court. The Rev. Terry Jones does not have free speech rights (....Yes Muhammed; burning the Koran is "Freedom of Speech"; because i remember when flag burning and bible burning were "freedom of speech" issues in the sixties and seventies; and the courts held it as such ...) according to a Wayne County, Michigan county court.

It appears to me that the Wayne County folks could be the embodiment of "Animal Farm". "....All animals are equal; it's just that some animals are MORE EQUAL than others...". It appears that, in Wayne County at least, "peace trumps everything"; including the Constitution.

This one will be interesting to watch. I wonder where all the "Freedom of Speech" advocates are at on this one? It kinda looks to me like the Dearborn Islamic community has won this one. They have intimidated everyone else (...including law enforcement and the justice system...) into doing their bidding by threatening violence; and making those threats well known in the community.

The reason for the Rev's denial and guilty verdict: "....Such an action (...burning the Koran...) would "breach the peace"... I wonder if it would be "breaching the peace" to burn the Bible in front of the local Catholic and Baptist churches in Dearborn (...if there are any left; and if the local populus hasn't burned them down yet...)?....

Wonderin and watchin leroy

Edited April 24, 2011 by leroy

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Your right to free speech ends when it incites violence in others or constitutes "fighting words." Potential argument for that here.

[mav]

Your right to free speech ends when it incites violence in others or constitutes "fighting words." Potential argument for that here.

By claiming that burning the Quran incites violence is to give certain segments of society special rights while taking constitutional rights away from another. If a muslim commits some violent act as retribution for the Quran burning then that muslim should be held accountable for his actions. The same thing goes for a black person beating up some one for being called the n-word or a gay person assaulting someone because they were called a queer or fag etc...

There are no special rights in this country. There is no right to be free from offense, and I hope to God we never create one.

[Sheepdog]

Your right to free speech ends when it incites violence in others or constitutes "fighting words." Potential argument for that here.

So, Patrick Henry had no right to say, "Give me liberty, or give me death"?

Martin Luther King, Jr. had no right to speak out for black equality?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[LagerHead]

Your right to free speech ends when it incites violence in others or constitutes "fighting words." Potential argument for that here.

You are correct. But the speech has to be such where you are actively calling for violence against others. As far as I know Jones has not done this. If I am wrong I condemn the behavior. If I'm right then his arrest was unconstitutional.

[leroy]

.....By claiming that burning the Quran incites violence is to give certain segments of society special rights while taking constitutional rights away from another. If a muslim commits some violent act as retribution for the Quran burning then that muslim should be held accountable for his actions. The same thing goes for a black person beating up some one for being called the n-word or a gay person assaulting someone because they were called a queer or fag etc...

There are no special rights in this country. There is no right to be free from offense, and I hope to God we never create one. ....

Mav nailed this one dead on. Remember, violence is an unlawful act (...in most cases...). When a bunch of thugs beat up someone who says something they dont agree with; that is a genuine crime. What the person said to "incite the crime" is a judgement of those doing the beating. Flag burning, bible burning, constitution burning all are forms of "free political speech"; and the courts have already ruled on that and; by the way, put anyone in jail that did not agree with their findings who tooks matters into their own hands to flog or beat those speaking this "free political speech". The ratty lawyers and bureaucrats well know that in Wayne county and everywhere else.

This one aint kin to the 'hollering fire in a crowded theatre" arguement. The arguement there is that innocents will be trampled in the exodus, thereby endangering the innocent. Everybody that perpetrates "violence" is a criminal in the 'keep the peace" agruement. This one is clearly unconstitutional.

As Mav has so elequently stated: " ...There are no special rights in this country. There is no right to be free from offense, and I hope to God we never create one. ..."

Remember this: Totalitarian states are the ultimate end of preemptive "suspending of freedoms" (....read that: speech, assembly, bearing of arms, press, etc....) in the name of "keeping the peace" or the "Collective Good"... Said another way; you can have no "Marketplace of Ideas" if there are "gatekeepers" who can decide what ideas are acceptable or not.

Ya either got these freedoms or you dont; there is no half way or "special condition" with them. It seems to me that the citizenry and legal community of Wayne county dont know too much about freedoms. Kinda looks to me like they are using the old Soviet monaker of banning things they dont agree with under the ole "against the Collective Good banner".

leroy

[DaveTN]

It’s a sad say in this country when someone that burns a Koran can be arrested and someone that burns a flag can’t be.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Wow. I love how everyone jumps all over me when I simply state a potential argument for why someone might choose to arrest Mr. Jones. Obviously it would be for the courts to decide whether those were valid reasons for an arrest, I was just saying that it was what you could expect to be argued considering the carve-outs from the general right of free speech.

Regardless of what your personal opinion may be, Mr. Jones' actions have been cited as a reason for the kidnapping/torture/killing of westerners in the middle east. Sure, any old excuse can be provided whenever someone wants to behead an American, but his actions certainly aren't gaining us any friends. Is it really surprising that someone might want to arrest him and try to get him to shut the hell up in an effort--whether misguided or not--to protect our interests abroad?

Furthermore, this is a better argument for "fighting words" than you might think. Take some time to look into Mr. Jones' "trial" of the Quran, his "sermons," his message to the world, and then review Chaplinsky and its progeny. While certainly not a slam-dunk in either direction, there is absolutely room to develop the law in this area a little more and determine whether Mr Jones' aim was to inflict injury and breach the peace by virtue of his words.

[leroy]

....Wow. I love how everyone jumps all over me when I simply state a potential argument for why someone might choose to arrest Mr. Jones. ...

No one jumped on ya. They simply disagreed with ya. While we're on the subject; i'm old enough to remember the sixties hippies and their support of North Vietnam. The hippies actions certainly bolstered North vietnam and China's resolve, resulting in american deaths. The courts held that the hippies actions and speech were protected regardless of the possibility of increased casulties.

The difference between then and today is that there was no multicultural baloney in the sixties. There were, however, a few people who believed that "free political speech" is free political speech.

Never confuse discussion with "attack" or being "jumped on". It aint the same thing.

By the way; i dont believe this one either:

...Your right to free speech ends when it incites violence in others or constitutes "fighting words."....

Got any precedents for it?

leroy

[DaveTN]

Regardless of what your personal opinion may be, Mr. Jones' actions have been cited as a reason for the kidnapping/torture/killing of westerners in the middle east. Sure, any old excuse can be provided whenever someone wants to behead an American, but his actions certainly aren't gaining us any friends. Is it really surprising that someone might want to arrest him and try to get him to shut the hell up in an effort--whether misguided or not--to protect our interests abroad?

Are you serious?

You are going to try to put the death of Americans on someone because they burn a Koran? Thats ridiculous.

We sent our troops over there to kill them; they don't need any other excuse to kill us. I would bet they have never heard of Terry Jones or of his actions.

BTW... I wasn't jumping all over you I was simply disgusted that someone would be arrested for burning a Koran when flag burning is allowed.

[Sheepdog]

Regardless of what your personal opinion may be, Mr. Jones' actions have been cited as a reason for the kidnapping/torture/killing of westerners in the middle east. Sure, any old excuse can be provided whenever someone wants to behead an American, but his actions certainly aren't gaining us any friends.

Sorry, but I don't think we should be friends with people who would kidnap/tortue/kill others, even if we could be friends with them.

If we have interests that compel us to deal with them, we should do so from a position of overwhelming strength and iron resolve--not bowing, or kneeling, or trying to win their approval by kissing their bums.

And if they insist on holding some of our citizens corporately responsible for the actions of a few, then we ought to make it clear that we're willing to play by those rules, and play better than they can. If they pull a knife, we pull a gun. If they send some of ours to the hospital, we send some of theirs to the morgue. If they blow up a bomb that kills Americans, we bomb one of their villages, or cities, or countries off the face of the Earth, with no regard for their women, their children, or their animals.

That's the Chicago way, right? You'd think Barry would understand that.

[leroy]

All:__________________

This article gives a bit better picture of what is going on in this case: Pastor Terry Jones released from custody after his bond is posted

This appears to be the "bottom line" of why this started in the first place:

...Jones refused to post the peace bond, which gave him the right to have a trial by jury to decide if the court was correct in imposing the bond. Jones chose to have a trial by jury instead of letting the judge decide. The main purpose of the trial was to determine what Jones's intent was in holding the protest.

Thursday’s hearing was ordered after prosecutors argued that the threat of violence was too great to allow the protest to go forward on the grounds of the Islamic Center of America. When Jones was ordered not to hold his protest on the grounds of the mosque, he was given the option to hold it in one of the city’s free speech zones. ...

The procecutors made the arguement that the Rev. intended to incite violence by holding the protest; and that the denial of the permit to demonstrate was justified...

It will be interesting to see where this one goes.

leroy

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

By the way; i dont believe this one either:

Got any precedents for it?

leroy

Yes, in fact. I previously mentioned Chaplinsky (Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)). In this case, the Court first articulated the fighting words doctring, which describes one limit to the First Amendment. In that case, the charge against Chaplinsky claimed that "with force and arms, in a certain public place in said city of Rochester . . . did unlawfully repeat, the words following, addressing to the complainant, that is to say, 'You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Facists' the same being offensive, derisive and annoying words and names." Id. at 569. Long story short, the Court found that "the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances," and that "[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problems." Id. at 571-72. The Court went on to state that these classes of speech "include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Id. at 572. "It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Id.

After having established a "fighting words" exception to free speech, the Court has, of course, heard various cases with the purpose of defining the scope of that exception. These include your flag burning case (Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969)), which did uphold the legality of burning flags (though not without dissent), some cases of public obscenity (like Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), in which the conviction of someone wearing a F*ck the Draft shirt in a courthouse was overturned), and a cross burning case (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), which likely would have come down differently if the city prosecuted the case differently; also contrast with Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), which specifically provided that cross burning can be a non-protected criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven).

While the flag burning case appears on its face to be fairly similar, the underlying facts and purposes are pretty different. The analysis in a case like this would likely be more along the lines of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), where you have to decide whether Mr. Jones' "advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," or whether it is "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence," which "is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." Id. at 447-48 (internal citation omitted) or the cross burning cases. The statute in Brandenburg did not distinguish between the two types of behavior, and so was found to be Constitutionally overbroad. But really the analysis is going to come down to which sort of behavior was present.

Do you believe that such an exception exists now? I would go into a more detailed explanation of all this, but I have to get back to the actual practice of law now...

All:__________________

This article gives a bit better picture of what is going on in this case: Pastor Terry Jones released from custody after his bond is posted

This appears to be the "bottom line" of why this started in the first place:

The procecutors made the arguement that the Rev. intended to incite violence by holding the protest; and that the denial of the permit to demonstrate was justified...

It will be interesting to see where this one goes.

leroy

Hmmmmm... he intended to incite violence... Sounds awful similar to what I was saying earlier...

[LagerHead]

Hmmmmm... he intended to incite violence... Sounds awful similar to what I was saying earlier...

You of course mean he stands accused of intending to incite violence, right?

[leroy]

Rodriguez:________

Thanks for digging up all the cases. I think all that is pretty interesting. The only problem is that the good rev didn't use any "fighting words" (...that we know of; or that anyone can find from what im able to read; it appears to be quite the contrary...), he didn't curse anyone, ect. ect. that i can tell. He did, however, gently call into question the motives of the local constabulary and city fathers. I suspect that is his only crime here.

Of course the prosecutor is going to try to make the case that that was his intent; it's the only excuse they can hang their hats on to justify what was done. If the rev. intends to make something of this (...other than just talk...); he needs to appeal this ruling. I dont know whether he will or not.

While we are on the subject; i wonder just what evidence was used to prove that the good rev. intended to incite violence other than a bunch of opinions from "experts" in the legal field (...read that prosecutors...) and the law enforcement community (...read that chief of police...)?

Since we have your attention (...and i appreciate it; believe it or not...); how is the good rev's case different from the Westboro Baptist Church case? I understand that the Westboro folks say bad things directly about those who are fighting for us. Why are these not "fighting words" when said to grieving relatives? It appears (...to me, at least...) that the good rev. is only pointing out that the koran sanctions some hateful things and is asking to speak them in a 'public forum". We can quibble about where that "public forum" is; but why is he not entitled to say these things as political free speech?

We seem to be saying that in the Westboro case, that there were no "fighting words"; or that those who hear "fighting words" are responsible to act "responsibly", and not commit crimes as the result of hearing them said.

It seems to me (...from what we are able to read...) that the rev. has spoken no "fighting words" other than proclaiming that the koran is a "hate filled book"; which he can easily prove thru the actual passages. What "mechanism" does the good rev. use to induce these "fighting words" other than the citation of the specific passages? Are we saying here that if we are a devout muslum, we can perpetrate violence on "infidels" as the result of them saying what we (...as devout muslums...) may construe as "fighting words" on the grounds that it is a legitimate exercise of religious belief and custom?

Whadda ya think?

leroy

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

You of course mean he stands accused of intending to incite violence, right?

Exactly that, considering all I did was list potential arguments they could use to get around that pesky First Amendment thing.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

leroy -

Without getting too much into this, the Westboro Church case deals with a few "novel" issues. First, though a funeral protest was the scene, the actual message was not really directed at the individuals at the funeral. Instead, it was a broad message regarding our country. The message was ultimately deemed to be regarding a public issue rather than a private issue (and, incidentally, the message was delivered from a public sidewalk, which is one of the physical locations typically deemed a proper forum for all sorts of speech). These facts turned out to be particularly important considering the actual causes of actions pursued and the theory of the case. The fact that the "hate" speech was not directed towards the family pretty much meant that their IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) was a no-go. IIED requires certain amounts of personal animus, which just wasn't present here. The location was also important because it provided a defense to not only whether the physical space was appropriate for this sort of speech, but also as to whether the funeral attendees were a "captive audience," and entitled to a higher degree of protection.

There also were not really any "fighting words." While Phelps may have put himself in danger through his actions, that is typically considered to be outside the scope of what "fighting words" is intended to cover--unless the danger is so real and immediate that you're running a pretty high risk of the spontaneous eruption of violence. And sometimes that even requires violence that would spill beyond your person.

The cross burning cases (well, Virginia v. Black, anyway) are a little different because of the special historical meaning of cross burning. When used for intimidation purposes it's more of a threat than anything else. That's why some of the "fighting words" cases deal with the actual risk of violence breaking out, while others are just extreme examples of hate speech.

And for the record, just because someone uses "fighting words" against you does not give you a justification for actually fighting. That's something a lot of people get hung up on. You are still supposed to keep your cool if it happens, it's just that there can be a legal remedy for the speech itself.

In terms of the existence or not of fighting words here, I think the strongest argument (though I'm not sure how strong it actually is) is that Jones is actually threatening violence against Muslims through his burning of the Quran, rather than just making his thoughts on Islam known. You would have to look at all of Mr. Jones' teachings, sermons, and public statements to try to make that argument. The difficult task of proving his intent is also complicated a bit by the issue from Brandenburg where you have to figure out if anyone is actually likely to start committing acts of violence in response to the message. That seems pretty doubtful here.

On a tangentially related note, whether or not Mr. Jones' speech is protected (and I actually suspect it is), it would be nice to get some clarification from the Court on the matter. Free speech is a particularly slippery area, and good cases don't come up that often. Other than that, though, my personal belief is that all Mr. Jones' has succeeding in doing is making himself look like a jackass (whether or not you believe his message his approach to all this has been really poor) and giving foreign fighters additional recruitment materials. We purport to not be fighting a war against Islam. Any example the Talibal, Al Quaeda, etc. can point to as a way of trying to show that we are is a way for them to get more warriors and makes our job that much harder. Like I said before, it's not like they need much in the way of excuses, but the burning was specifically cited as the reason for at least one new round of kidnapping/torture/beheading. We're not going to have much luck winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis/Afghanis(/Libyans/Iranians/etc...) if we keep hitting Muslim countries and people over here keep talking about how much we hate Islam.

[leroy]

Rodriguez:________

Thanks a bunch for the explanation in the post above^^^^. I understand the Westboro thing a whole bunch better now, and also have some understanding RE: A person's public record of saying things being used.

Thanks again,

leroy

PS ---Late breaking news from that great blog "Moonbattery": http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/04/sharia-in-michi.html

Good stuff!!!

Edited April 25, 2011 by leroy
added link!!!

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

These may not make a huge amount of sense, but here are some flowcharts I made back in Con. Law to help with some of the 1st Amendment analysis. The cases are all interesting reads, but this can help put a lot of the development of the issues into perspective.

Obviously, this isn't legal advice, isn't intended to cover all the law out there, and doesn't do justice to all the nuances. But at least it's enough to give you a starting point if you want to gain a better understanding.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Tmuo_mhuQGMGZjMDc4MjItOWFhMC00NWY0LWEzYWMtMDc1NGExZDZkN2Qy&hl=en&authkey=CIPbx8IH

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Tmuo_mhuQGOGVlZDE3ZTctMTdhOS00NWFhLTlkZTYtNDhjZDRjMDJmYWQ4&hl=en&authkey=CImZj_sB

For clarification purposes, the first deals only with speech while the second deals with instances where speech and conduct are mixed. No previews available because I couldn't get Google to convert the documents properly.

Edited April 25, 2011 by BenderBendingRodriguez

[leroy]

Thanks Rod. Will take a look shortly.

Thanks again,

leroy

[G27]

Your right to free speech ends when it incites violence in others or constitutes "fighting words." Potential argument for that here.

Were that applicable here, the burning of flags and bibles would have been banned.

Just because those primates can't control themselves in reaction to their book being burned doesn't mean we should make it illegal.

[leroy]

More interesting reading on this subject: Spencer: Koran-Burning Pastor Jailed for Thoughtcrime - Jihad Watch

leroy

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Were that applicable here, the burning of flags and bibles would have been banned.

Just because those primates can't control themselves in reaction to their book being burned doesn't mean we should make it illegal.

It is clear that you made it as far as the second post and then stopped reading the thread. Please educate yourself through further reading.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

More interesting reading on this subject: Spencer: Koran-Burning Pastor Jailed for Thoughtcrime - Jihad Watch

leroy

Peace bonds are actually more common than you might think, especially when state or municipal budgets are tight. Apparently the Michigan peace bond law was deemed constitutional (at the state level) as recently as 1999. Pastor seeking to protest at Mich. mosque briefly jailed « First Amendment Center

What is usually more interesting are peace bond cases which do not implicate the First Amendment. Instead, the usual issues are more along the lines of due process (especially in light of the fact that jail time can be imposed for failure to post).

[leroy]

Interesting read.

Thanks for posting it. Have bookmarked it for future reference.

leroy