Posted on 04/22/2011 9:21:02 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
In a highly unusual case, a jury will decide — for the time being, at least — whether anti-Muslim Florida Pastor Terry Jones will be allowed to hold a protest outside the Islamic Center of America mosque in Dearborn on Friday evening.
State Judge Mark Somers gave Jones the option of paying a $100,000 “peace bond” or face a jury to decide whether he can hold the protest without paying the bond. Jones refused to pay the bond and will go before a seven-member jury beginning at 8 am on Friday.
Jones says he intends to hold the protest no matter what the court decides.
All of this is extremely unusual and almost certainly unconstitutional. The boundaries of the First Amendment are not determined by juries. And the practice of requiring those who wish to protest to put up bonds before holding controversial protests was declared unconstitutional decades ago by federal courts.
This principle goes back to the civil rights era, when cities run by racist leaders who wanted to prevent legitimate civil rights marches would try to charge those who organized those protests for the extra police protection needed to keep them safe from the KKK and others who might react violently to them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonindependent.com ...
But, in this country, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech of ALL, even ultra-morons. It's absolutely unbelievable that a prosecutor, a person who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, would engage in such a sharade - and that she could find a judge to play along, and use a jury trial, no less.
Even the ACLU is crying foul. There is no way this survives on federal appeal. No way. IMO, this prosecutor should be sanctioned for attempting to violate Jones' Constitutional rights under color of law.
2 words.
Ka, Ching!
It can also be construed as incitement to riot.
I don’t know what the tort law is wrt “freedom of speech” in cases where a riot is a likely result.
Scary thing is that there are a lot of people siding with the Islamic Terrorists on this issue....actually blaming Jones for deaths caused by Islamic Terrorists
And, there is a Free Speech issue here, too. The last time I checked, free speech is not just guaranteed to Muslims
I remember a few KKK rallies in Western NY in the late 60s without any incident. Most people just walked past these idiots and shook their heads.
We live in a very strange time in this country where the foundation created by the Constitution has been almost completely dismantled and we no longer know what is legal or not.
To stop this insanity, Progressives who take the oath of office to uphold the Constitution MUST be arrested and tried for treason as they display a total disregard for the document to which they pledged an oath.
I remember a few KKK rallies in Western NY in the late 60s without any incident. Most people just walked past these idiots and shook their heads.
We live in a very strange time in this country where the foundation created by the Constitution has been almost completely dismantled and we no longer know what is legal or not.
To stop this insanity, Progressives who take the oath of office to uphold the Constitution MUST be arrested and tried for treason as they display a total disregard for the document to which they pledged an oath.
First, let’s stipulate that Terry Jones is an ultra-moron.
____________________________________
No, lets not. In what way do you think he is an ultra-moron?
Have you heard him speak? I daresay he knows more about freedom and the Constitution than 98% of all Americans.
Could it also be construed as an attempt to commit suicide?
Whatever one says about Jones, his burning the Koran isn’t an incitement to riot. Rioting is the anticipated reaction of those in the Muslim community to his actions. It’s not like, say, Sharpton at Freddie’s in Harlem.
Would Westboro have been denied their First Amendment right to picket soldiers’ funerals had the Patriot Guard Riders threatened to riot whenever they appeared?
>First, let’s stipulate that Terry Jones is an ultra-moron.<
.
Rather presumptious of you.
What about stipulating that Terry Jones is a concerned American who sees his country being overrun by a foreign anti-American and anti-Christian movement that has been given free reign to destroy its culture.
You may not like Terry’s methods but many Americans don’t like the fact that government puts on the kneepads any time it deals with Islam.
No, it can't. The phrase you're searching for is "fighting words". The Supreme Court first used the term, "fighting words" in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. But, shortly after Chaplinsky, the Court began walking back some of the restrictions on speech established by that case, first in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949). in 1969, the Court decided Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), and in the majority opinion, they said...
"These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
That phrase, "imminent lawless action" has not been broadly read, at all. In fact, in several other cases since Bradenburg - Like National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, and Forsythe COunty v. National Socialist Party of America, it has been pretty well established that just marching, even in areas that are culturally sensitive (like Nazis marching in the predominately Jewish community of Skokie, IL), DOES not meet the standard of "imminent lawless action".
The case law in this regard is ample. There is absolutely NO WAY Jones loses this case on appeal (should he lose at trial).
Because of the support the Dove Outreach Center organization has for the Westboro Baptist scum.
Freegards
I stipulate no such thing. I stipulate that he is a Christian and a patriot who exercises his constitutional rights. If the pagan muzzies go ballistic, that's on their heads not Jones'.
Not really. I base it entirely on the interviews that I have seen him give. He's an idiot.
So putting a crucifix in a jar of urine or defacing a picture of The Virgin Mary with elephant dung is OK, huh? Or how about the SCOTUS giving their imprimatur to flag burning or cross burning? That’s not inciteful or offensive to Christians, patriots, or Blacks?
To Hades with the sheep-shaggers. Our liberty and freedom beats their outrage every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
This doesn’t rise to the level of yelling “Fire!!!” in a crowded theater when there is none.
He is asking a crucial question. Do we have the right to free speech or do we not? I am disgusted by all of the pundits who think that Jones should be muzzled because of “the consequences”, especially the “consequences” perpetrated by Muslim extremists. That sounds like Constitutional blackmail to me.
Get used to it if the blasphemy known as Shari’a is recognized here.
I was listening to the paul smith show this morning, and they had a muslim attorney on....even HE said that this guys rights were being violated...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.