Tell Me How This Happens

Pastor Is Jailed in Michigan Over Planned March at Mosque

The key word here is 'planned.' That's right, planned. He was tried and jailed, IN ADVANCE, based only on his ideas. Forget free speech, what about free thought? Here is the jist of the story:

A Florida pastor at the center of a Koran-burning controversy was jailed briefly for refusing to pay what the authorities called a “peace bond” for a planned demonstration outside a mosque. The pastor, Terry Jones, whose remarks against Muslims have inflamed anti-Western sentiment in Afghanistan, said he refused to pay the $1 bond because doing so would violate his freedom of speech. He was released from jail hours later after paying the $1. Mr. Jones had planned a demonstration Friday outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in the nation. Prosecutors worried that the protest would lead to violence, and asked Judge Mark Somers of 19th District Court in Dearborn to intervene. Judge Somers conducted a one-day jury trial to determine whether Mr. Jones posed a threat to peace. The jury concluded that he did, and the judge then ordered Mr. Jones and an associate to post the bond to cover the cost of police protection.The bond also prohibited Mr. Jones from going to the mosque or the adjacent property for three years.
Did you catch that? They thought that his protest march would incite others (presumably violent Muslims) into violence against the protesters, therefore that is his fault and he must pay damages in advance. WTF?

The city of Dearborn's position is that Muslims are so violent and irrational that they won't be able to control themselves if Jones holds a protest? And he has to pay for damages? Why wouldn't the marauding Muslim hordes pay the damages if they are doing the damage? And if they get violent, why aren't they in jail?

Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, said the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is the police’s job to protect speakers at such events and said it is unconstitutional to require protesters to post a bond for police protection. 
 Making exceptions against the right of free speech sets a disastrous precedent, which one may fully expect Islamic groups in America to manipulate in the future.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

ok...what this means is that we can protest the funeral of a dead soldier but we cannot protest a mosque because those who are affected may break the law by becoming violent. I think the reverend who burned the quran had every right to do so. He has as much a righ to do that as those who burn the flag or hang politicians in effigy. Why is it that all of a sudden those who burn a quran are looked down upon and their 1st amendment rights are questioned when those who burn our flag are just looked upon as protesters protected under the first amendment? I say burn that book. That evil book of hate. Burn it and have a party over it. I will personally take part and let those muslim pricks raise the roof. Lets get it on.

Anonymous said...

I say burn the bible. That evil book of hate. Burn it and have a party over it. I will personally take part and let those christian pricks raise the roof. Lets get it on.

How does that sound?

Two Sentz said...

Burn the Bible to your own detriment. If that's your path, I won't judge you. Jesus came to save, not to judge. Judgment will come eventually for us all. Those who abide in the truth live, those who walk in darkness are lost.

Anonymous said...

Just making a point about tolerance and hypocrisy......

Liberal Elite said...

@10:25 "Why is it that all of a sudden those who burn a quran are looked down upon.."

Because it's illegal to incite violence... and it a pretty rotten thing to do. Scorn is most deserved.

There are a lot of ways a protest can be illegal. You cannot protest a black family moving into your neighborhood by burning a cross on their lawn.

Pastor Jones is also engaging in was can be seen as a hate crime. It's fairly clear he's motivated by hate. If his intent is to incite violence (from anyone), then he's guilty of a crime.

Hey 10:25! You're guilty of wanting to incite violence too.

Anonymous said...

@ LE So why, then, is burning an American flag protected by the first amendment? And show me any indication that his intent is to incite violence. Just because he knows some may become violent doesn't mean his intent is to incite violence. One can exercise their rights without regard to how others may act. If others react in an unreasonable manner they are subject to being held accountable for their actions. If someone wants to burn the flag or the bible or the quran or a copy of Catcher in the Rye, thats their business. If I react violently I am responsible. It's just like you to aspire to compromise constitutional rights in order to save someones feelings. Constitutional rights are birth rights and they are non-negotiable.

Anonymous said...

Liberal Elite is an idiot. Here's even more proof:

"There are a lot of ways a protest can be illegal. You cannot protest a black family moving into your neighborhood by burning a cross on their lawn."

You can protest by burning one on your own yard though! The difference is burning it on their yard or your own! Entering upon their land is considered trespassing. Thats where the criminal act has it's beginnings. You really should THINK before you put your feelings into words. Imbicile.

Liberal Elite said...

@7:20 "So why, then, is burning an American flag protected by the first amendment?"

Because who's stupid enough to get all violent over a flag? It's just expressing an opinion. And didn't anyone ever tell you that excessive nationalism is sort of pathetic?

"Just because he knows some may become violent doesn't mean his intent is to incite violence. One can exercise their rights without regard to how others may act."

BS. That's not true at all. You cannot deliberately drive your neighbor to violence. If you know what will set him off, and you do it, then it's a crime.

"It's just like you to aspire to compromise constitutional rights"

Uhhh. That's not the law. You don't have the right to incite violence.

"Constitutional rights are birth rights and they are non-negotiable."

More nonsense. Do you know about the different kinds of constitutional rights? Do you realize that very few are birth rights? And they're all negotiable. What do you think a plea bargain is???

Anonymous said...

Because who's stupid enough to get all violent over a flag? Those who think enough of our country to fight in wars to defend her. That's who. And many feel the same way about their faith. Ridiculously stupid response, LE. But that doesn't mean that a person should be forbidden to express themselves by burning that flag or bible or quran. The big difference here is INTENT. There is absolutely no indication that this preacher has any intent to incite violence. He has every right to express himself on his own property without regard to how others may "feel".

One other thing. You say that becoming violent because someone burns a flag would be stupid because nationalism is stupid. In the past you've said that religion is stupid as well. If you believe both are without value, how can one be worthy of more constitutional protection than the other?

Anonymous said...

Wow....it would seem that the courts agree.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h77s75UsnUPkGlm3ukUiEo5RfhCg?docId=6640250

The cconstitution recognizes rights endowed upon us by our creator. They cannot be diluted or taken away by any man made government. To do so would be tantamount to what the King of England carried out against his "subjects" hundreds of years ago. And we all know what came from that. Maybe people who think that our constitutional rights can be suspended, diluted, or taken away, should just relocate to a country that doesn't have the burdensome rights at all. Try China.

Anonymous said...

LE @7:29.
What would be your jurisprudence to this scenario.

I want to screw my neighbor's wife and she wants to participate. I know that this will incite her husband to violence. Does this mean that I have committed a crime?
By the way, We will do it on my property and not his.
Awaiting your legal opinion.

Yours truly, Azure Spheres

Liberal Elite said...

@3:39

That would be OK unless it could be demonstrated that you did it just to incite violence. If you posted pictures on your neighbor's door after the fact to egg him on, then yes, the whole series of acts could be construed as illegal.

If he then killed his wife, you could be culpable.

Anonymous said...

actually he killed another suitor and then himself fourteen years later.

All Right Now said...

OMG LE is a lawyer now. Can your sense of self worth be any more inflated? The crime would be harassment if you hung pictures on the front door. But only AFTER you were duly notified not to do so. Possibly trespassing if the property was posted or you had been duly notified not to enter upon said premises. AND if he killed his wife only HE would be responsible. Unless of course you think the felony murder rule should apply - but then you would have to be involved in the commission of a felony at which time she was murdered by someone else as a direct result of a something that occurred DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FELONY - which by the way didn't occur. Just because you think things should be a certain way LE, doesnt mean they are actually that way. You had better stick to your chosen profession and stop giving bad legal advice. At this point I'll paraphrase something someone told me when I was a very young man "sometimes it is best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" Take heed LE. Your ego is making you look very foolish.

Liberal Elite said...

@ARN

Sorry. I disagree. If you conspire to have a woman killed as part of an honor killing, and that can be clearly demonstrated, then you can be guilty.

Anonymous said...

I did not kill anybody. The wife threw herself at me. I had urges.

Liberal Elite said...

Yea. But if you had sent an email to a friend about how you planned to have your neighbor kill his wife, you could be in deep trouble...

Anonymous said...

They didn't have email back then.

All Right Now said...

Holy shit LE. How can you just keep adding things to the situation to justify your analysis? Dude.....I'm starting to laugh man....seriously. If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle......but she doesn't. Are you being serious or are you just making a joke? Cause seriously dude. I'm laughing. Yes...if he had sent an e-mail to a friend that he was having sex with her and he was going to post pictures on the front door of her house with the intent of having her harmed by her husband, then you have Mens Rea - criminal intent. Which you simply don't have until you add all of these other things you keep throwing into the mix. But back to this preacher (remember the original reason for the post)....there is no criminal intent. He may be indifferent to the feelings of others but there is no indication he is doing this with the intent to have crimes committed as a result. Even if he did, they could never rise to more than the level of "fighting words" which at most would be disorderly conduct. However since there is no indication of criminal intent, all we have is a judicial system that has effectively stripped this preacher of his first amendment right. Plain and simple.

Liberal Elite said...

@ARN ".. that has effectively stripped this preacher of his first amendment right. Plain and simple."

Can I laugh at your hyperbole now? It was a civil payment, not a criminal matter. It was deemed by a JURY that he was engaging in risky behavior and that he had to post a bond for POLICE PROTECTION. Since the bond was a whopping $1, I'm sure that shut him up for a long long time. Oh, and that he couldn't trespass while protesting.

Oh.. And he's also an inept gun nut:
http://www.freep.com/article/20110423/NEWS02/104230442/Pastor-accidentally-fires-gun-outside-TV-studio

All Right Now said...

Ok....Obviously LE you believe that the government has the right to tell people when they can or cannot exercise their first amendment rights. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

AND I'll concede that he failed to follow rule one which is paramount when handling a firearm. Keep your finger outside the trigget guard unless ready to shoot. But why is he a gun nut? Is he a gun nut because he owns firearms?

Anonymous said...

@ Moronic LE...try coming to my neighborhood to protest a soldier's funeral or burn a flag and we shall see if your 1st amendment rights can stand up to my 2nd amendment rights! I am a vet and love my country dearly no matter how screwed up you Dems make it! Don't be a moron!

Liberal Elite said...

@4:00

So... You love your constitution so much, you're willing to violate it. It sounds more like you were fighting for yourself instead of for your country. Do you even know your country?

Anonymous said...

Don't waste your time, LE. Not worth it.