Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

bill of rights

Jury rules that Jones can’t protest at mosque

By Ed Brayton | 04.22.11 | 11:52 pm

In an absolutely stunning conclusion, a seven-member jury decided tonight that Pastor Terry Jones cannot hold a protest at the Islamic Center of America mosque in Dearborn.

The Detroit Free Press reports:

A judge late today sent two Florida pastors to jail for refusing to post a $1 bond. After a short time in jail they left on $1 bond each.

The stunning developments came after a Dearborn jury sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

Prosecutors asked Judge Mark Somers for $45,000 bond. Somers then set bond at $1 each for the two pastors. They refused to pay. And Somers ordered them remanded to jail.

Chaos broke out outside court as opposing factions yelled at each other. Jones and Sapp were led out of court by Dearborn police. That left Jones’ supporters stunned, given that he hadn’t even attempted to go to the mosque yet.

According to the Wayne County prosecutor’s office, both Jones and Sapp are prohibited by the court from going to the mosque or adjacent property for three years.

All of this is quite irregular and almost certainly unconstitutional. The boundaries of the First Amendment are determined by federal judges, not state juries, and the Supreme Court precedents in this circumstance could hardly be more clear.

It isn’t even clear on what possible legal grounds the two men could have been jailed for today since neither of them was actually charged with doing anything. How could they be? They hadn’t actually done anything at all except say they were going to protest.

The ACLU of Michigan filed a friend of the court brief in the case arguing that the pastor’s protest, no matter how objectionable it might be to local residents, was clearly protected by the First Amendment. I would now expect them to offer to represent Jones in taking this case to federal court to get an injunction against the city for violating his First Amendment rights. It would be as close to an open and shut case as I have ever seen.

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=527530532 Ken D. Orlich

    Yep even though a total asshole he should have been allowed to protest. Free speech is only free if EVERYONE gets to talk. BAD precedent.

    • Anonymous

      It’s my understanding that there were locations where Jones could have held his protest with no problems; he was just forbidden to do it in front of the mosque. Given that his last notorious action resulted in the deaths of people completely unrelated to his movement, I would say that this is a fair accommodation of his rights in the light of the need for public safety. It certainly makes more sense than groping children and grandmothers at the airport against their will, a situation people seem willing to accept in the name of safety.

      ‘Free speech’ is one of those catchphrases that typically trigger an instantaneous response of “protect it!” It’s a fundamental right in the US, after all. But don’t people also deserve some protection FROM free speech? If we saw a child on the playground verbally abusing another child, we’d step in. If we saw a child on the playground burning another child’s teddy bear, we’d step in. Some of us would step in if we saw an adult verbally abusing another adult, or burning something precious to them.

      The point of free speech is to be able to communicate your thoughts to others who may be persuaded by your ideas. Terry Jones isn’t attempting to persuade anyone; he’s attempting to incite uproar and get a bit more time in the spotlight. He’s using free speech as an excuse to verbally assault others for the sake of verbal assault. It’d be easy for those who disagree to avoid him if he’s in front of City Hall. But when he’s on the doorstep of their religious building, it’s rather harder.

      • Anonymous

        The courts recognize that there are legitimate “time, place and manner” restrictions on the right to protest, but that really is not at issue here. For example, you can reasonably limit the volume of a protest; Jones could not hold a protest outside of a mosque during services and attempt to drown out the service inside. Nor can one’s protest prevent others from having access to the mosque. But none of the circumstances in which the time, place or manner of a protest can be regulated apply in this situation. As long as he does not infringe on private property, he has every right to protest outside of the mosque and the angry reaction of the public simply has nothing to do with that legal reality. Indeed, it cannot have; the moment we rest the right to protest on the peaceful reaction of others is the moment we allow threats of violence to determine the limits of free speech.

        I think AmedeoH has it exactly right below. If this were a situation where one agreed with the protester, they would almost certainly have the opposite reaction. When the Bush administration tried to establish “free speech zones” at presidential events and keep protesters inside of them, long distances from the object of their protest, liberals — quite rightly — howled in protest. And bear in mind that nearly this exactly situation took place hundreds of times during the civil rights battles when local governments would do all of the same things Dearborn has tried to do here, including charging for an insurance bond and for police protection and citing all the same ideas — including “shouting fire in a crowded theater,” the most overused and under-understood idea in the law — for why it should not be allowed. And trying to offer them alternative places to protest rather than in prominent places. The courts rightly overruled them all. The government cannot pick and choose which ideas may be expressed and which may not, not may it burden the expression of one set of ideas over another based on how angry it might make others to hear it. This is the very soul of free speech.

        • Anonymous

          It is a quandary. We’ve seen this issue with the charming Westboro Baptists. The key difference in my mind is the intent. I don’t think the WBC or Jones wish to change minds; they just wish to incite outrage. The civil rights movement, on the other hand, clearly wanted people to rethink their prejudices. But even if we decided the limit of free speech was when the purpose of the speech was to cause purposeless anger, as opposed to communicate an idea, who determines this? Does anyone truly believe that the WBC is trying to communicate a message, other than “We hate you all and hope you go to hell”? Maybe, maybe not.

          If it’d been a cross burning, would it still be protected? If it’d been a cross burning on church property, it’d be a hate crime, but on the cross-burner’s property it’s just free speech. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a protest outside a church (except, of course, the WBC outside of funerals, and presumably people outside the WBC compound). But Christians are a majority here…the likelihood of protests inviting violence against that majority seems slimmer than that of protests inciting violence against Muslims.

          It is admittedly a very fine line, and a very tough call. We limit the actions of free people at the point at which they cause deliberate injury to another. Jones’ action would seem to fit that. They would seem to be conducted for the sake of increasing antagonism between religious people. But there would be no physical repercussions if those religious people in Muslim-majority nations did not choose to enact them. And you’re right, to some degree this is limiting free speech because of the threat of violence, a concession we should hesitate to make, as it would seem to incur more violence. But how do you explain to the families of those killed that they died for the preservation of free speech that was pretty borderline to a hate crime?

          It is a quandary….

          • Anonymous

            “If it’d been a cross burning, would it still be protected? If it’d been a cross burning on church property, it’d be a hate crime, but on the cross-burner’s property it’s just free speech.”

            Yes, it would still be protected. See the Supreme Court case RAV v St. Paul. That case makes clear, in fact, that a cross burning on someone else’s property cannot be punished as a hate crime. It can be punished as trespassing and violating content-neutral laws against burning, but that’s it.

            “I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a protest outside a church (except, of course, the WBC outside of funerals, and presumably people outside the WBC compound).”

            Two recent examples: In Ohio, a strip club owner sent his employees down to protest outside of a church that had been protesting outside his strip club. And the massive Anonymous protests against the Church of Scientology over the last 2 or 3 years has sparked hundreds of such protests. All are perfectly legal as long as they stay on public property.

            “But Christians are a majority here…the likelihood of protests inviting violence against that majority seems slimmer than that of protests inciting violence against Muslims.”

            But that’s the opposite of the argument being made here. Prosecutors didn’t argue that this protest will spark violence against Muslims, they argued that it would spark violent by Muslims. That’s why they quoted Imam Qazwini saying that to Muslims, the burning of a Quran is the equivalent of 1000 deaths (a statement he now explains he intended to be about Muslims in other nations, not his own congregation — and there is good reason to believe him; his congregation has never shown any signs of violence despite much provocation).

            “We limit the actions of free people at the point at which they cause deliberate injury to another. Jones’ action would seem to fit that.”

            Only if you consider provoking someone to anger to be “deliberate injury.” But if that were the legal standard, few statements worth making would be protected by the First Amendment.

  • http://profiles.google.com/zensixstring Michael Beck

    I agree he should be allowed to protest, but your following comment is wildly ambiguous and naive.

    Thoughtful limitations on free speech exist to serve society, limitations which take into account the degree of harm and offense that may result from free speech activities.

    Social order must not allow EVERYONE to talk whenever and whenever they want in order to ensure that free speech is free.

    It is a sign of intelligence that speech is regulated, a bad precedent would be, again, if one is allowed to say anything anywhere at any time.

    Sometimes speech is improper and should be either restricted or reprimanded. Remember the old “Yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater adage?”

  • Anonymous

    Jones has blood on his hands, imo the decision was right on.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KRB3VOMDFUPHAI6AETRVNXI4JA AmedeoH

    Funny, the Bush people also allocated distant ‘free-speech’ zones for anti-war protesters and I bet those who now support a ‘free-speech’ zone for Jones were against them then.

    Also, those who cite the violent Muslim reaction to Jone’s actions are basically saying the Muslim violence can serve as a veto to our own rights here in the U.S. Just the same way that Mormon riots have caused the city of New York to shutdown the South Park duo’s Book of Mormon play (oh wait, hmmm…. must find another region that riots and kills innocent people when offended) oh I got it! Just the same way the Thai Buddhists rioted when the Buddha statues were destroyed by the Taliban…. no wait, just the way the Methodists are rioting because of the discrimination against them in Pakistan, no wait…. wow, this is awkward!

    • Anonymous

      I would actually say the greatest justification for prohibiting these protests is that Jones seems to intend to do harm, without intending to bring about anything positive. His protests seem to verge upon hate crimes. If he wanted to wave signs outside a very restrictive mosque saying “equal rights for women”, that’d be potentially constructive….but I’ve yet to see him present a point other than “Islam is evil.” What benefit does this provide?

      Muslims in America have had a rough past decade; some have been unjustly threatened and even killed in the wake of 9-11. Members of a majority religion (even if Jones leads a fringe sect) standing outside a mosque and promoting their trial and death sentence of that religion seems more like intimidation than a protest. It feels uncomfortably like an escalation of the sort of cultural hatred to led to events like Kristallnacht.

      It’s a tough decision to decide where one person’s right to free speech ends, and another’s right to worship peacefully begins. I do agree with AmedeoH, that we should not be responding to the violent reactions. But I still find myself offended at the deliberate antagonism of people peacefully practicing their religion here. And a bit at a loss as to how to justify jeopardizing the lives of others (I know, even though we shouldn’t be giving in…it’s not we who will lose loved ones) for the sake of this jackass’ freedom to bully.

  • Anonymous

    You make some valid points AmedeoH, so where’s the line drawn?

Categories & Tags: Judicial/Legal| Justice/Civil Liberties| Separation Of Church And State| | | | |