Even for the most committed civil libertarians, it is hard to work up sympathy for Quran-burning Pastor Terry Jones. However, that is the plight of free speech advocates — you often end up supporting the most obnoxious members of our society. In Dearborn, Michigan, the order barring Jones from protesting utside of the Islamic American Center raises some constitutional concern.
It appears that the matter was presented to a “jury” which found a proposed protest by Jones and his associate Wayne Sapp was likely to breach the peace and incite violence.
This is a rather novel system where a jury is allowed to rule a protest to be a danger based on the anticipated response of others.
After a general matter, the use of such a jury does not improve the matter in terms of free speech. A jury of citizens is even more likely to support silencing unpopular individuals or groups. The Constitution generally does not allow for the prior restraint of speech based on the anticipated response of others. This is why a Nazi organization was given the right to march in Skokie, Illinois.
It reportedly took a jury 3 hours to deliberate and rule against the pastor. Mitigating the effect in this case is the fact that Jones was only required to post $1 though it is not clear what liability he had to assume in the act of posting in light of the finding of the potential for violence. Moreover, he may have wanted to preserve his claim for an appeal. Jones was taken into custody when he refused to pay the bond. The bond was paid by an unknown third party.
What is equally problematic was the argument of prosecutors that Jones should only be allowed to protest at another site in a “permit free zone.” That would appear a significant limitation on speech.
The prosecutors insisted that the sheriff was correct in denying the permit outside of the mosque.
It did not help Jones that he was carrying a firearm that accidentally discharged in the parking lot at Detroit TV State WJBK Thursday night.
In its closing argument, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office argued, “Just because we have the first amendment doesn’t mean you can say anything or do anything at any time.” This statement was tied to the over-used argument that you cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. It is a maddening argument that is used to justify all sorts of prior restraints. Here the prosecutors are analogizing Jones’ religious beliefs to yelling “fire” — an argument that is merely a way to say that someone’s views are too unpopular to be freely expressed.
Source: WXYZ as first seen on Reddit.
Jonathan Turley
Buddha Well I guess you disagree with the Supreme Court because they cited the First Amendment as a basis for the right to petition the court in N. A. A. C. P. v. BUTTON,Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., Thomas v. Collins,BE&K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board and Zauderer v. Office Disciplinary Counsel
terri,
the very idea that he was “offered” another location is already an infringement of the First Amendment. It is akin to a free speech zone, which I consider abhorrent to the First Amendment. He also has the right to carry a weapon as long as the law allows conceal and carry. Now, unfortunately the law doesn’t require an intelligence test to own a gun!
“What if the minister in question filed a petition for an injunction against practice of the Moslem religion?”
They’d laugh him out of court.
indeed. they’d never hear such a case-what would be his standing to file suit? (and i’m not even a lawyer…)
an “armed” weapon…a loaded weapon…sorry.
there’s an aspect none of you are thinking about. location. he picked a rotten one. for him, if he’s wanting to create a mob scene at worst and frack up traffic on vernor and dix at least-GREAT! but this IS about public safety, folks. he’s a hell of a distraction, he needs to be in a less high traffic area with his loaded gun and his incendiary words. jesus…just google the location and see if you can’t see what i mean. this is an IMPOSSIBLE location for a demonstration of this sort. i believe he was offered Lapeer Park, which is very close, and also one of the Civic Centers. yes, michigan is an open carry state…but nonetheless, the prospect of an armed weapon in the hands of a man who apparently can’t remember to keep the safety on and a busy street corner…please, people.
Blouise,
The action of burning the Koran is considered protected free speech. He did it on private property surrounded by sympathetic people and (I’m guessing) reporters. If he walked into a mosque and burned one? Yeah, that could and probably would be incitement. Incitement is a crime of both action and context. You have a right to say damn near anything as long as it doesn’t cause a panic or a riot (or isn’t a criminal threat, incitement to rebellion or sedition). For example, the “Fire!” in a crowed theater scenario . You can’t do that unless there is a fire or you have reason to believe there is a fire or it’s incitement to panic. However, you can yell “Shark!” all you like as no sane person is worried about shark attack at the movies. At least you can until the ushers show you out. If you yell “Shark!” at a crowed beach though and there isn’t one? Probably incitement.
Incitement is all in the context.
Buddha,
” … And I am certain I am tired of addressing your perpetual off topic threadjacking.
The 6th Amendment has nothing to do with Jones.
The 1st Amendment has nothing to with your problem.
Hire an attorney. …”
============================================
You heartless green guy you 😉 (Blouise …Does that mean your “heart goes out” to me for my imprisonment for filing non criminal documents in U.S. courts?{kay sieverding})
On the other hand … thanks for the thoughtful response to Andy’s inquiry … I found it helpful. I have one question concerning the last paragraph of your post to Andy:
“As to the firearm, yes, it can be colored as evidence that he had intent to incite, but it can also be colored as due to recent controversial publicity that he reasonably had it for self-defense as well.”
It has to do with the word “reasonably” … his need for self-defense comes from the publicity of his acts to incite (burning a Koran) … or is that action (burning the Koran) not considered an action to incite? I’m trying to figure out how the law looks at this.
“I’ve seen a lot of civil petitions filed in federal court by disbarred lawyers. That is their first amendment right.”
No. It’s not. You don’t even know from where pro se rights derive. Hint: It’s not the 1st Amendment.
“What if the minister in question filed a petition for an injunction against practice of the Moslem religion?”
They’d laugh him out of court.
So is it content neutral if there is an order or law related to who writes or says something? — that it would be legal if one person says or writes it but not if another person says or writes the same thing? (Outside of licensing restrictions of course)
I’ve seen a lot of civil petitions filed in federal court by disbarred lawyers. That is their first amendment right.
What if the minister in question filed a petition for an injunction against practice of the Moslem religion?
What is interesting is Dearborn is the highest concentration of Muslims outside of the middle east…. Does he have a right to free speech…..yes…he does can the time, place and manner be stymied with a legitimate government interest? Well yeah….
Government entities may make reasonable content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of a speech or assemblage, even in a traditional public forum. This action directly affects the rights of assembly, since a government entity may restrict the time and place where an assembly may take place, as well as the manner in which the assembly occurs. The restrictions must be reasonable and narrowly tailored to meet a significant government purpose. The government entity must also leave open ample channels for interested parties that wish to communicate.
So the bottom line comes for this shit feeder…the following…If he wanted to hold a Birthday Celebration of Adolph Hitler at a Holocaust Memorial…would anyone say that this was a bad ideal? I think so……
Michigan also has a law on the books called racial intimidation…..
Hell he could hold his burning party at Ambassador bridge…. or Windsor Tunnel……
Why is he doing this? I think…He wants a Westboro Victory…. Mr. Phepls he is not…..
No.
Unless the plaintiff/defendant was ruled to be incompetent to waive the right to counsel, I think it would be a 6th Amendment violation and contrary to ruling in Faretta v. California.
And I am certain I am tired of addressing your perpetual off topic threadjacking.
The 6th Amendment has nothing to do with Jones.
The 1st Amendment has nothing to with your problem.
Hire an attorney.
Seek psychiatric help.
Lawyers need to support pro se rights so that they will be able to file if and when they are disbarred.
Do you think it would be a violation of The First Amendment for a federal court to order that a lawyer who has been disbarred cannot represent themselves after that in federal court?
Wow! You have more patience than I do, Buddha.
It is hard for me to agree that this slime of a person is being discriminated against, but he is. Any type of free speech zone is abhorrent to me and in my opinion, the First Amendment. This creep needs to be allowed to spew his crap in order that I will be allowed to spew my crap when the time comes.
No. I think pro se litigants are unwise although I support their right to represent themselves, however, I don’t think all pro se litigants are obnoxious. Just you, Kay. Because you are indeed an obnoxious threadjacking nuisance. The Jones case doesn’t have a damn thing to do with your self-inflicted wound legally speaking. So you can still stuff it, fruit loop. Personally I’m counting the days until you file again and get thrown in the pokey for contempt again. At least that way you won’t have Internet access.
“that is the plight of free speech advocates — you often end up supporting the most obnoxious members of our society.”
so I guess, Buddha, that since you believe that pro se litigants are obnoxious, you aren’t a committed free speech advocate.
Stuff it, fruit loop, or take the only advice you have or will ever get: hire an attorney and seek professional mental health assistance.
So what is the definition of a legal order from a federal court? Can a federal court order a minister not to demonstrate by burning the Quran? Can a federal court order a minister not to communicate with certain groups of people? Can a federal court order a person not to file documents in federal court? Or can federal judges make prior restraint orders based on their inherent authority?
tomdarch,
Even if looked at as a fighting words issue, there is still no valid evidence to his intent. By their nature, fighting words become an issue only upon utterance. To ban his speaking by prior restraint by that reasoning is no different than over incitement to panic. See? Incitement to panic vs. incitement to riot. Without proof of intent, there is no crime until utterance.
Your imprisonment was for contempt of court, Kay. It had nothing to do with your 1st Amendment rights. It had everything to do with you violating a legal order from a judge and your improper use of civil procedure. The 10th Circuit was lawfully engaged in holding you for contempt, not prior restraint.
Threadjacker.