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
I loved this:
First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s”financial ability to engage in public discussion.” …Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove
that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest… The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech…. Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
This applies to both laws against Quran Burning and No Pro se orders:
“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” The Constitution demands that content-based
restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992), and that the Government bears the burden of showing their constitutionality. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 322 F.3d 240.
See that the government has the burden of showing constitutionality, it is not the burden of the restrained to show unconstitutionality. That’s a recent S.C. opinion too.
I thought of Buddha is Laughing when I read this again
“mistrust of lawyers made appearance in court without benefit of counsel the preferred course. See A.L. Downey, Note, Fools and Their Ethics: The Professional Responsibility of Pro Se Attorneys, 34 B.C. L. Rev.
529, 533 (1993). Lawyers had no position of honor or place in society in early colonial days. The pioneers who cleared the wilderness looked down upon them. For example, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 expressly permitted every litigant to plead his own cause and provided, if forced to employ counsel, the litigant would pay counsel no fee for his services. See Charles A. & Mary R. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization 100-01 (College ed. 1930).” Iannaccone v. Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
sorry about the formatting
This is directly relevant to the idea of a law against Quran burning:
“The Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a State to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views. “[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions
and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.
That is why freedom of speech . . . is . . . protected against censorship or
punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a
serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience,
annoyance, or unrest. . . . There is no room under our Constitution for a
more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4-5…As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in Stromberg v. California, “The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. A statute which upon its face, and as authoritatively construed, is so vague and indefinite as to permit the
punishment of the fair use of this opportunity is repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .” Edwards v. South Carolina.
It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single
guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. All these, though not identical, are inseparable. They are cognate rights, cf. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 , 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, and therefore are united in the First Article’s assurance. Cf. 1 Annals of Congress 759-760. [323 U.S. 516, 531] This conjunction of liberties is not peculiar to religious activity and institutions alone. The First Amendment gives freedom of mind the same security as freedom of conscience. Cf. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , 43 S.Ct. 625, 29 A.L.R. 1446; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , 64 S.Ct. 438. Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. The grievances for redress of which the right of petition was insured, and with it the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones. And the rights of free speech and a free press are not confined to any field of human interest. …
So long as no more is involved than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such a restriction… The restraint is not small when it is considered what was restrained. The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There is some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly which all citizens of the Republic may exercise throughout its length and breadth, which no State, nor all together, nor the Nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede. If the restraint were smaller than it is, it is from petty tyrannies that large ones take root and grow. This fact can be no more plain than when they are imposed
on the most basic rights of all. Seedlings planted in that soil grow great and, growing, break down the foundations of liberty.” Thomas v. Collins
Blah blah blah, fruit loop.
Bdaman,
Now that was funny!
The First Amendment would, however, be a hollow promise if it left government free to destroy or erode its guarantees by indirect restraints so long as no law is passed that prohibits free speech, press, petition, or assembly as such…. it is equally apparent that broad rules framed to protect the public and to preserve respecfor the administration of justice can in their actual operation “Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. The grievances for redress of which
the right of petition was insured, and with it the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones. And the rights of free speech and a free press are not confined to any field of human interest.” Thomas v. Collins, supra, at 531. And of course in Trainmen, where the litigation in question was, as here, solely designed to compensate the victims of industrial accidents, we rejected the contention made in dissent, see 377 U.S., at 10 (Clark, J.), that the principles announced in Button were applicable only to litigation for political purposes. See 377 U.S., at 8 . [389 U.S. 217, 224] significantly impair the value of associational freedoms…. the dangers of baseless litigation …far too speculative to justify the broad remedy invoked by the State, a remedy that would have seriously crippled the efforts ….to vindicate the rights…. in court…. The decree at issue here thus substantially impairs the ….rights …and is not needed to protect the State’s interest in
high standards of legal ethics…. Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn.
BTW, I fully expect to have that comment excised, but quite frankly Kay, as long as you got to see it, I’m good with that.
I am sick and tired of your selfish self-serving insane bullshit.
First Amendment rights to enforce constitutional rights through litigation, as a matter of law, cannot be deemed malicious. Even more modern, subtler regulations of unprofessional conduct or interference with professional relations, not involving malice, would not touch the activities at bar; regulations which reflect hostility to stirring up litigation have been aimed chiefly at those who urge recourse to the courts for private gain, serving no public interest… Resort to the courts to seek vindication of constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain…. the problem is rather one of an apparent dearth of lawyers who are willing to undertake such litigation… although the petitioner has amply shown that its activities
fall within the First Amendment’s protections, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing
from petitioner’s activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed… N. A. A. C. P. v. BUTTON
This was exactly on point, there was a dearth of lawyers willing to sue Kevin Bennett in Steamboat Springs, a dearth of lawyers willing to even discuss judicial corruption as a factor in a lawsuit, and a dearth of lawyers willing to sue another lawyer in tort. The last is still the case too.
because you know exactly jack shit about civil procedure
Who is Jack Schitt
Kay,
Go fuck yourself.
DOJ website says “The Criminal Division develops, enforces, and supervises the application of all federal criminal laws except those specifically assigned to other divisions.” Thus, since the Criminal Division has no records about me then it cannot be criminal contempt since the AntiTrust division etc was not involved.
Where do you see in the RULES anything about NO PRO SE orders.
I relied on this:
“Although the Rule by its terms does not limit motion practice to the court which rendered the judgment” paragraph 10 and continues “Two types of procedure to obtain relief from judgments are specified in the rules as it is proposed to amend them. One procedure is by motion in the court and in the action in which the judgment was rendered. The other procedure is by a new or independent action to obtain relief from a judgment, which action may or may not be begun in the court which rendered the judgment.” Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F. 2d 73, 78 (5th Cir. 1970)
It was quoted in American Jurisprudence. I even found the photocopy I made before I filed in DDC.
Blouise,
You are most welcome.
Andy,
Because it is so dependent upon context, there is always a fine line between free speech and incitement. This case in particular is exacerbated by religious intolerance from both sides. The Muslim community has no choice but to adapt to our laws as the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from giving them special protections or consideration. The Christian community has no choice but to deal with the same constraint. Ours is a secular government by design.
Kay,
“And pro se representation is a religious right” just again shows you are talking out of your ass. Just because you can copy and paste doesn’t mean you understand what you are reading or the context in which it is to be read regarding law.
And now I’m going to suggest that you have a nice big cup of STFU.
Well I guess you disagree with the Constitution.
“Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
And the Judiciary Act of 1789 . . .
“Section 35.
And be it further enacted, That in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. And there shall be appointed in each district a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned, except before the supreme court in the district in which that court shall be holden. And he shall receive as compensation for his services such fees as shall be taxed therefor in the respective courts before which the suits or prosecutions shall be. And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided.”
An Act signed into law one day before the 6th Amendment was even proposed. So technically speaking, the right to represent yourself predates the Bill of Rights. Including the 1st Amendment. Time counts in citing precedent.
As to those cases you cited?
They do not say the 1st Amendment is the BASIS of your right to represent yourself or are the BASIS of your right to file. They say the 1st Amendment provides additional protections to your right to litigate. They do not say that your right to litigate is without limitation as a 1st Amendment right.
Let me be clear: Courts have RULES. The Federal Courts have the Federal RULES of Civil Procedure and the Federal RULES of Criminal Procedure. You broke the RULES.
You were ordered to drop litigation filed in other jurisdictions after losing your case in the 10th Circuit. This was a lawful order. If you loose in Federal Court you DO NOT just go file in another circuit’s jurisdiction. You were forum shopping.
You have exactly three options when you lose in Federal Court: appeal to an en banc hearing in the Circuit in which you lost, filing an appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or filing cert and getting a SCOTUS hearing (which you are unlikely to get if you haven’t gone properly through the appeals process).
But noooooooooooo!
You went and filed in another jurisdiction because you know exactly jack shit about civil procedure. For your incompetence, the judge rightfully and legally ordered to to drop the other filings. When you failed to comply? You were arrested and held in contempt and your ability to file again was sanctioned: an appropriate sanction given the nature of your violation. A real attorney would have gotten sanctioned and censured at a minimum and probably disbarred for pulling the stunt you did.
And let me again be perfectly clear: I do not give a damn what you think about the law. On any topic.
You.
Are.
Consistently.
Wrong.
Because.
You’re incompetent regarding the law, the study of law and the practice of law.
The BASIS for your rights to pro se litigation are the 6th Amendment and the Judiciary Act of 1789. That is where they come from. Period. End of story.
And one more thing . . .
DO NOT EVER presume to tell me what the law is again, you incompetent threadjacking obsessed spammer jackass.
You wouldn’t know the law if it bit you on the ass.
I know this because the law has already bit you on the ass hard and you’re either too stupid or too crazy to learn the lesson.
Hire an attorney if you can find one that will put up with your arrogant know-nothing bullshit.
Seek psychiatric help.
Buddha,
Thanks and understood.
I appreciate all who responded to my comment, especially by introducing “fighting words” as an alternative to the “fire” analogy. I would continue the “argument” by pointing to Jones having already burned a Koran, has used strong if not offensive language, and the firearm which he demonstarted a lack of gun control. Regardless where he burned the Koran, he made sure of publicity. Here we enter into cultural relativity. This act would be reprehensable to Muslims. That the Muslim community must understand our culture and laws is true but the fact Jones did not break the law seem irrelavant to his behaviour. Is he not, at least, approaching inciting a reaction? Is it necessary to have violence before taking action? Is there a fine-line?
Anything involving the First Amendment is of interest to and relevant to me.
And pro se representation is a religious right
Fourth was religion. Colonial peoples’ notions of their own individual rights and their reliance on themselves were part of the movement away from religious authority and towards religious freedom. Thus, for example,
the Massachusetts Bay Colony spawned dissenters such as Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams who, declaring that the colony’s leaders had not followed the pilgrims’ heritage, left and obtained a charter for Providence,
Rhode Island, in 1663, where they preached that every person should be allowed to follow his own conscience in matters of religion. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony which formed the heart of New England Puritanism were part of a religious heritage characterized by a prickly independence and stubborn self reliance. See 1 Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution 22-23
(1976)…
From all these various strands and perhaps others as well evolved the notion, perhaps best expressed by Thomas Paine, arguing in 1777 for a Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, who said that to plead one’s cause was
“a natural right,” pleading through counsel was merely an “appendage” to the natural right of self-representation. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 830 n.39.” Iannaccone v. Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,