[Original title: Dearborn Jury Holds Terry Jones May Be Barred from Organizing Rally Outside Mosque.] So reports the Detroit Free Press:
A Dearborn jury just 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.Judge Mark Somers will now determine the conditions of Terry Jones’ bond….
Strikes me as a pretty clear violation of the would-be demonstrators’ First Amendment rights. (See my earlier post for more on one aspect of the issue.) I hope Jones seeks prompt review from higher courts, probably under some state law mandamus procedure that could give a quick remedy within days (rather than through a direct appeal, which could take months or years); if anyone knows how these things are done under Michigan law, I’d love to hear it. Ultimately, a petition for an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court would be possible, but practically speaking Jones would need to go through the Michigan review process first.
UPDATE: Since I first linked to the story, there’s been a huge update:
A judge late today sent two Florida pastors to jail for refusing to post a $1 bond.
The stunning development 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.
I’m not positive from the story, but I assume that Jones and Sapp refused to pay because part of the bond was a promise not to engage in the demonstration (and not just because they wanted to, as a matter of principle, refuse to pay even $1). Again, I assume that Jones will seek emergency review, and I expect that he will promptly win.
FURTHER UPDATE: For the ACLU of Michigan’s brief in the jury trial, see here; according to a commenter, a TV account reports that the ACLU will be representing Terry Jones in the review proceedings, though Jones apparently represented himself at trial.
STILL FURTHER UPDATE: The Detroit Free Press reports on a further development: “Late Friday the two pastors posted their $1 bond and left jail, according to Dearborn Mayor Jack O’Reilly Jr.” But, “[a]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.” Again, to the extent the order bars them from picketing near the mosque (apparently for fear that the picketing might lead to people violently attacking them), that is a prior restraint that pretty clearly violates the First Amendment; I expect the order to be reversed by higher courts.
Gov98 says:
By the judge setting the bond at $1 doesn’t that sound like a practical admission that he thinks it is unconstitutional?
April 22, 2011, 7:27 pmJackson says:
Jones is a blithering idiot, but the actions of the Detroit prosecutor and judge are nothing short of terrifying, and an absolute affront to civil liberties.
Have they completely missed what has been going on with respect to states trying to restrain Westboro Baptist Church? How is this case any different?
April 22, 2011, 7:31 pmJakeD says:
Jones has been JAILED! He does NOT need to go through the Michigan review process before he brings a federal habeas corpus writ!
April 22, 2011, 7:32 pmTMK75 says:
As has been said elsewhere, the fundamental problem is the state holding Jones responsible for the actions of other people who are possessed of their own free will. (and this is rather demeaning to Muslims, treating them as animals who cannot control themselves or act like civilized adults)
As long as Jones is not directly inciting imminent violence, there are no Constitutional grounds for allowing the potential reaction of others to be the basis for suppressing his speech based upon its content. This would set a horrible precedent and create a perverse incentive, enabling people to silence those with whom they disagree if they threaten to act badly enough…
April 22, 2011, 7:32 pmpdxlawyer says:
If Jones is being held because of his refusal to post a bond, doesn’t he have a right to federal habeus corpus relief? Or, does he need to exhaust his state remedies first?
April 22, 2011, 7:33 pmM says:
I hope he gets a good legal team. This must not be allowed to stand.
April 22, 2011, 7:36 pmChris Travers says:
I am really confused here. Prosecutors are prosecuting someone for a crime that has not committed and jurors are urged to determine if a set of hypothetical behavior would violate the law?
Is it just me or does anyone else have the sense that we are looking at a very foreign legal system?
April 22, 2011, 7:41 pmChem_Geek says:
He could have just departed the jurisdiction and “expressed his opinion” and “spoke out against Islam” in a time, place, and manner which would not have incited a riot.
April 22, 2011, 7:41 pmJakeD says:
I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS! It is time for everyone to start burning Korans; this cannot be allowed to stand!
April 22, 2011, 7:42 pmJakeD says:
Paperback Korans starting at $1.90, or $0.01 (used):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/8178981416/thevolocons0d-20/
April 22, 2011, 7:45 pmJackson says:
So, municipalities now get to decide what speech is free and what speech isn’t, is that it?
Why can’t states restrain Westboro Baptist Church from shouting absolutely disgusting, vile and hateful remarks outside the cemetery that is conducting a Christian funeral for a fallen American service member, but this guy can’t say, or hold stupid, hateful vile signs outside a mosque – heck, he apparently can’t even march outside the mosque.
To me, it surely sounds like the government is favoring one religious belief over another.
April 22, 2011, 7:47 pmSarcastro says:
The government’s wrong, so I’ll just insult Muslims till conditions improve!
April 22, 2011, 7:50 pmJakeD says:
Why should Terry Jones seek emergency review?! WE should start burning Korans every day he’s in jail to start with!
April 22, 2011, 7:51 pmJakeD says:
Sarcastro:
You’re saying that no Muslims wanted Terry Jones jailed? Why aren’t THEY denouncing this action then?
April 22, 2011, 7:52 pmChris Travers says:
It might be more productive to burn the Michigan Flag.
April 22, 2011, 7:53 pmpdxlawyer says:
Chris Tavers: Technically, Jones wasn’t being prosecuted for a crime. He was required to post a bond because the jury found that he was likely to breach the peace. Since he refused to post the bond, he was jailed. It was certainly an unjust outcome in this case, but peace bond statutes do have legitimate uses. Imagine this:
Landlord and tenant are in a dispute. Tenant withholds rent. Rather than bring an eviction action, Landlord tells Tenant that Tenant has one week to get out or Landlord will com back and “kick your ass.” Any lawyer who has practiced long in private civil practice has run across situations like this.
Tenant *could* get a shotgun, but complaining for a peace bond is safer.
April 22, 2011, 7:53 pmTMK75 says:
Golly gee, if only those poor old Holocaust survivors in Skokie had threatened to riot or behead someone, they might have stoppped the neo-Nazi parade. Has this country forgotten what the 1st Amendment means and stands for? Here is a hypothetical:
“F*CK MOHAMMED THE PEDOPHILE WITH A RUSTY SHOVEL” – Maybe we should shut down Volokh now because my words might incite a riot, right?
It would be comical if this whole situation wasn’t so sad…
April 22, 2011, 7:54 pmJakeD says:
Chem_Geek:
What part of this “[s]trikes me as a pretty clear violation of the would-be demonstrators’ First Amendment rights” do you not understand? Are you Muslim? Are you a chemical engineer with access to toxic and/or explosive materials?
April 22, 2011, 7:56 pmJakeD says:
Chris Travers:
Nope (I’m going to the bookstore; I’ll be back).
April 22, 2011, 7:57 pmcboldt says:
– The government’s wrong, so I’ll just insult Muslims till conditions improve! –
April 22, 2011, 7:58 pmAnd I’ll insult that mendacious twit, Sarcastro, too, for good measure.
Chris Travers says:
Wouldn’t getting some sort of restraining order be a more typical approach?
I mean, basically here you have someone being told to post bond (and hence being deprived of property at least temporarily) not because the individual HAS committed or is even accused of having committed a crime but because a jury believes certain behavior might be criminal, and hence the accused might in the future commit a crime.
My question is what due process concerns arise in this case, given that it is a pre-enforcement action?
April 22, 2011, 7:58 pmSarcastro says:
Indeed! Rather than protesting the government, lets protest people who are wrongheaded about the First Amendment! I hear there is at least one Muslim in the set, so we’ll start by pissing that guy off.
There may be some collateral insulting of right-thinking Muslims, but those guys were bad Muslims anyway.
April 22, 2011, 7:59 pmcboldt says:
– It might be more productive to burn the Michigan Flag. –
April 22, 2011, 8:00 pmI’ll contribute to that, in opposition to the courts.
ShelbyC says:
I see no problem with burning the Koran as an assertion of one’s right to do so, perhaps in conjunction with the burning of other books like the bible. There’s nothing wrong with burning one’s own books.
April 22, 2011, 8:00 pmBrian says:
Because people have been waiting for my intellectual commentary, I’ll reluctantly wade in and say that Detroit has been sucking up a storm for some time now. That city cannot attract or retain good people, including competent government lawyers.
I wonder about the quality of Jones’ representation, or if he has any. Is the ACLU or any other legal org assisting Jones in the upcoming appeals process, either directly or through some Michigan intervention or friend-of-the-court process?
April 22, 2011, 8:05 pmSarcastro says:
[Legally, no, but it is pretty insulting to a group of people. I'd prefer folks find another way to protest is all.
I do hope JakeD doesn't hurt himself driving all hopped up on righteousness like that.]
April 22, 2011, 8:05 pmDennis says:
It takes a lot to make me side with Terry Jones. These twits in Dearborn have done it.
April 22, 2011, 8:06 pmpdxlawyer says:
Chris: A peace bond is an old, old remedy. IIRC, it is covered in Blackstone. In order for it to be properly applied, the defendant has to have actually threatened to commit a crime. In fact, peace bond proceedings provide a defendant with much more due process than is available aganst a domestic violence temporary restraining order. Jones got a jury, after all.
I’m not defending the result against Jones in this case. AFAIK Jones never threatened to commit a crime, so there is no proper basis for requiring him to post a bond. The problem isn’ with the procedure, but with the error (and the apparent bias) of the tribunal.
April 22, 2011, 8:10 pmcboldt says:
– Legally, no, but it is pretty insulting to a group of people. I’d prefer folks find another way to protest is all. –
April 22, 2011, 8:10 pmInsult without sting is a waste. What is you preferred method of insulting Muslims/Islam?
M says:
Sarcastro is getting old
April 22, 2011, 8:11 pmpdxlawyer says:
Brian: All of the media report that Jones was representing himself.
April 22, 2011, 8:12 pmShelbyC says:
Well, lots of speech is insulting to lots of people. I’m not particularly bothered by, for example, South Park’s treatment of Jesus, or the other deities including Mohammad, are you? And if not, I don’t see why we should be bothered by JakeD’s burning a Koran to protest this guy being in jail. And it sounds pretty egregious, I think being hopped up is the right reaction. Tho I don’t see any evidence to support his assertion that no Muslims are denouncing this.
April 22, 2011, 8:13 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Agreed, but what does Detroit have to do with the present instance? This happened in Dearborn, which I assure you is not part of Detroit.
It IS, however, home to the second largest Muslim population outside the Middle East, and occasionally referred to as “America’s Muslim Capitol”.
April 22, 2011, 8:14 pmandrewpaterson says:
The ACLU is representing the defendant according to a 6:00 news broadcast.
April 22, 2011, 8:14 pmleo marvin says:
How else will they learn? Since they snuck their Usurper into the White House it’s been obvious he plans to replace the Bill of Rights with the Hadith. I thought he’d start with the 2d Amendment, but I guess all the telepromptering made him too linear.
April 22, 2011, 8:17 pmChem_Geek says:
@pdxlawyer: I agree; I was surprised to hear that Jones had been arrested in the courtroom. I don’t know why they didn’t afford him the opportunity to leave peacefully. There was (and still is, based on the police scanner radio) a heavy police presence at the mosque; Jones could have been arrested the moment he set foot on the grounds.
@JakeD: Professor Volokh isn’t a Michigan judge. His opinions are not dispositive in Dearborn, only on the blog. :-)
I don’t understand the resistance; Jones has deliberately incited riots in which peoples’ lives have been lost. Knowing that he wishes to incite another riot, why is it unreasonable for the government to prevent that? The Dearborn government afforded Jones the opportunity to speak in a public forum – downtown Dearborn, in front of the civic center and library where he could annoy all sorts of people going about their business. But no, like a toddler throwing a tantrum, Jones insisted that he had to say his piece in a time, place, and manner guaranteed to cause trouble.
April 22, 2011, 8:23 pmGBED says:
The man you say was snuck into the White House – Did you mean to say 69,456,897 Americans (365 Electoral Votes) voted him into the White House?
April 22, 2011, 8:32 pmbmaz says:
Okay, I’ll bite. Just how exactly do you get a jury trial, especially this quickly, on a case that is effectively a prior restraint injunction? This is just bizarre unless I am missing something….
And hi cboldt
April 22, 2011, 8:34 pmpdxlawyer says:
Chem_Geek: In a proper peace bond proceeding, requiring the defendant to post bond immediately is exactly the right thing to do. After all, court proceedings sometimes cause people to work up a dangerous head of steam – you don’t want them charging out of the courtroom with blood in their eye swearing to avenge the injustice done to them.
In this case, however, all it did was transform Jones from an uncivil jerk into a person wrongfully jailed for attempting to peacefully excercise his civil rights. If the judge couldn’t find it in himself to follow the Constitution, he would have been much wiser to allow Jones 6 days to post his bond.
April 22, 2011, 8:35 pmSarcastro says:
So Muslims should just lighten up! And I’ll keep poking them till they do.
Also – unless you are rude every way you can be, you’re losing your freedom.
April 22, 2011, 8:37 pmjack burton says:
Yeah… that freedom thingie is a real beech, eh.
April 22, 2011, 8:37 pmMJW says:
Jones has deliberately incited riots in which peoples’ lives have been lost.
Is the rule that the more irrational and violent the group you offend, the more your free speech can be restricted?
April 22, 2011, 8:38 pmBill Poser says:
No, Chem_geek, Jones has not incited any riots. He has engaged in protests to which riots have occurred in response. While he may well have known that this was likely to occur, he has never encouraged anyone to riot, which is what it means to incite a riot. The Muslims who have urged others to riot in response to his protests are guilty of incitement to riot; he is not. Here (Michigan Code 752.542) is the Michigan definition:
April 22, 2011, 8:38 pmMJW says:
Yes.
April 22, 2011, 8:40 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The legal issues aside — the preacher is entitled to express himself, subject to reasonable time-place-manner restrictions — this episode constitutes one huge game of ‘my fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale.’ Adults feuding over superstition. There are no nuts quite like religious nuts.
April 22, 2011, 8:40 pmdee nile says:
No fair dragging facts and law into this argument, Bill Poser.
April 22, 2011, 8:41 pmRhymes With Right says:
It seems sadly Ironic to me that on the day when Christians mark the crucifixion of Jesus Christ after a conspiracy by religious and government authorities to manipulate a judge into killing an innocent man, we see a similar conspiracy used to crucify the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
April 22, 2011, 8:43 pmWSULawStudent says:
Geez… the Judge who presided over this travesty is a graduate of the law school I’m currently attending (Wayne State University)…
Guess he must have been sick the day they taught Con Law…
I am no fan of Jones’s message (by any stretch), but I AM a fan of his unequivocal right to both believe and to disseminate that message…
Unfortunate that Dearborn will no doubt get hit with a major civil penalty as a result of this debacle… but perhaps that will force more Americans to recognize that freedom requires toleration – even of the intolerant…
April 22, 2011, 8:44 pmSarcastro says:
Chem_geek is totally right – the rioters are just aiding and abetting this guy!
Furthermore, the government stopping people for crimes they know they’re going to commit is just government efficiency. No slippery slope there!
April 22, 2011, 8:47 pmpdxnag says:
When referencing “breach the peace” is there any consideration whether the purpose for assembling was for “lawful conduct” and/or not for an “unlawful purpose.”
City of Portland v. Goodwin, 187 Or 409 (1949)
Is this element missing? Is it too vague?
“He must be deemed innocent unless his voluntary conduct overcomes the apparent and presumed innocence of his movements by disclosing a purpose to violate some law other than the ordinance in question.” Goodwin at 430.
What is the predicate unlawful conduct?
April 22, 2011, 8:48 pmMark Field says:
leo’s post was sarcasm.
“I said, ‘They abused Jesus too.’
April 22, 2011, 8:53 pmHe said, ‘You’re not Him.’”
Sarcastro says:
It’s not over-dramatic, it’s the new gospel!
I call Doubting Thomas!!
April 22, 2011, 8:53 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Cite on the deliberately incited riots?
Jones burned a book. Mature adults chose to riot because they heard he did it, days later.
They had other protest options than
April 22, 2011, 8:54 pmriotingkilling people who didn’t burn the book, didn’t they?Neo says:
Free Terry Jones!!
Free Speech!!
National Burn a Koran Day (April 22)?
April 22, 2011, 8:54 pmcboldt says:
–Just how exactly do you get a jury trial, especially this quickly, on a case that is effectively a prior restraint injunction?–
April 22, 2011, 8:57 pmI speculate that the government wants an extra heaping of legitimacy to its prior restraint. Defendant does not control this, the superior power is able to provide props commensurate with the stakes.
leo marvin says:
Sarcastro I’m not, but was it really that unrecognizable?
April 22, 2011, 8:59 pmef says:
Contempt of Islam
April 22, 2011, 9:01 pmJohn Herbison says:
Thank you for remembering that “media” is a plural noun. When I read the phrase “the media reports” I always think to myself, “they does?”
April 22, 2011, 9:07 pmShelbyC says:
I don’t see why you want to make it about muslims. People who riot when you burn their text, or draw their diety, should lighten up. Don’t tell me you disagree? And we’ve already lost way too much freedom. Jones is in jail, I can’t watch 3 south park episodes, Yale can’t publish the books it wants to publish, any you keep bringing the conversation back to people being rude?
April 22, 2011, 9:09 pmadam says:
So, if Muslims attempt to demonstrate peacefully (as, if) against Israel or Jews outside a synagogue, they’ll be required to post a bond. Will they be arrested if they refuse (as, if!).
April 22, 2011, 9:10 pmBlue says:
Exercise of fundamental First Amendment political speech is hardly analogous.
April 22, 2011, 9:11 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Why would they have to post a bond?
They are peaceably assembling and no one else involved is patronizingly seen as incapable of behaving rationally no matter what they burned.
April 22, 2011, 9:13 pmSenX says:
I always think of wife beaters with their ever present “if she didn’t piss me off I wouldn’t have to beat her”.
Also the “it’s not the cat’s fault if the meat is left uncovered” view of why it’s the woman’s fault if she gets raped when she isn’t completely covered up.
April 22, 2011, 9:13 pmBlue says:
1) Muslims have made it about themselves, in this case using the apparatus of the state to “protect” their faith;
April 22, 2011, 9:14 pm2) I expect to be able to be rude to others in exact proportion to the way they are able to be rude to me. You can put a crucifix in piss? Ok, I can show Mo-man being humped by a dog.
pmorem says:
Sarcastro wrote:
Next you’ll be telling me that my hero, Bowerick Wowbagger is just a fictional character. Jerk.
April 22, 2011, 9:18 pmMDJD from NY says:
Deport them all to West Texas.
April 22, 2011, 9:20 pmSenX says:
Also — unless you are rude every way you can be, you’re losing your freedom
Isn’t protecting offensive speech the key anyway? What else needs protecting other than those exact things others don’t want you to say? Further by protecting the extremes all else is covered. You don’t protect the strongest aspects of something and then work your way down. You protect the weakest outliers and it covers everything else under the umbrella.
April 22, 2011, 9:22 pmleo marvin says:
That’s your right, and if you do so it’s my right to think that you and Andres Serrano are both rude jerks.
April 22, 2011, 9:22 pmSarcastro says:
[I agree, but I think that being a dick won't make them lighten up is all.]
April 22, 2011, 9:23 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Link
April 22, 2011, 9:24 pmSarcastro says:
Yes, the key is to be mad at Muslim police force, and the Muslim court system!
What, you don’t like free speech when it can be perceived to insult Christians? I’ll just have to start peeing on every cross I see in protest!
April 22, 2011, 9:27 pmJames M. Brooks says:
Certainly a legally indefensible opinion. But it is a local Dearborn district court. Judge Somers has to run for re-election in this town. Jones doesn’t get a vote. It isn’t a surprising decision at all. A lot of judges are more politician than judge in high-profile cases.
April 22, 2011, 9:27 pmSarcastro says:
Because it’s not enough to be against jailing people for being jerks, if you don’t approve of jerkery, you must hate freedom!
Hmmm. Sounds similar to an argument I heard about tolerating versus accepting gayness…
April 22, 2011, 9:29 pmFXKLM says:
I actually think it would. If Muslims are subject to a constant barrage of blasphemy, one would think the rage has to burn out eventually.
April 22, 2011, 9:31 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Maybe if we bombard gays with homophobia for long enough, they will turn straight (or at least hate themselves).
April 22, 2011, 9:37 pmadam says:
Jones posted bond. Banned from mosque environs for 3 years, subject to discretion of mosque leaders. Judge Somers just annulled the constitution and the bill of rights. Now that’s a precedent!
April 22, 2011, 9:43 pmArthur Kirkland says:
It wouldn’t be decent to inflict more goobers on west Texas, whose residents are already afflicted by Texas schools, an insolvent state government, Texas law enforcement, and an over-quota situation with respect to goobers. Have you no pity?
April 22, 2011, 9:44 pmCliveStaples says:
Isn’t there a point to mass Koran-burning besides just pissing off Muslims, though?
Say, if the point was that this sort of behavior is entirely legal, and perhaps people should focus on how to convince Muslims not to go on murderous rampages in response to blasphemies. Seems like these might have value beyond “let’s piss off Muslims.”
April 22, 2011, 9:45 pmneurodoc says:
Leo, stupidities of the unbracketed Sarcastro sort ill become you. This isn’t about the admirability of Terry Jones, who isn’t, and even less about Obama. But you know that, so why this comment?
April 22, 2011, 9:52 pmOrenWithAnE says:
If only there were some sort of higher court that could correct errors of law! Oh well, Constitution annulled!
April 22, 2011, 9:52 pmSarcastro says:
This is how anger works!
April 22, 2011, 9:53 pmjack burton says:
I think it’s a good point to make those naive and uninformed people out there less naive and more informed about the true nature of the Muslim faith. Not everyone is as much of news junkies as we here are.
And it is a good and worthy idea to burn the Koran to expose the inroads that sharia has already made within Western politicians and the press. And now.. the legal system.
April 22, 2011, 9:54 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I guess the War On Christmas has gotten worse than we thought. Damned mainstream media!
April 22, 2011, 9:59 pmMalvolio says:
What? The entire population of Detroit (700,000) is dwarfed by those of Jakarta (10 million), Karachi (15 million), and Dhaka (7 million). Even if you excluded majority-Muslim countries, there are probably a dozen cities in India and Nigeria with Muslims than Detroit.
I hope you aren’t saying that as any kind of defense of Somers. The only purpose of a judge, of the whole justice system, is to protect innocent people from criminals; and remember that Jones, however much of a jerk he is, is innocent of any crime. Somers is siding with the mob and he’s shaming his robe. That he’s doing it for corrupt reasons (votes in this case), instead of a misplaced desire for peace or even just stupidity, makes it worse not better.
April 22, 2011, 10:00 pmMac says:
Apparently, that is your modus operandi. Pot meet kettle.
April 22, 2011, 10:00 pmDaniel Chapman says:
If you didn’t hide behind your snark, sarcastro, you might find its harder to defend your positions than you think it is. You’re really getting tedious lately.
April 22, 2011, 10:01 pmCan't find a good name says:
Dearborn is in Wayne County, though, the same county as Detroit. Jones was being prosecuted by the Wayne County prosecutor’s office, which is headquartered in Detroit.
Also, while Dearborn does indeed have a high percentage of its population being Muslim, it can’t be the second highest Muslim population outside the Middle East. London and Paris each must have more Muslims than the entire population of Dearborn.
April 22, 2011, 10:01 pmjack burton says:
When you think you can tie together any “war on christmas” and sharia law then get back to us. Otherwise you might as well have your cat walk across your keyboard for all the sense your comment made.
April 22, 2011, 10:02 pmneurodoc says:
West Texas is spoken for. Arthur already consigned the nation of Israel there.
April 22, 2011, 10:03 pmSenx says:
Because it’s not enough to be against jailing people for being jerks, if you don’t approve of jerkery, you must hate freedom!
Close enough. Seems to me that respecting free speech means respecting other peoples right to say things I find offensive. Are we only going to protect the right to say the things we all agree on?
April 22, 2011, 10:04 pmJustin the part time lawyer says:
Can’t they lock him up for violating MCL 752.863a?
752.863a Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm; penalty.
Sec. 3.
Any person who shall recklessly or heedlessly or wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This Barney Fife just shot a hole through the floor of his car in public. “Res Ipso Loquitor”
April 22, 2011, 10:09 pmMac says:
Wow, this is a truly frightening decision.
Can this set a precedent?
Is the First Amendment done for?
April 22, 2011, 10:10 pmSarcastro says:
Senx‘s broad idea of rights – that you have to endorse their use in all cases for it to count – is kinda awesome. Think how it would apply to flag burning. Or abortion!
April 22, 2011, 10:15 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Yes, because burning a book is really persuasive regarding the content of the book and the actions of those that believe in it!
Just the other day, a guy burned an American flag and now NO ONE believes in AMERICA anymore!
[ Seriously, Sarcastro is going to need to hire a few interns to keep up with this thread. I can't keep pitching in like this. ]
April 22, 2011, 10:15 pmArthur Kirkland says:
It’s the same anti-Christian (in other words, anti-American) progression, is it not?
April 22, 2011, 10:17 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Yes but one doesn’t have to respect either the message or the person in order to respect his right to say it.
I disapprove of jerkery. I approve of the right to be a jerk. Pretty easy actually.
April 22, 2011, 10:17 pmFXKLM says:
Any religion that isn’t subject to constant, pervasive blasphemy will inevitably take itself too seriously. Christians have for the most part learned to accept blasphemy but only because it’s so common that they really have no other choice. Islam happens to be the religion most in need of blaspheming, but I’m perfectly happy to toss some bibles or L. Ron Hubbard books into the fire as well. And toss some flags in there too while we’re at it. If you can’t tolerate blasphemy, it should rubbed in your face until you can.
April 22, 2011, 10:30 pmSarcastro says:
Jeez, I had no idea blasphemy was such a calming influence. Christians – one South Park episode away from a riot!
I can only imagine the new “Piss you off till you calm down” anger management classes.
April 22, 2011, 10:34 pmsloopL3 says:
I’d have to agree. If Jones was an ardent neo-Nazi, would those rightfully upset with the treatment of the 1st amendment by this judge and prosecutor be wearing swastika armbands to show their displeasure? There are better ways of supporting someone whose message you find deplorable (assuming you do) than parroting the message itself.
April 22, 2011, 10:37 pmrpt says:
Fact question: didn’t Jones choose a jury?
April 22, 2011, 10:38 pmleo marvin says:
neurodoc,
I’d expect anyone (e.g., you) who considers Sarcastro’s unbracketed comments “stupidities” to find my comment stupid too. I only regret it was such a bad Sarcastro facsimile that even some without that bias found it stupid, but I suppose my soul can always do with another dose of humility.
April 22, 2011, 10:38 pmChem_Geek says:
Different county; he shot his car outside a TV station in Southfield, Oakland county.
April 22, 2011, 10:39 pmjack burton says:
Well, you took that out of context about as badly as one can do it. Burning the Koran has nothing to do with persuading Muslims of anything. But if you want to argue that the “actions” of the Muslim in return do nothing to inform people of the nature of their religion then go for it.
April 22, 2011, 10:42 pmjack burton says:
No, it’s not. And it is inane to suggest that it is.
April 22, 2011, 10:43 pmSarcastro says:
Proof that some Muslims are violent idiots! Wow, and I thought they were all meditative shaven-head types who hang around airports. Thank you Pastor Jones for setting me straight!
Now lets go pee on bibles till a Christian punches us.
Proving religions are bad isn’t nearly as hard as I thought!
April 22, 2011, 10:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
More or less inane than worrying about Islamic law “inroads” in the United States?
April 22, 2011, 10:50 pmptt says:
The precedent of unpopular speech being suppressed and unpopular people being denied their rights happened a long, long time ago. While many seem to think we’re in some dark age in regard to free speech, there’s no doubt that this decision will be slapped down and pronto. That hasn’t always been the case.
On a side note, if one’s response to this decision is to burn a book, wouldn’t it be more sensible to ascertain the holy book of the judge and/or jury and burn one of those? Surely someone actually involved in this deserves to be insulted more than a whole bunch of people who had little to do with it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the jury was, at least to some degree, just expressing people’s general disgust with public displays of disapproval, including the Phelps appearances at funerals. This is why civil rights cases often don’t belong in front of juries and why judges shouldn’t be elected (or at least not put through elections after they reach the bench).
April 22, 2011, 10:51 pmwuzzagrunt says:
To make this situation analogous: Landlord asks for his rent and Tenent tells him if he comes around again looking for money, he will kick Landlord’s ass. Jury decides asking for money will incite violence, Judge orders Landlord to quit bothering Tenent and orders him to post a peace bond. Judge orders Landlord jailed when he refuses to post bond.
Welcome to Sharia law. I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.
April 22, 2011, 10:55 pmJackson says:
If they aren’t swayed by reams of 1A case law, why would they let a little legal technicality like jurisdiction get in their way?
April 22, 2011, 10:57 pmPeeps should check facts says:
this is an incorrect statement. Dearborn contains the most highly concentrated arab population (CHRISTIANS + MUSLIMS).
April 22, 2011, 10:58 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Sandler did it!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0305224/
April 22, 2011, 10:59 pmjack burton says:
Not everyone is quite the news junkie that you are. Some are even willing to believe the nonsense that Islam is really a “religion of peace.” I’d say that Jones actions are a very good way to educate these people. Certainly better than folk who like to make excuses for them.
And its odd how you conflate Christians “punching” you with innocents being murdered wholesale by Islamists.
April 22, 2011, 11:01 pmjack burton says:
I hear tell of a preacher who went to jail because he wanted to protest in front of a mosque. Perhaps I was wrong.
April 22, 2011, 11:02 pmpdxnag says:
The phrase “banned from the mosque” needs elaboration.
1) Does it mean banned from the public sidewalk adjacent to this particular Mosque? (Why not all Mosques within the county?)
2) Does it mean do not set foot on the private property of this particular Mosque? (But the public sidewalk is still as open today as it was last week and as open as it is to everyone else today.)
The Mosque was not a party to the public case, nor could they have been. If the order covers the private property of the Mosque then to that extent it is void. The Mosque can bring a trespass action if they so choose, or seek a restraining order, but that is a whole different case. Abortion protestors have to allow people to enter and exit a place that they target. The same sort of access could be demanded here, on public property.
Was the “public” prosecutor acting here as the “private” lawyer for the Mosque, and treating public and private interests (in a confusing mess) as one entity? This blending would itself reveal what enforcement of sharia “law” looks like, where party entanglement becomes mandatory for this matter — and all others of particular concern to the Mosque. It looks is as if the Mosque was the prosecutor. There are cases where a party can represent the interest of the government, as relator, and this would be properly captioned in any court filings.
The apparent sanction of a restraining order offers a clue as to the nature of the claim as that of a private one for a private restraining order, obtained by way of misuse of public office. Such a restraining order might be OK, but only if it accompanied a conviction for criminal trespass. But there was no trespass, nor even apparently any threatened trespass. (What an arbitrary mess.)
April 22, 2011, 11:07 pmMatthew Carberry says:
To be fair, but not to excuse the negligent discharge, the only reason he was handling the gun in the car in the first place is because he was abiding by the wishes of the TV station that he not carry inside.
If they had simply allowed him to leave the inanimate (and harmless) object in its holster on his person it would not have been handled and could not have gone off.
One of the quite foreseeable (by the educated on the subject) “unintended consequences” of restricting carry in non-sensitive places by the law-abiding in the name of false “safety” concerns.
But I believe private property owners are free to be stupid.
April 22, 2011, 11:08 pmFXKLM says:
Sure, it’s counterintuitive, but I think it’s true. If you’re faced with a new outrageous blasphemy every day, there comes a point when you have to give up rioting and move on with your life. Ideally, every group and every religion would be subjected to enough blasphemy to get to that point.
I am an equal opportunity blasphemer, not merely anti-Muslim. I have done far more vile things to countless holy books than merely burning them. Some may find it obnoxious, but I genuinely believe that blasphemy is socially beneficial.
April 22, 2011, 11:15 pmleo marvin says:
And what is it you think that has to do with Islamic law?
April 22, 2011, 11:16 pmMark Field says:
Great! So if we show enough contempt for Catholicism, even Bill Donohue will lose his outrage?
April 22, 2011, 11:17 pmManju says:
If we are going to burn Korans to protest, to be fair we should also burn copies of Slouching Towards Gonorrhea…or whatever its called.
April 22, 2011, 11:27 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Where are the Islamic law “inroads?” It sounds like the preacher is no more adept at courtroom strategy (whether to appear without a lawyer or to select a jury trial, for example) than he is at handling a handgun or acting like an adult. The judge not only isn’t Islamic but indeed has generated a string of complaints about infusing his courtroom with improper measures of Christianity.
Perhaps the ACLU will introduce some sorely needed reason (and skill) on appeal and straighten this out despite the efforts of religious participants on all sides.
April 22, 2011, 11:29 pmjack burton says:
And what is it you think that has to do with Islamic law?
Well, you could tell us that Constitutional law was followed in the courtroom. Or perhaps it was the law against offending Muslims that was the greater concern.
April 22, 2011, 11:31 pmjack burton says:
Well, you could tell us that Constitutional law was followed in the courtroom. Or perhaps it was the law against offending Muslims that was the greater concern.
April 22, 2011, 11:32 pmBlue says:
No Sacrasto, surely the apparatus of the state has not been taken over to defend a specific faith, has it?
April 22, 2011, 11:34 pmMark Field says:
Yes, the son of missionaries who’s active in the Methodist Church clearly favors Muslims.
April 22, 2011, 11:36 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The early signals suggest the Constitution did not have much chance to be vindicated in that courtroom. A goober representing himself presented a bad case — perhaps built using a concordance rather than the Constitution — and sustained self-inflicted wounds.
April 22, 2011, 11:43 pmptt says:
He’ll lose his outrage the day his paycheck stops.
April 22, 2011, 11:48 pmjack burton says:
I know lots of missionary kids who are disappointments to their parents and the church. Your point…?
April 22, 2011, 11:55 pmjack burton says:
Unless you were there I would suggest you have little idea how the case was presented. But your bigotry encourages you to comment anyway.
And please explain to us just why the “Constitution did not have much chance to be vindicated in that courtroom”. Surely you are not going to suggest that it was because of being located in Dearbornistan, are you?
April 22, 2011, 11:58 pmMark Field says:
And these hypothetical other people you claim to know are better evidence regarding Judge Somers than the official site which lists the personal data regarding Judge Somers. Right.
April 23, 2011, 12:00 amGiant Frog says:
“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.”
April 23, 2011, 12:01 amleo marvin says:
AK and I each asked you to explain your implication that Jones’ jailing evidences Islamic law inroads in the US. If this answer is your way of admitting you were talking out of your ass and now you’d like to move on, that’s OK with me.
April 23, 2011, 12:10 amjack burton says:
Unless you can draw a direct line between “Yes, the son of missionaries who’s active in the Methodist Church clearly favors Muslims.” and his ruling from the bench it is unclear as to what you are even attempting to communicate.
Do you have some secret knowledge that allows you to know who does and does not “favor” Muslims in their heart. I personally go by actions, not posted bios that are designed to make people look good.
April 23, 2011, 12:12 amDoc Rampage says:
This is rich –Sarcastro, whose internet personality is premised on rude and insulting behaviors towards people he disagrees with is lecturing us on not being rude and insulting towards people that we disagree with.
Sarcastro, do you have any capacity at all for introspection or self evaluation?
April 23, 2011, 12:16 amjack burton says:
Since I never posted that “Islamic law” is making inroads into the law in the states it’s hardly fair to ask me to defend the statement. It was another person who used that phrase. I said “sharia” which is something else. While sharia does incorporate elements of law it also is a matter of deference to Islamic law and culture. If you want to think that I think that states are busy passing laws calling for hands to be cut off that is up to you. But if yo want to deny that the ruling in the court today was anything but a deference to the tender sensibilities of the Muslim religion then that is up to you also.
April 23, 2011, 12:19 amSarcastro says:
Yes, making assumptions based on one crappy opinion is much better logic than witholding judgment.
I hear, almost every judge on the bench has at one time ruled for the defendant. Sometimes they are even wrong to do so! The criminal agenda marches on!
April 23, 2011, 12:20 amElliot says:
The law doesn’t appear capable of dealing with the conflict with Islamists.
April 23, 2011, 12:32 amneurodoc says:
The “sarcasm” content of this thread is about as high as I recall in any VC thread and the quality of the overall discourse about as low as I recall any VC thread being. Just coincidence?
April 23, 2011, 12:37 amSarcastro says:
[But which came first, the sarcasm or the lack of content?
I contend that for a number of the posters here sarcasm is the only worthwhile way to engage them.]
April 23, 2011, 12:44 amSteve2 says:
For what it’s worth, I agree with FXKLM that all religions should be blasphemed thoroughly and often. If you can be offended, you should be – until you become inured to whatever had offended you.
April 23, 2011, 12:58 amrpt says:
Was anyone here actually at the trial or see any of the evidence?
April 23, 2011, 1:28 amleo marvin says:
AK said
to which you responded
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that Jones’ jailing is evidence of Islamic Law’s inroads in the US. But let’s say you meant “Sharia,” not “Islamic Law.” The question remains, how is it such evidence?
All I know is, today’s ruling (a terrible one IMO) was under US law. If you somehow know that the judge and jury were motivated by “deference to the tender sensibilities of the Muslim religion,” and that such deference evidences inroads by Sharia in the US, well, I lack your mind reading ability, so I can’t dispute it.
April 23, 2011, 1:36 amKirk Parker says:
John Herbison,
The rest of us aren’t speaking Latin. And neither, now that I look again, are you.
neurodoc,
Awesome catch, man! Until you pointed it out, I had completely forgotten Arthur’s banishment.
April 23, 2011, 1:41 amrequired says:
Yes and the tenant then puts several thousands of dollars up for the peace bond which will be forfeited by the tenant if the landlord engages in violence. Wait a second …
The state was not arguing that Jones or his group were likely to start violence but that others were likely to start violence in reaction to Jones. So Wayne County must have levied a pretty hefty peace bond against the counter-protestors (the ones who were feared would become violent), how much was it if they wanted $45,000 from Jones, and who paid for it?
April 23, 2011, 1:45 amleo marvin says:
With Sarcastro accounting for the plurality of one side of the thread, I’d be surprised if you felt otherwise. It may not be the Algonquin Round Table, but I’ve seen worse here.
April 23, 2011, 1:51 am1040 says:
neurodoc should really ask for his money back.
April 23, 2011, 2:02 amD.O. says:
Unfortunately, it is not about some muslims being violent idiots. It might very well be that rioters and murderers after the first burning are mostly reasonable people in their everyday life. It is just they brand of religion that is violent. Still not a good reason to burn Koran. On the other hand, we do need some non-violent idiots like Mr. Jones. They provide reference points for normalcy. Unfortunately, there is no islamic cleric who would burn Bible in protest over Jones, that would have set idiots on par. Maybe, this is because muslims actually respect Bible. World is so imperfect.
April 23, 2011, 2:38 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Second largest Arab population, not Muslim population. The two are not at all the same thing. There are many many many many places with larger Muslim populations outside the Middle East.
April 23, 2011, 3:08 amBrett Bellmore says:
“Second largest Arab population, not Muslim population. The two are not at all the same thing. There are many many many many places with larger Muslim populations outside the Middle East. “
I stand corrected.
I think the phrase is, “under the color of US law”, since the ruling was not remotely consistent with the actual LAW, which was on Jones’ side. But then, the judge is undoubtedly aware of that, and will not be the least bit shocked when this is overturned. The judge simply abused the powers of his office to please his constituency.
Now, anyone want to bet that Jones violates the order? His aim here seems to be to demonstrate just how far an American government will go in violating American rights to protect the delicate sensibilities of Muslims, and protesting anyway with cameras rolling would seem to be the next step in that.
April 23, 2011, 7:12 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » FREE-SPEECH UPDATE: Koran-Burning New Jersey Transit Employee Gets Job Back + Back Pay + $25,000 Se… says:
[...] Related: Terry Jones Jailed, Apparently for Refusing to Promise Not to Demonstrate in Front of a Mosque. [...]
April 23, 2011, 8:00 amPersonFromPorlock says:
I’m beating a dead horse, but if there was ever a time for the ACLU to invoke 18 USC 242, this is it.
April 23, 2011, 8:10 amAdam says:
Would Somers bar unions from picketing on street outside company property if company goons might attack? Would he bar anti-war protesters from demonstrating outside military recruiting offices if active duty military personnel might assault them? This ruling would squash the rights of all protesters, not just politically incorrect ones.
April 23, 2011, 8:17 amPine_Tree says:
“…His aim here seems to be to demonstrate just how far an American government will go in violating American rights to protect the delicate sensibilities of Muslims…”
This. The whole “sharia” or “Islamic law” thing is a red herring in this particular discussion.
And the thing is, Jones is RIGHT. And I don’t mean just “within his rights”, though that is of course true. I mean that as much as everyone wishes it weren’t true, he’s right.
Even after he (presumably) gets relief in this particular case, he’ll still be right…
April 23, 2011, 8:45 amWuzzagrunt says:
Only if it were applied equally to all. Not much chance of that.
April 23, 2011, 8:58 amjoel says:
If you want to understand the problem, talk to some educated, moderate Muslims in this country.
I have. They were incensed over the Koran burning by Jones, and regretted the killing of those innocent UN workers. They blamed Jones. They accept, as a matter of course, that their co-religionists cannot control their homicidal impulses. But, DON’T BLAME ISLAM!
If you stratch the surface of any Muslim, in my experience, their basic fananticism comes right to the fore. These same moderate Muslims can’t discuss the current Arab uprisings for two minutes without bringing up Israel.
I am not afraid of the Taliban. It is the moderate, modern Muslims I find scary.
April 23, 2011, 9:04 amSDN says:
Except that Muslims have proved that free speech anywhere will incite them to violence. Why waste time pandering to them?
April 23, 2011, 9:15 amadam says:
Wuzzagrunt: Of course, I know you are correct. The police will protect left-wing assemblies, which will then proceed as planned. Conservative ones will be subject to threats of left-wing mob violence, and so will be cancelled. This happens on college campuses all the time.
The Dearborn decision must be reversed post-haste, or left-wingers will get it into their heads that they can demolish the tea party movement with a few well-timed threats.
April 23, 2011, 9:22 amwillis says:
Jones is of course insane. What kind of American would protest a holy document that calls for killing non-believers or the practice of the enlightend, female-liberating law of Sharia, not to mention the holy crusade of jihad. The fools should stick to burning bibles and American flags and win praise from the likes of you.
April 23, 2011, 9:26 amdavid says:
I’d like to explore the peace bond issue a little more.
pdxlawyer posed a hypothetical:
“Landlord and tenant are in a dispute. Tenant withholds rent. Rather than bring an eviction action, Landlord tells Tenant that Tenant has one week to get out or Landlord will com back and “kick your ass.” Any lawyer who has practiced long in private civil practice has run across situations like this.
“Tenant *could* get a shotgun, but complaining for a peace bond is safer.”
In ths hyothetical, the landlord is the party threatening violence while the tenant is the one threatened, who seeks a peace bond. If the reasoning of the Michigan court were to be applied to the landlord-tenant hypothetical, shouldn’t the tenant be required to post the bond, since his actions could provoke violence?
Of course that is ridiculous. The potential aggressor should be the party required to post bond. I realize that it would be hard to collect a peace bond from “the Muslims,” or even to pre-emptively identify those Muslims likely to riot, but it seems a lot more reasonable here to requre the mosque to post the peace bond than to require Pastor Jones to post it.
April 23, 2011, 9:28 amBurning Questions | Crossroads Arabia says:
[...] is an expert on First Amendment law and teaches at the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA): [UPDATED TITLE:] Terry Jones Jailed, Apparently for Refusing to Promise Not to Demonstrate in Front of a Mosque [STILL FURTHER UPDATE: [...]
April 23, 2011, 9:46 amRagebot says:
You need to keep up with posts in this thread. Customs in countries where Islam is practiced confiscate and destroy Bibles they discover being brought into the country. There are serious legal implications to being identified as a non Muslim in some of these countries.
The plain fact of the matter is there is a fundamental difference between Islam and the US Constitution, one that is not likely to be resolved without fundamental changes to one or the other.
April 23, 2011, 9:57 amOctavian says:
Amazing how this parallels the ordinary citizens of Nazi Germany refused to condemn the Nazis and so became complicit in the crimes against humanity by the Third Reich.
April 23, 2011, 10:11 amRagebot says:
I am still trying to find out just how good or bad Jones did as a lawyer. Did he ask the judge to dismiss the case, raise 1A issues, argue for ROR, in short did he have competent representation (I know what acting pro se in and of itself implies).
I have seen several comments, here and elsewhere, that the judge should have dismissed the case; but could the judge do this absent any coherent representation by Jones?
April 23, 2011, 10:12 amBlue says:
What is the chance that Holder’s DOJ would take that action?
A rhetorical question, of course.
April 23, 2011, 10:14 amBlue says:
The judge has an obligation to construe the motions and arguments of pro se defendants broadly. It’s difficult to believe that Jones did not raise basic Constitutional questions in at least some fashion that would allow the judge to see justice was done.
April 23, 2011, 10:22 amMark Field says:
You mean you go by actions except for those times when you speculate about secret knowledge, such as “I know lots of missionary kids who are disappointments to their parents and the church.” Or “Or perhaps it was the law against offending Muslims that was the greater concern.”
Empiricism totally rocks!
April 23, 2011, 10:29 amJason says:
When Terry Jones originally planned his demonstration, his claim that Dearborn Michigan follows Sharia law instead of the Constitution was beyond ludicrous.
Now that he has been placed in jail for merely planing to burn a Koran, I have to admit that he has a point.
April 23, 2011, 10:32 amOrenWithAnE says:
No, you implied it would persuade non-Muslims that Islam is a bad scary faith. It’s just not very persuasive.
April 23, 2011, 10:35 amBrett Bellmore says:
Now that he’s been placed in jail for merely having the intention of burning a Koran attributed to him by the prosecution, despite denying any such intent, I’d have to say the point is even stronger.
“No, you implied it would persuade non-Muslims that Islam is a bad scary faith. It’s just not very persuasive.”
What would persuade non-Muslims that Islam is a bad scary faith is their reaction to a Koran being burnt. And it actually is fairly persuasive.
April 23, 2011, 10:36 amBob (from Ohio) says:
I think you are proof this is not true.
April 23, 2011, 10:56 amBob (from Ohio) says:
As I said, for a nut, he certainly forces the contradictions.
He should send the prosecutor a Easter basket with plenty of chocolate. This trial was a gift to Jones.
Now, of course, having seen the PR windfall, some other group will come to Dearborn and protest. Maybe burn a Koran or two, something Jones said he was not going to do this time. By going full out against Jones, the government actually increased the odds of a riot.
April 23, 2011, 11:04 amA. Cooper says:
Perhaps you know things I don’t, but my understanding is that the Wayne County prosecutor (not a Muslim!) brought these charges and the judge (not a Muslim!) went along with it. A good number of Muslim groups (including the Glenn-Beck-aneurism-inducing CAIR) have come out on Jones’ side.
April 23, 2011, 11:05 amBlue says:
Elected officials pandering for the vote of an important constituency.
April 23, 2011, 11:28 amPolybius says:
It would be foolish to give Muslims, or any group, a “murderer’s veto” over our actions.
But outside of that I see nothing wrong with burning in protest a religious text written by a “prophet” who raped, murdered, engaged in brigandry against his own tribe, converted thousands at the point of a sword, took and traded slaves, and slew anyone who would not acknowledge his divinity… even going so far as to execute a nursing mother for writing poems that made fun of him.
Given that Muslims believe Mohammed to be the perfect man and his life to be the example to be emulated there is no way conflict can be avoided short of our converting to Islam or short of Islam reforming itself into something less barbaric, something unrecognizable as Islam as currently constituted. I am not a religious man but I find what Jones is doing to be very laudable in that he is bringing these points to the fore and a lot of people are learning more about the animating philosophy of our enemies. That is what the 1st amendment is for.
We do the people of the Middle East no favors by pretending that Islam is anything other than vile, despicable and the source of most of their problems. How can they overcome their fear of the imams and shed their shackles if we in the West are too afraid to name the source of their oppression and treat it with the contempt it deserves? What lesson are we sending them when we so easily abandon our principles in the face of threats?
April 23, 2011, 11:29 amdavid says:
For us non-lawyers, what are the implications of 18 USC 242?
April 23, 2011, 11:29 amChuck Pelto says:
TO: All
RE: Grand Juries Can ‘CONVICT’??!??!?!?!?
I thought the purpose of a grand jury was to determine if there was cause of a trial.
Apparently the grand jury process in Michigan is a travesty of REAL justice.
RE: THIS Grand Jury…..
….has certainly proven in a court of law that Muslims can’t be trusted to abide by the Law of a free society. One in which they can expect to be criticized as Christans are constantly criticized.
What should do we do with a religion that is proven in a court of law to be completely irresponsible? That doesn’t ‘police their own’?
Three guesses….first two don’t count….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
April 23, 2011, 11:45 am[The Truth will out....and I thank the members of this grand jury for providing the legal evidence thereof.]
The heckler’s veto: variations on a theme [Darleen Click] says:
[...] Michigan, the morally dubious Terry Jones was jailed for events that had not even happened, but because such “violence” was threatened by people [...]
April 23, 2011, 11:48 amD.O. says:
I am certainly not a lawyer and have no idea how 18 USC 242 is used in practice, but the text includes this qualification: “on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race”.
April 23, 2011, 11:51 ampickwick says:
What is that I smell? Perhaps a nice juicy settlement check from the city of Dearborn and/or Wayne County?
April 23, 2011, 12:02 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The judge’s record reflects a relatively mild religious kook — a Christian zealot who inappropriately infuses his courtroom with religion at the expense of reason. How that squares with concerns about “Dearbornistan” eludes my apprehension.
The proceeding produced a strange result. One could, as you did, ascribe this to feared inappropriate influence of sharia law or fawning over Muslims. The record, however, suggests the relevant judge inappropriately pushes Chrisianity, not Islam, in his courtroom. Plus, there are no current points of evidence indicating an Islamic bent to the current proceeding.
So how would one attempt to explain the situation (strange result)?
The pastor is a loon. He refrained from engaging a lawyer for the legal proceeding. He chose a jury trial. His presentation reportedly consisted of testimony from two witnesses likely chosen for their co-nuttiness instead of as the product of sound legal judgment. He likely prized making religious points and generating publicity to making legal points and promoting a proper verdict.
I infer that the pastor’s legal wounds were self-inflicted, and that the Constitution lacked able advocates in that courtroom because the guy who should have relied on and vindicated it was inept and unhinged. I expect the ACLU to correct the situation; it is an exceptionally able and sensible defender of the Constitution.
April 23, 2011, 12:21 pmArthur Kirkland says:
A private property owner who prefers that this pastor be unarmed seems sensible, not stupid.
April 23, 2011, 12:24 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Do you propose to take similar action against Christianity simultaneously, or immediately after the crusade against Islam?
April 23, 2011, 12:28 pmJackson says:
Willis, Jones is an idiot because he can’t (apparently) handle a firearm without putting a hole in the floorboard of his car.
April 23, 2011, 12:30 pmWhen is Enough Enough? | Don't Let It Go says:
[...] on the condition that neither go within some specified distance of the Center for three years!! Eugene Volokh is following the story on his blog, providing periodic updates along with Constitutional [...]
April 23, 2011, 12:33 pmArthur Kirkland says:
That “admission” is foolish. Neither Jones’ prosecutor nor the relevant judge is sympathetic to Sharia law. (The judge, to the contrary, inappropriately pushes Christianity in his courtroom.)
The most likely reasons Jones went to jail are (1) because he mishandled his case and (2) his aim was publicity rather than justice. He declined to engage a lawyer. His record and reports of his presentation support an inference that his courtroom conduct was likely counterproductive.
Jones apparently should have won in that courtroom. He lost, it appears, not because of the judge or the prosecutor or Sharia law or Dearbornistan, but instead because of his poor decisions, bizarre aims and counterproductive conduct.
This is such a great country that he likely will be rescued from his self-inflicted haplessness, despite his vivid offensiveness, by the charity of others (such as the ACLU) and the majesty of our Constitution.
April 23, 2011, 12:41 pmsteve_g says:
Could Jones’ Koran burning (or other speech) be unprotected as “fighting words” in certain locales – like just outside a mosque? Is there a real fighting words exception to the first amendment, or is a theoretical exception that is never realized in practice?
April 23, 2011, 12:47 pmarbitrary aardvark says:
For us non-lawyers, what are the implications of 18 USC 242?
April 23, 2011, 12:58 pmI suspect that prosecutors and judges may have immunity from prosecution under this civil rights act. However, do folks here think the prosecutor’s actions were ethical, under Michigan standards of legal ethics? If not, is there a disciplinary board where interested commenters could file a disciplinary complaint? Would it be appropriate to do so here? I’m not planning to myself, but I’m suggesting this might be the way to go through channels.
Also, would there be municpal liability under 42 usc 1983 et seq and Monell?
jack burton says:
ARe you attempting to say that I don’t know lots of MKs? Are that MKs never disappoint their parents? Or that is it always a “secret” when they do so that only I think I can spot? Your comments lack elemental clarity.
And good dictionaries are available on the net for free. “perhaps” means “within the realm of possibility” or close enough to that to make no difference. You want to totally deny that that motivation was never within the realm of possibility. Who’s the “mind reader” now, eh.
April 23, 2011, 12:58 pmjack burton says:
To you,perhaps. When you can explain to us your ability to speak for the entire western population then get back to us.
April 23, 2011, 1:00 pmJackson says:
That’s interesting, and a bit frightening as well. Taken to the absurd, could a prosecutor effect arrest and then prosecute someone for just being “black” or Jewish or (Lord forbid) Muslim and not then have any criminal exposure for violating that person’s civil rights?
If that’s true, maybe it’s time to revisit our concept of judicial and prosecutorial immunity.
April 23, 2011, 1:05 pmMarsh says:
I continue to feel so sad when I read stuff like this….Yeah this Minister may be radical and some believe “over-the-top”. BUT,I feel sad when I see that we Americans have to alter some of our rights due to the fact that these Muslims are coming into The USA and demanded and getting rights altered to their liking by Judges, Government, etc. Are they really such loving and wonderful human beings??? For the rest of my life I will always remember how awful it was when each night I went to be and the odor of dead Americans floated into my apartment windows after The Muslims blew up The Twin Towers. In my neighborhood in Brooklyn, N.Y. witnessing the Muslims that lived near-by dancing in the streets in celebration was disheartening for me. And even now in our city they fight to build a Mosque in the very same area that The Twin Towers was blown away. This is all so awful. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
April 23, 2011, 1:11 pmBehead (or jail) those who insult Islam! says:
Sarcastro, Chem_Geek, leo marvin, OranWithAnE, Mark Field, and Arthur Kirkland are all correct. Jones got what he deserved.
Anyone else who dares to speak out negatively against Islam deserves the same fate. And if the legal system won’t keep people like him in line, we’ll find other ways to handle the blasphemers.
April 23, 2011, 1:11 pmSarcastro Translated says:
Insulting a group of people is bad, unless that group is conservatives on the internet!
April 23, 2011, 1:14 pmpdxlawyer says:
david: The basic problem with the Dearborn decision came in how they analyzed the underlying threatened crime. The prosecutor alleged that Jones threatened to incite a riot. That is, the prosecutor alleged that if Jones were allowed to burn the Koran, and the Dearborn Muslims rioted in response, then Jones would have been criminally liable – of course this is nonsense. The ACLU brief, linked to in the OP, explains the whole thing very well, if you need more.
April 23, 2011, 1:25 pmA. Cooper says:
Officials pandering for votes is a good sight different from “Muslims. . . using the apparatus of the state”.
To draw an analogy, it would be (laughably) inaccurate to say the introduction of a bill into Congress to increase Medicare payments constitutes “old folks using the apparatus of the state”, though nobody doubts that such a bill might constitute pandering.
April 23, 2011, 1:26 pmOctavian says:
What makes this entire legal proceeding even more disturbing is that Terry Jones did not even intend to burn a Quran, but was simply going to speak out against Sharia law and Jihad.
April 23, 2011, 1:37 pmAnti Dhimmi says:
Actually, Moslems burn Bibles every day in Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan and in other countries. They also burn Christians from time to time.
Islamic law places Islam and the Koran above all other religions; that’s why Pakistan’s law prohibiting blasphemy only applies to those who blaspheme against Islam, for example. The Koranic punishment for blasphemy is death, by the way.
Deference to Islam is part of Islamic law. This decision shows deference to Islam. Therefore, this decision certainly implies something…
April 23, 2011, 1:39 pmneurodoc says:
I’m surprised and disappointed to see you over there with anything that doesn’t add value, and that it is delivered as pretty much out of nowhere sarcasm makes it stand out all the more. (And which VC threads do you recall that have been more mindless sarcasm, less content than this one?)
There were 11 posts before you weighed in with, “The government’s wrong, so I’ll just insult Muslims till conditions improve!” Other than the one or two by JakeD that it looks like you may have been reacting to, which of the others do you think launched a content-lite, sarcasm-laden thread? While I don’t know how content-lite brings about sarcasm-laden, I can see how sarcasm-laden brings about content-lite.
If after someone spoke their piece, you punched them in the face, would that amount to “engagement” with what they had said? The more flawed their thinking, the more stupid or offensive their expression, the more whacked, stupid, or offensive a response is warranted? If what they have said is so self-evidently illogical, uninformed, stupid, offensive or otherwise objectionable, is “mirroring” really the way to go, even if meant to ridicule? And if it is not self-evidently so, then does it ever occur to you that unclever sarcasm (and forgive me, but it’s rarely clever) in response might give the impression that you have nothing better with which to answer.
April 23, 2011, 1:43 pmpdxlawyer says:
To me, one of the most troubling aspects of this case is how it will affect attitudes in Dearborn. Everyone on this website knows that the only reason things turned out as they did is that the prosecutor and the trial judge put more emphasis on burnishing their political image than they did on reaching the correct legal result – though to be fair there are some indications that the trial judge was just an unusually inept legal analyst.
But think how it would look to a person without legal training (say, an electrical engineer) who grew up in a country without any tradition of protecting freedom of religion, freedom of expression, or any other civil right (for example, Syria). It would be easy for someone in that position to conclude that they had a legal, moral, and a civil right not to have their religious sensibilities offended. Now they have a local prosecutor an a local judge, people who ought to know, telling them that it is true. Even if this eventually gets overturned, the general impression will just be that people disagree – some American are pro-Muslim and some are anti-Muslim.
Most unfortunate.
April 23, 2011, 1:48 pmneurodoc says:
You’re unaware that neo-Nazis and Klu Klux Klan have assembled at different times in different places in the face of threats of violence and gone on with police protection? College campuses are a different story, but there it is most often the administration which will not ensure free speech rights of those who are “politically incorrect” in the eyes of the majority. (Let’s hope that the prosecution of the UC Irvine disruptors will bolster free speech rights for all on campuses.)
April 23, 2011, 2:02 pmBlue says:
What a load of tripe. You can beat the rap but you cannot beat the ride…the very fact an utterly unconstitutional case was filed by the prosecutor is the offense. No citizen should have to hire and pay for a lawyer in an instance such as this.
April 23, 2011, 2:18 pmJohn David Galt says:
I fail to see how the restraining order either is, or should be, considered an unconstitutional prior restraint. On the grounds of a religious institution such as a mosque, don’t the owner’s First Amendment rights trump those of his opponents? Let the Reverend burn Korans at his own church.
April 23, 2011, 2:26 pmJackson says:
First, the premise of your argument is fallacious. Jones has quite clearly stated he had absolutely no intention of burning ANYTHING, to include Korans. He just wanted to peacefully assemble on the PUBLIC property immediately adjacent to the mosque and read scripture, discuss Islam and Jihad or whatnot.
Second, I don’t believe any court would hold that you have the right to inhabit someone else’s private property, let alone burn something on it. And, in this specific case, that’s not even close to what Jones was intending to do.
April 23, 2011, 2:36 pmMark Field says:
No, I am noting that you’re making internally inconsistent arguments, then falsely accusing other people of making your own mistakes.
Other than that, though, you’re doing quite well.
Count me with leo and Sarcastro on this. Sarcastro’s is the only appropriate response to the abjectly stupid statements being made in this thread. The amazing thing is, nobody is really defending the judge’s orders or the judge per se, but the crazies are out in force.
April 23, 2011, 2:36 pmOrenWithAnE says:
I meant in the sense of “not having any persuasive component”. Stating that something is bad (in the form of protected expressive conduct like burning a book) is not the same as providing evidence or reason to that conclusion.
If it were, I should imagine that people would burn things far more often than they do.
April 23, 2011, 2:39 pmArthur Kirkland says:
It appears Jones got what he deserved in the sense of his counterproductive handling of a legal proceeding.
It seems likely Jones will also get what he deserves — the opportunity (subject to reasonable time-place-manner restrictions) to conduct his rally — when a competent advocate participates on his behalf.
April 23, 2011, 2:42 pmOrenWithAnE says:
That won’t prevent people from accusing us of supporting the decision, naturally.
It’s the weekend, a quick trip to the Federal DC on Monday morning and we’ll have this thing sorted out by Tuesday. Maybe Wednesday at the latest.
April 23, 2011, 2:46 pmJackson says:
Interesting. I would love to hear what foreclosed the judge from issuing a sua sponte order – an order that given the facially absurd nature of the prosecutor’s complaint may have been likely in many other courtrooms.
Then, there’s also the possibility of a directed verdict. Irrespective of Jones’ personal failings as a pro se advocate, there was PLENTY of opportunity to smother this case in its crib, and a responsible jurist would have done just that.
April 23, 2011, 2:49 pmrhhardin says:
“It appears Jones got what he deserved in the sense of his counterproductive handling of a legal proceeding.”
If so, then the courts are broken. Their procedures ought to accommodate the everyday public.
April 23, 2011, 3:04 pmBrett Bellmore says:
The KKK and Nazi party are convenient to have around. They’re tolerated by the left on that basis. If the left thought they were actually going to gain supporters and persuade people by holding assemblies, rest assured the left would be trying to shut them down.
In short, Jones’ real crime is that people might agree with him.
April 23, 2011, 3:14 pmRagebot says:
The problem with your line of analysis is applying it equally to other groups. Do you think the recent WI demonstrations should be limited to union head quarters?
April 23, 2011, 3:16 pmArthur Kirkland says:
It seems to have been a bad situation. An ineffective, strangely motivated litigant representing himself. A judge with a record of running a strange courtroom. An overreaching prosecutor. Perhaps some legitimate time-place-manner issues that none of the participants was able or willing to handle effectively. It could have been a perfect storm of substandard conditions for justice.
April 23, 2011, 3:27 pmjack burton says:
The court order, if I read it correctly, forbids Jones and associates from being on the PUBLIC grounds adjacent to the mosque.
April 23, 2011, 3:29 pmjack burton says:
No, you tried to note such and ultimately failed in the attempt. I pointed out that the judge may have been influenced by the desire to not offend Muslims. This is true. You have not contradicted this. I also pointed out that MKs often don’t follow the path their parents set out. This is true and you have not contradicted this either.
I’d say you’re ready to strike out.
April 23, 2011, 3:36 pmArthur Kirkland says:
And hospitals should offer do-it-yourself kidney surgery programs? Perhaps selling a vehicle that requires $80,000 in diagnostic electronic equipment for servicing should be a crime?
To what degree should sensible procedures be abandoned in favor of an anything-goes approach? Are limited hours of operation and scheduled proceedings acceptable? Should pleading rules and deadlines be outlawed? Should the judge be required to take judicial notice of arguments or authorities overlooked by an amateur advocate?
The pastor should have hired a lawyer. Or found one who would work without charge. His wounds were self-inflicted, and blaming the system for his mistakes is weak.
April 23, 2011, 3:39 pmjack burton says:
Are you always this dense? His burning the book show nothing about the Muslims and the way they should be viewed by the rest of the world. Their actions in response to what he does is the “persuasive” portion of the back and forth communications between Jones and the Muslim communications.
If I say you are a deranged killer that may have no persuasive force at all. If you respond by killing ten innocent people over anger at my remarks… that is pretty persuasive, eh.
April 23, 2011, 3:40 pmTana Williams says:
The comments about Islam, the Qua’ran and Muslims made by a member here are ridiculous. You say in their Holy Book that blasphemy means death to the blasphemer and that Shari’a trumps all. It is the same in the Holy Book of the Christians. We no longer follow everything in the Bible because much of it is unreasonable and doesn’t belong in modern society. Neither book is infallible and both were written in very different times. For instance, the Bible says the punishment for adulterers is stoning. I believe it is the same in the Quar’an. The Muslims who still follow such ways are very similar to our own ultra-conservative Christian movement, the one whose beliefs are beginning to be made law. And that movement is being well-funded by the billionaire lunatics (ie the Koch Bros) who will assurredly take over this country and send our country back to the robber barons era, basically a Christian theocratic oligarchy. We have little to fear from Muslims or most others outside our country. It is those inside the country buying politicians and governments who will bring democracy down. I sure hope all you intelligent people here are doing more than arguing points when this country is losing its democratic nature
April 23, 2011, 3:41 pmArthur Kirkland says:
And continue to point it out, even after emergence of evidence that the judge is a Christian who can’t resist improperly infusing his courtroom with religion of a non-Muslim flavor.
April 23, 2011, 3:43 pmpdxnag says:
We could distinguish the facts and the law from within this case. Even if the outcome is overturned based on the law there remains the facts that were determined which can be applied to some other law.
If group X or organization X will launch into violent rage then group X or organization X should, under the law, be denied the privilege of incorporation. The privilege comes packaged with a precondition that the artificial entity be organized for a lawful purpose. Is it all Islam-based organizations (or Muslim masses) that the jury has adjudged will engage in illegal acts (threats of violence is a crime) or is it just this one Mosque and its’ incitement to violence?
Terry Jones could/should respond with a motion/petition to administratively dissolve the incorporated entity representing the Mosque.
Even the state government must give full faith and credit under the constitution to the factual findings as found by the jury. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
(Is this too remote a possibility, legally, not politically?)
April 23, 2011, 3:49 pmjack burton says:
And one has nothing to do with the other, eh. Unless you want to claim that all Christians judges, everywhere, at all time, cannot ever possibly be influenced by the desire not to offend Muslims. Go for it.
Especially when they are the ones responsible for voting them into office.
April 23, 2011, 4:01 pmOctavian says:
Looks like the Thomas More Law Center is going to represent Terry Jones in his suit against City of Dearborn.
April 23, 2011, 4:02 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Many judges react poorly to the idea that they should rule on matters not brought up by the parties. Failure to raise an issue is usually fatal to further attempts at appellate review (although it seems that Mr Jones did raise the core prior-restraint issue, I’m not sure).
Happens pretty frequently. Did you know that you can prohibit individuals from protesting on PUBLIC grounds in a residential neighborhood?
That’s an example of a valid TPM restriction (unlike this one, that is transparently invalid) that still applies on PUBLIC grounds.
And if some third party respond by killing some random fourth party, what does that prove about me?
April 23, 2011, 4:16 pmRagebot says:
Just wondering if you have a link to this. Not doubting it, but would like to know more about it.
April 23, 2011, 4:17 pmJackson says:
I guess the question becomes, “How outrageous do the actions of the government have to be, before the court is moved to rule without prompting?”
I’m guessing that if the Dearborn police arrested two-dozen black people for eating in a restaurant that doesn’t allow blacks, that case wouldn’t survive arraignment, right?
Someone earlier repeated the well-known phrase, “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride”. The court has, IMHO, an obligation to keep the government honest especially in the face of such overtly unconstitutional actions, or they risk losing all public perception of judicial integrity.
For the other person who asked, here’s a link to the Thomas More Law Center story.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110423/METRO/104230375/Jones-plans-suit-against-Wayne-Co.-prosecutor-with-Ann-Arbor-law-firm
April 23, 2011, 4:26 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Ding! Ding! We got a winner. And it was not even close. Tana Williams just won the prize for the most ludicrous comment made on this thread.
April 23, 2011, 4:26 pmOctavian says:
On a closer read, it appears the suit will be against the Wayne County Prosecutor. My apologies if I goofed up the link.
April 23, 2011, 4:27 pmSenX says:
Sarcastro Translated says:
Sarcastro: [Legally, no, but it is pretty insulting to a group of people. I’d prefer folks find another way to protest is all.
Insulting a group of people is bad, unless that group is conservatives on the internet!
You’re wasting your time. Lefties are notoriously immune to critiques of their hypocrisy. Be it their free rider claims, telling others where they should spend their money, how others should live or blatant examples like this.
While not all of our resident lefty commentors are taking the side against free speech here it is interesting that all who are, are left of center. I can’t help but wonder why that is exactly.
April 23, 2011, 4:34 pmChem_Geek says:
@John David Galt:
Hear, hear!
April 23, 2011, 4:35 pmMark Field says:
jack, buddy: first rule of holes. Memorize it.
April 23, 2011, 4:42 pmjack burton says:
Residential neighborhood is quite different from a commercial neighborhood.
And if you want to claim that the Muslims that killed the innocents overseas is somehow a separate “third party” from other Muslims then go for it. I don’t think you’ll get far with it, but go for it anyway.
April 23, 2011, 4:49 pmArthur Kirkland says:
If Jones chose the Thomas More lawyers over ACLU lawyers, he’s dumber than I thought he was.
April 23, 2011, 4:51 pmjack burton says:
Now ~this~ is a persuasive argument indeed. :-)
Still hasn’t actually, you know, refuted anything I’ve said but the spinning is enough to cool a whole city block down.
April 23, 2011, 4:53 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Because you didn’t wander into a thread about abortion gag rules, flag-burning, BongHits4Jesus, national security letters, Janet Jackson’s nipple, building a mosque, the Pentagon Papers, George Carlin’s seven dirty words, students wearing T-shirts featuring a marijuana leaf, WikiLeaks, etc.?
April 23, 2011, 4:56 pmArthur Kirkland says:
What’s your take on the network of terrorists who killed Dr. Tiller and its relationship to other Christians?
April 23, 2011, 5:00 pmjack burton says:
Network, eh?
When they get to 10 percent or more of the Christian community like the radical Muslims are instead of the .0001 percent they really are, or when the average Christian becomes unwilling or afraid to criticize the abortionist killers, or when you can find evidence in the Bible for an on-going current killing of those whom Christians disagree with then get back to me with the same question.
April 23, 2011, 5:08 pmShould we stifle freedom of speech for fear of muslims? - Page 6 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum says:
[...] [...]
April 23, 2011, 5:13 pmOctavian says:
Why?
April 23, 2011, 5:16 pmJackson says:
When the Pope starts issuing Fatwas for blasphemy or other mortal sins, maybe that argument has some merit. However, such Fatwas are frequently issued by prominent “well-respected” Imams that enjoy huge numbers of adherents.
Yep, every religion or organization is going to have their fair-share of nuts, crazy and loons. Islam, it seems, has well-more than their fair share, and the ones that they do have are particularly violent and OFTEN enjoy popular support. Tiller, OTOH, was roundly criticized and condemned even by the most vocal anti-abortion advocates.
Islam suffers from institutional problems of violence. Put another way, wherever there is a whole lot of Islam goin’ on, there seems to be a whole lot of violence as well – violence specifically in the name of Islam.
Exhibit A.
http://volokh.com/2010/11/12/death-sentence-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan/
April 23, 2011, 5:18 pmOur government doesn’t think Muslims are human but doesn’t recognize them for what they are. | World's Only Rational Man says:
[...] Terry Jones was jailed for refusing to surrender his First Amendment rights. The stunning development came after a Dearborn jury sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace… [...]
April 23, 2011, 5:39 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I am tempted to observe that the assertion that one in ten Muslims (or more) are radicals and/or terrorists is worthy of ridicule. But I suppose it depends on the filter used. For example, if you apply a standard that would categorize every anti-abortion advocate (who deems a majority of Americans to be evil, cold-blooded murderers) as a radical, too, perhaps your assertion could have merit.
April 23, 2011, 6:27 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I had a good seat for the Dover (classroom science) case.
April 23, 2011, 6:37 pmjack burton says:
And here is the false comparison that comes so easy to folk like Arthur. An “anti-abortion advocate” is exactly equal, in no way different, from a head-cutting off, actual terrorist.
The genius of Terry Jones is that more and more ordinary people will get to hear the rhetoric of Arthur and his ilk for the first time and have an opportunity to recognize it for the nonsense it is. Jones actions serve double-duty… exposing both the radicals and the Arthurs of the world.
April 23, 2011, 6:38 pmWell Done, Dearborn says:
[...] Pastor Terry Jones is an asshat. Of that there can be no doubt. [...]
April 23, 2011, 6:44 pmJohn Herbison says:
My first blush impression here is that the issuance of an injunction is way off base (at least in the absence of an avenue for immediate appellate review as of right). Upon further reflection, I am less sure. I have not seen the order that the judge in Dearborn issued, so I don’t know how broadly or narrowly it sweeps, but I wonder what bearing Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), may have on the validity of the order.
In that case SCOTUS upheld the validity of a municipal ordinance prohibiting picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual, treating the ordinance as a time, place and manner regulation, notwithstanding the historic status of public streets and sidewalks as traditional public fora.
The Court in Frisby emphasized the governmental interest in protecting residential privacy. I should think that there is a similar interest in protecting peace and quietude near to places of worship (at least while services are ongoing).
Any thoughts among my brethren at the First Amendment bar?
April 23, 2011, 7:09 pmleo marvin says:
I appreciate your feedback and I’ll take it under advisement. I suspect, though, we just fundamentally disagree about what kind of arguments drag down the discourse.
April 23, 2011, 7:09 pmBlue says:
I don’t see how that case is illustrative at all. At a minimum, time, place, and manner restrictions must be content neutral. In addition, the true outrage is that they were imprisoned as a result of the administrative process of seeking a permit.
April 23, 2011, 7:39 pmNathan Shapiro says:
The requirement to post a “peace bond”–even of a nominal amount–because counter protestors may cause a breach of the peace, seems to be in direct contradiction with Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).
April 23, 2011, 7:58 pmMark Field says:
Jack, believe me — this hurts me more than it hurts you:
Jack, engaging in speculation about Judge Somers: “Or perhaps it was the law against offending Muslims that was the greater concern.”
Me: “Yes, the son of missionaries who’s active in the Methodist Church clearly favors Muslims.”
Jack, engaging in random and utterly irrelevant speculation about unrelated people: “I know lots of missionary kids who are disappointments to their parents and the church.”
Me, pointing out Jack’s absurdity: “And these hypothetical other people you claim to know are better evidence regarding Judge Somers than the official site which lists the personal data regarding Judge Somers. Right.”
Jack, blissfully unaware of the irony when compared with his previous speculation regarding Judge Somers: “Do you have some secret knowledge that allows you to know who does and does not “favor” Muslims in their heart.”
Jack, blissfully unaware of his previous reliance on sheer speculation regarding both Judge Somers and persons unrelated to Judge Somers: “I personally go by actions, not posted bios that are designed to make people look good.”
Me, pointing out the contradictions: “You mean you go by actions except for those times when you speculate about secret knowledge, such as “I know lots of missionary kids who are disappointments to their parents and the church.” Or “Or perhaps it was the law against offending Muslims that was the greater concern.”
Jack, now off in never-never land: “ARe you attempting to say that I don’t know lots of MKs?”
I could go on, but it’s really a time of year for charity.
April 23, 2011, 8:46 pmjack burton says:
One of Terry Jones’ Juror’s Confirms It: Muslim Violence Was the Issue
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/04/23/one-of-terry-jones-jurors-confirms-it-muslim-violence-was-the-issue/
April 23, 2011, 8:55 pmjack burton says:
Jack, believe me — this hurts me more than it hurts you:
Well, you proved to the world that you know how cut and paste works… but not much else.
Jack, engaging in speculation about Judge Somers: “Or perhaps it was the law against offending Muslims that was the greater concern.”
Key words here: “speculation” and “perhaps”. Even Mark has to agree that it was “speculation”.
Me: “Yes, the son of missionaries who’s active in the Methodist Church clearly favors Muslims.”
Jack, engaging in random and utterly irrelevant speculation about unrelated people: “I know lots of missionary kids who are disappointments to their parents and the church.”
Now Mark accuses me of “speculation” when he has no clue as to the knowledge that I carry of the MK and their relationship to the parents or the church. Okay, Mark… define your concept of “speculation” and why you accuse me of “speculation” about people that I know well, and intimately (along with their families.)
And if MKs are “unrelated” and “random” let us remember that Mark was the first to bring up the concept of “missionary kid” and how that must influcence his decisionmaking.
Me, pointing out Jack’s absurdity: “And these hypothetical other people you claim to know are better evidence regarding Judge Somers than the official site which lists the personal data regarding Judge Somers. Right.”
And here is Mark, with no evidence whatsoever, accusing me of being a liar. “hypothetical”, “claim” are not arguments in favor of Mark’s side… they are just more accusations without any foundation. No wonder this “hurts” him if he has to review his own pathetic effort.
And note I no where said these MKs were “evidence”. Mark pulled that out of his rearend. I stated a factual idea that being an MK doesn’t always give evidence about which way one was going to act. If Mark wants to argue determination based upon parants occupation let him try.
Jack, blissfully unaware of the irony when compared with his previous speculation regarding Judge Somers: “Do you have some secret knowledge that allows you to know who does and does not “favor” Muslims in their heart.”
Yes, I “speculated”. Mark seems to think he has “knowledge.” I am sure the causal reader can tell the difference as to which is which.
Jack, blissfully unaware of his previous reliance on sheer speculation regarding both Judge Somers and persons unrelated to Judge Somers: “I personally go by actions, not posted bios that are designed to make people look good.”
Well, we know that Mark knows the word “speculation” but I an not really sure he knows the meaning of it. Or the word “sheer.” That means “without foundation” Mark. And I based a foundation on a rather odd ruling from the judge. Mark seems to totally ignore the judge discarded the Constitution in his ruling… which means it might have been based on something else. Mark doesn’t want to think about that, though.
And I think I can safely say with an assurance of knowledge that an MK that has been married 3 times and is now living with a girl half his age is a “disappointment to his parents and his church.” If Mark wants to argue that that is “sheer speculation” he can go for it. Now, that is just one example and I said “lots” but I am not going to bore anyone with a recital of the sins of more people.
Me, pointing out the contradictions: “You mean you go by actions except for those times when you speculate about secret knowledge, such as “I know lots of missionary kids who are disappointments to their parents and the church.” Or “Or perhaps it was the law against offending Muslims that was the greater concern.”
The best I can “speculate” is that Mark was as least 3/4 drunk when he wrote this sentence because it really doesn’t make much sense at all.
Jack, now off in never-never land: “ARe you attempting to say that I don’t know lots of MKs?”
I think you pretty much answered that question when you started off on “hypothetical other people.” I called it correctly, eh.
I could go on, but it’s really a time of year for charity.
Give it a break, old man. You tried hard but it is too easy to Fisk you.
April 23, 2011, 9:15 pmRagebot says:
Jones may have made the decision based on STM allowing more leeway for public statements than the ACLU would allow, or at least that is what Jones thought. I suspect even you would agree that STM is more in line with Jones’ position than the ACLU.
Also keep in mind that the ACLU has already filed a friend of the court brief which did not do Jones much good. There seems to be some agreement that this is not really a hard case from the 1A standpoint, not to mention questionable action by the DA.
If any money changes hands over this case I would also bet Jones would rather see it go to STM than ACLU.
Is there any doubt in your mind that what ever happens in this case the court will be swamped by friend of the court briefs, probably including one from the ACLU?
April 23, 2011, 9:19 pmjack burton says:
But you see, the STM is full of Christians and Arthur’s bigotry automatically forces his to assume that means “second rate.”
April 23, 2011, 9:35 pmMark Field says:
Jack, you’ll make a perfect contributor to FreeRepublic.
April 23, 2011, 10:18 pmjack burton says:
As a concession note this ranks about 5.5… not bad but not really gracious either. Kinda average. :-)
April 23, 2011, 10:31 pmMac says:
You’re kidding, right?
April 23, 2011, 10:41 pmMac says:
Haven’t looked at the polling that has been conducted in the Muslim community here and abroad, have you? Didn’t think so. You would never want a fact to get in the way of your beliefs.
April 23, 2011, 10:44 pmMac says:
And, you call Birthers and the Tea Party crazy? I bet you still think Dan Rather was right about the faked Bush National Guard paper and the whole National Guard thing. Tell me, Arthur, was Bush in on 9/11?
April 23, 2011, 10:51 pmOrenWithAnE says:
The situation for criminal cases is a bit different than the one for civil ones.
That said, I don’t know the contours of MI (and US) law regarding the forcible appointment of counsel for defendants that do not want representation and (perhaps) refuse to raise a correct defense.
It is, but it demonstrates that PUBLIC PLACE is not the appropriate criterion to judge whether a particular action is protected by the 1A or not.
That is to say, the statement “The court’s restriction of Jones’ protest is unlawful because it forbids him from a public place” gets the first clause right and the second clause wrong. It’s no more correct that “The sea looks blue because both words contain the letter ‘e’”.
The restriction is unlawful because it is based on the content of his speech. It has nothing to do with PUBLIC PLACES.
Then can you explain why you molested all those children?
I mean, it wasn’t many Muslims/Christians that killed/molested but if you are going to judge, at least we get to see you judged too.
[ Hmm, I wonder who said that. ]
April 23, 2011, 11:31 pmjack burton says:
1) I am not the one who said ““The court’s restriction of Jones’ protest is unlawful because it forbids him from a public place”, and indeed, I am not sure anyone said it. Perhaps someone did. But I would suspect that forbidding someone from doing an otherwise legal activity from a specific pubic place needs a lot more than just “we don’t like you” which is what we have here. I believe the order is not that he cannot protest on the place, but that he cannot be on it at all, for ANY reason, even to take a stroll through the city.
2) Molested children? That really is the best you can do, eh.
3) The New Testament is full of encouragement and admonitions for Christians to judge in all kinds of situations. I understand that you probably wouldn’t know that. The bar is against judging unwisely or hypocritically.
But you still haven’t explained why you think the Muslims that killed the innocents overseas are so different that they have to be labeled, in your eyes, a “third party” from the greater Muslim community. YOU are the one who brought up “third party.” I understand your reluctance to now try to explain it, and your desire to send everyone down the rabbit hole of “child molestation” but it ain’t going to work.
April 23, 2011, 11:57 pmTerry Jones Gets Convicted of a Thought Crime. Has It Come to This? ‹ Right Across the Atlantic says:
[...] offended by perfectly acceptable speech. Hopefully the judgements are reversed, as Eugene Volokh speculates they might be. tags | detroit + Freedom of Speech + Muslims + terry jones + thought crimes [...]
April 24, 2011, 12:15 amneurodoc says:
So, you’re over there with Leo at Sarcastro’s not-the-Algonquin Table endorsing his stream of sarcasm posts? That is:
Awesome, dudes! You guys really make those you see as ignorant “Islamophobes” (who exactly?) look like morons with those finely honed barbs. Maybe if Orin Kerr would see this, he would change his mind. http://volokh.com/posts/1165813933.shtml
April 24, 2011, 1:02 amMatthew Carberry says:
Sarcasm and satire are delicate things…
Being sarcastic or satirical without just being a jerk even moreso.
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4534
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4605
April 24, 2011, 1:14 amOrenWithAnE says:
Because they are separate individuals, each imbued with the same free will as anyone else. They no more speak for Muslims here than the Christians in Lebanon speak for the Christians in Algeria or the Jews in France for the Jews in Canada.
April 24, 2011, 2:01 amNM Kerr says:
Why surrender to an incompetent thug because he wears robes?
He could have done that but in the US he has no need to do so.
April 24, 2011, 4:22 amBreakfast Scramble: Don’t mess the chicks in Baltimore says:
[...] Legal analysis, courtesy Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy. [...]
April 24, 2011, 6:02 amKazinski says:
Jone’s skirt was too short?
Even if you take the facts as alleged by the prosecutor, with not defense from Jones, he still should have won.
The real question is why are the Judge and the Prosecutor so prejudiced against Muslims, that they fear they can’t act in a civilized manner? They should get some diversity training.
April 24, 2011, 6:47 amPuppet Pastor | NewsReal Blog says:
[...] Our media and our government is desperately trying to make us believe that an American pastor is somehow responsible for turning otherwise peaceful Muslims into bloodthirsty killers. We are to believe that he is somehow forcing Muslims to riot and to kill when he burns a Koran or when he plans to protest a mosque. This man, Terry Jones, has been called every name in the book by those who never make a peep about the very threat that Jones is trying to warn us about. The latest and absolute greatest outrage in this story is how Jones was jailed this week in Dearborn, Michigan, because of his plans to demonstrate outside the largest Islamic Center in the United States. More on that story here. [...]
April 24, 2011, 8:46 amOrenWithAnE says:
If the defense does not raise a particular claim, the judge does not consider it and the jury is not instructed to deliberate on it. How then, should he have won?
[ I should add, I have not read the transcript so I don't know for a factual matter whether his defense did not raise important issues and, generally, the quality of his self-representation. Hence the leading if of my comment needs to be taken quite literally. ]
April 24, 2011, 11:09 amRagebot says:
I thought the all powerful and all seeing ACLU filed a friend of the court brief on Jones’ behalf. If that is the case all the ACLU fanboys will have a hard time explaining how Jones lose, even if his pro se effort was lacking.
Wouldn’t the judge have to consider the points in the ACLU friend of the court brief even if all Jones did in his own defense was blow his nose?
April 24, 2011, 11:38 amjpeditor says:
The fact that criticism of islam provokes riots by muslims in America is THE POINT OF CONDEMNING ISLAM IN AMERICA. Muslims will not abide by our Constitution, they will only use our system to subvert us.
April 24, 2011, 2:08 pmtreii28 says:
Here’s what I’m seeing. He’s not being held responsible for ‘the actions of other people’. He’s being held responsible for the ‘potential actions of other people’. Everyone is screaming 1st amendment! They should be pointing to 5 & 6 and perhaps re-visiting the movie/story ‘Minority Report’.
April 24, 2011, 3:00 pmPrior restraint « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] court in Dearborn, Michigan has forbidden Terry Jones to protest in front of mosque. When he refused to agree, he was briefly thrown in jail! [...]
April 24, 2011, 5:33 pmNM Kerr says:
That he was even in court is a fault in the system, that a judge didn’t throw the case out upon hearing th e charges is a fault in the system, the the DA is still employed and still has a law license is a fault of the system
April 24, 2011, 7:19 pmManju says:
The irony here is, in order to reach the conclusion that Jones’ protest will breach the peace or incite violence, one must believe the above quote. After all, if Muslim Americans behave as Christian ones did after their crucifix was submerged in urine, why bother outlawing the protest? Hell, you could federally finance it.
But the State believes otherwise. This strikes me as a more subtle, but arguably more sinister form of bigotry than what you see above. This bigotry goes so far that it assumes Muslims lack autonomy.
Even if one were to believe there was a high chance of Muslims initiating violence in response to the Pastor’s vile protest, to assign the responsibility of controlling one’s behavior to the one planning non-violent action, reveals a belief that Muslims Americans lack the autonomy we assume in Christian ones. As if they are animals or something.
April 24, 2011, 10:39 pmzuch says:
Still later update: Terry Jones “accidentally” discharged a pistol into the floor of his car. Police say that no crime was commited … being dumber than a pithed frog not being criminal apparently at this time. At what point does “a danger to himself or others” kick in? At the very least his CCW ought to be yanked.
FWIW, Jones reminds me of some of the lucky winners of Art Buchwald’s “Stupidest Gun Owners” awards.
Cheers,
April 25, 2011, 12:25 amManju says:
What would be the motive to do it on purpose? More attention? Get the gun lobby on his side?
Would’ve been funnier to put pistol in quotes.
April 25, 2011, 1:44 amMatthew Carberry says:
zuch is right, there are no “accidental” firings of modern guns, only unintended and negligent.
If it “goes off” it means you had your finger on the trigger when your sights were not on a target, which means you violated Rule 3 (or had a crappy holster which you allowed to pull the trigger on holstering, which is no better).
Since he happened to be pointing the gun in a safe direction (as safe as you can get in a car anyway) he was following Rule 2.
So, careless gun handling, albeit caused by the need to disarm to go into the TV station (a gun left in the holster can’t go off, making people handle guns (disarm/rearm) actually decreases safety), but not “negligent” as by following Rule 2 the likelihood of anyone being injured was very low.
April 25, 2011, 2:01 amDue credit to Muslims for sending the right message on Terry Jones — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen says:
[...] Mr. Walid and other moderate Muslims got the messaging basically right here. (See also here, here, and [...]
April 25, 2011, 3:31 ampdxnag says:
Was the Detroit swat team on the roof of the mosque?
It would be just one twitchy finger from a public execution of Jones. This resembles the Syrian snipers firing on protesters to get them to disperse, without any genuine accountability for either the individual shooter or the government that extends immunity to the shooter.
Whom would they place in their sights? The Jones’ folks or the ones who have threatened to harm Jones?
Could the shooter claim it was an accident?
Would such a placement, even in a time of “war,” meet the definition of a war crime? Or at least make the Mosque a legitimate target? Freedom really can be a fragile thing, depending upon whom gets declared an enemy of the state.
April 25, 2011, 10:15 amloki13 says:
A few points (since I really don’t want to get involved, again, in the whole Islam angle, and the First Amendment angle is pretty clear)-
1. While technically, any handling of a gun would decrease safety, that isn’t a very good argument to make. Routine handling of a gun should never result in a discharge of the firearm. I don’t own a gun, but the vast majority of my family are responsible gun owners (including one who is particularly proud of a pre-ban automatic rifle- I apologize if my terminology is incorrect). They have never handled their weapons negligently, and never “accidentally” fired them.
2. Speaking of blaming the victim, while I support Second Amendment rights (although perhaps not as fully as some on this blog), I never thought I’d see someone on a libertarian blog blame a property owner for exercising his property rights. :)
April 25, 2011, 10:22 amOrenWithAnE says:
When it’s convenient, why not?
pdxnag Perhaps you should read TN v. Garner.
April 25, 2011, 11:23 amzuch says:
Hey, just repeating what the story said. I believe it quite possible this is true. As I said, the guy’s dumber than a stump (and lucky he didn’t plunk a hole in his own ‘floorboard’).
Cheers,
April 25, 2011, 11:32 amrichard40 says:
Wrong. Why should he have to. When neo Nazis marched in Skokie, the Jews there were told by the courts that the Nazis had 1st amendment rights, and they just had to take it. More recently, we were told that a group could demonstrate at the burials of US soldiers. Demonstrators could insult the Virgin Mary or the Pope in front of a Catholic church. All that is free speech, but demonstyrate near a mosque, no cant possibly have that.
This is grossly wrong. The gov has no right to prior restraint of speech because others might react violently to it. You suppress the violence, not the speech. This jury and judge were a pack of idiots. Hopefully this crazy decision will soon be vacated on appeal.
The case sets the most destructive precedent possible. Now we know from this case that if the Jews in Skokie had been willing to riot and kill people, they would have had no problem, and the gov would have used force to stop the rally. Dont like Tea Party rallies, just start constant riots when they happen, and the court will ban Tea Party rallies. Dont like union rallies, same solution. Gov censorship and permissable speech will be determined by whichever group is willing to use violence to stop that speech. And if you use violence often enough, then you no longer need to violently stop the speech, the gov will do it for you
There is also a pretty gross double standard here. We constantly heard how the gov had no authority to stop the ground zero mosque, no matter how offended many people were by it. But now, this pastor must be stopped because the Moslems might be offended. The difference, Moslems react with violence, Christians don’t. Lesson, violence pays.
April 25, 2011, 11:52 amADF Alliance Alert » Pastor Terry Jones Jailed, Apparently for Refusing to Promise Not to Demonstrate in Front of a Mosque says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy reports here. [...]
April 25, 2011, 12:19 pmManju says:
He was probably driving a stickshift when his pistol went off. Probably just didn’t want anyone to know about his tranny.
April 25, 2011, 6:32 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Loki,
Nuance and precision please.
I criticized the station for a dumb (cannot be shown to increase safety for station employees and visitors as only the law-abiding will comply and they almost certainly lack any method to check if someone with bad intent is carrying anyway) rule that thus unecessarily creates chances for negligent discharges to occur by requiring unnecessary handling.
That’s different from “blaming” them for justly, however stupidly, exercising their property rights.
Further, I did not defend his poor gun handling. However, people are human and, just as no one should ever be so careless as to contribute to an ‘accident’ while driving it will happen.
At that point it is wise to look at what went wrong, including all relevent contextual factors, in the first place to prevent repetition. You can also note what was done right to minimize the harm.
In the case of a car “accident”, “at least they weren’t speeding.” In the case of an ND, “at least it was pointed in a safe direction”.
(And it’s most likely a pre-ban semi-auto rifle, not a (full) auto)
April 25, 2011, 7:21 pmloki13 says:
Matthew Carberry,
First, I don’t think the lawful exercise of a property owner’s rights are stupid, especially when you weigh them against the possible idiocy of someone else. Is it “stupid” of me to keep people from chewing bubble gum in my house just because an idiot might choke on it while removing it? Someone who respects guns doesn’t accidentally fire it while moving it. As I said, I respect gun rights, but the way to advance them is not to tell people that they should take into negligent gun owners when it comes to their property rights. If that was the case, then more property owners should ban guns from their premises because idiots might have to move them around while they’re on their property and accidentally discharge them. I don’t think we’re in much disagreement here- but you shouldn’t blame the property owners for idiots. You’re getting awfully close to being a torts lawyer. :) (This is a separate issue for lobbying for gun owners to be allowed to carry their weapons on public property, which I support)
Also, I appreciate the correction wrt. the semi-auto, but it doesn’t fully jibe with what I remember. I’ll just leave it at that…
April 26, 2011, 10:23 amJaimeInTexas says:
How come that Jones is required to post a bond for being accused of intending to burn a Qur’an but, the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn’s spokesman/cleric that claims possible violence erupting is not required to post a “breach of the peace” bond?
Whoever says that Muslims do not destroy Bibles does not know much. Plus, what is worse burning Bibles or burning Christians, which some Muslims do?
April 26, 2011, 3:29 pmMatthew Carberry says:
loki,
I can’t argue with your point about criticizing property owners (dammit! =)).
If your relative has a pre-’86 (Hughes Amendment closure of the registry) full auto kudos to them. Those things are worth more and more every year.
April 26, 2011, 5:24 pmMichigan Muslim Exception to the First Amendment | U.S. Copts Association says:
[...] which is an unconstitutional restriction of speech, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokhpredicts that the case will be overturned upon further review. In itsamicus brief on behalf of the pastors, [...]
April 26, 2011, 9:39 pmChem_Geek says:
Well, he got his riot, proving the Wayne county prosecutor correct.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110429/NEWS02/110429057/1004/Terry-Jones-provokes-counter-protesters-who-swarm-barricade
May 1, 2011, 2:33 pmIt’s Time to Take a Stand for Free Speech « The Reality of Islam says:
[...] with an April, two-person protest in front of a mosque in Dearborn, MI, city officials successfully brought him to court, threw him in jail for not paying a “peace bond”, and banished him [...]
May 3, 2011, 12:17 amDue credit to Muslims for sending the right message on Terry Jones says:
[...] that Mr. Walid and other moderate Muslims got the messaging basically right here. (See also here, here, and [...]
May 5, 2011, 12:40 am