http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/us-protest-mosque-idUSTRE73K8ID20110422

Check out the story in the above link.

Terry Jones, the Koran burning dude, was denied a permit to protest in front of a Detroit area mosque, and he has appealed his case, which he is guaranteed to win.  Note, I am no supporter of Jones who is a complete scum bag in its original classical definition.

But anyway... in pleading the opposing case, the Wayne County Prosecutor, Robert Moran, stated that "Burning a Koran is worse than burning the cross on a church or painting a swastika on a synagogue".  Clear sign that the government, at least in the Detroit area, has a huge pro-Muslim bias. (Or he is just pimping the case to get Muslims to vote for him in a future election).

Burning a Koran (which one has purchased and legally owns) is in fact LESS serious than burning the cross on a church or painting a swastika on a synagogue.  Those two acts involve deliberate vandalism of somebody else's property in addition to their symbolic offensiveness, and as such they are clearly illegal acts that are prosecutable.

Burning one's own copy of the Koran is morally offfensive but in fact protected by the United States Constitution.

Time for Prosecutor Moran to read the Constitution.

Local prosecutor fishing favor from a major constituency?  Never heard of such a thang!
::)

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110422/LIFESTYLE04/104220401/Pastor-released-from-jail-after-being-held-on-$1-%E2%80%98peace-bond%E2%80%99
The local judges are in cahoots on this one too.

Take a look at the link, a Detroit News article.  Jones has been enjoined from getting anywhere near that Mosque for the next 3 years.  Mind you, he has been charged with nothing and convicted of nothing.

The Supreme Court has already said he can protest outside funerals.  If he wanted to protest outside a Catholic Church or an abortion clinice he would be allowed to (with a reasonable buffer zone).  But because this involves Muslims the Wayne County courts and prosecutors have thrown the consitutition out the door.

The Federal court is going to make mincemeat of this decision, and all the Wayne County yokels have done is give Jones a huge national platform... precisely what he wants.  There's going to be a king size Koran-burning marshamallow roast in Dearborn some day soon, all thanks to the Wayne County 'justice' system.


LB Note:  I have nothing but contempt for this dude Jones.  But the actions of Wayne County are an offense to all who would dare to protest in the United States. Has Detroit become "Little Tripoli" ? ???  We have sent military people into harm's way in Libya (allegedly) to protect rights of protestation, yet we have local courts doing this sort of thing back home.

Why don't we just rent a trailer and put a sign out front: Queer Muslim Federation.

That'll distract Jones and Phelps into leaving everybody else alone for a while!
:D

If there were anything even vaguely positive to be gained from burning a koran/picketing a mosque, Jones might have a point.  As it is, he's an attention-seeking whore who deserves to have a fatwah taken out on him.

As for it proving some kind of pro-Muslim bias, I'd need more info: in one respect, burning a koran is worse than doing the same to a bible or a cross - it causes more offence to more people.  If it didn't then he wouldn't bother.  But it's still a completely fudgeing stupid thing to be doing.  Even if I do think that those offended by it should grow up - or at least, let their god be the one to take revenge, if he's that concerned about his book being burned.  He is supposed to be all-powerful, right?

If there were anything even vaguely positive to be gained from burning a koran/picketing a mosque, Jones might have a point.  As it is, he's an attention-seeking whore who deserves to have a fatwah taken out on him.

As for it proving some kind of pro-Muslim bias, I'd need more info: in one respect, burning a koran is worse than doing the same to a bible or a cross - it causes more offence to more people.  If it didn't then he wouldn't bother.  But it's still a completely fudgeing stupid thing to be doing.  Even if I do think that those offended by it should grow up - or at least, let their god be the one to take revenge, if he's that concerned about his book being burned.  He is supposed to be all-powerful, right?



The 1st Amendment here in the U. S. of A. does not just grant freedom of speech "if it does not offend people".

Would the Muslims in Dearborn have rioted and furiously uulated at Jones' protest?  I guess we will never know, until maybe a few weeks or months from now when he, and now a huge number of additional people, ultimately mount their LEGAL protest.  If the Muslims had (or do in the future)  caused violence, then the law enforcement officials in Michigan should focus their efforts on the violent Muslims, who, of course, would have been violating the protesters' right to free speech.

"Free speech" does not include yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater

"Free speech" does not include yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater


Unless the Government were to assert a ban on protests outside churches of all denominations (an unlikely event as that too would be unconstitutional) the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy does not work in this case.  To establish some sort of "higher standard" in front of a Moslem facility would be to give Moslems preferential treatment and I'm sure there is a clause in the Constitution that does not allow that either.

If some sort of "imam" wanted to do a protest in front of a Methodist church, you can bet your a$$ that he'd get a permit with no problem whatsoever.

Nazis get to protest in front of synagogues all the time.

KKK dudes get to protest in black areas of town.

But Moslems are somehow special and we can't hurt their feelings?  Sorry I don't buy it.

I will give the judge credit on one aspect though... he knows that the Moslem community can be relied upon to generate mayhem at even the silliest of provocations.  But his methods for dealing with that fact are considerably un-American.  And if he was somehow trying to do a favor for peaceful Moslems, he instead gave them a huge slap in the face and hurt their cause by pretty much coming out and saying that they have no self control.

As much as I think this cat Jones is a complete A-hole, if I lived in Detroit I would take the day off to join in a protest at City Hall (or wherever the judge and prosecutor are located) to vociferously protest their treatment of Jones.

Unless the Government were to assert a ban on protests outside churches of all denominations (an unlikely event as that too would be unconstitutional) the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy does not work in this case.  To establish some sort of "higher standard" in front of a Moslem facility would be to give Moslems preferential treatment and I'm sure there is a clause in the Constitution that does not allow that either.

If some sort of "imam" wanted to do a protest in front of a Methodist church, you can bet your a$$ that he'd get a permit with no problem whatsoever.

Nazis get to protest in front of synagogues all the time.

KKK dudes get to protest in black areas of town.

But Moslems are somehow special and we can't hurt their feelings?  Sorry I don't buy it.

I will give the judge credit on one aspect though... he knows that the Moslem community can be relied upon to generate mayhem at even the silliest of provocations.  But his methods for dealing with that fact are considerably un-American.  And if he was somehow trying to do a favor for peaceful Moslems, he instead gave them a huge slap in the face and hurt their cause by pretty much coming out and saying that they have no self control.

As much as I think this cat Jones is a complete A-hole, if I lived in Detroit I would take the day off to join in a protest at City Hall (or wherever the judge and prosecutor are located) to vociferously protest their treatment of Jones.


You seem unduly upset about what some lawyer from Detroit said about burning the Koran.  I can't remember the last time I saw the Klan march through a Black neighborhood, but I can imagine it would cost a pretty penny in police detail to keep the Klan klowns from getting torn limb from limb.  I dunno.  I'm just not seeing this big pro-Muslim bias.
:-\\

You seem unduly upset about what some lawyer from Detroit about burning the Koran.  I can't remember the last time I saw the Klan march through a Black neighborhood, but I can imagine it would cost a pretty penny in police detail to keep the Klan klowns from getting torn limb from limb.  I dunno.  I'm just not seeing this big pro-Muslim bias.
:-\\


Nor I

Nor I.  Free speech can be curtailed if they constitute fighting words or defamation, and given the backlash these sorts of acts bring about, I'd say this counts as both.

Nor I.  Free speech can be curtailed if they constitute fighting words or defamation, and given the backlash these sorts of acts bring about, I'd say this counts as both.


Your position defies logic.

What you are saying is that by threatening violent acts, I can suppress the Free Speech rights of somebody else.

Does not pass the stink test... 

Your position defies logic.

What you are saying is that by threatening violent acts, I can suppress the Free Speech rights of somebody else.

Does not pass the stink test... 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States


Thank you - karma

The 1st Amendment here in the U. S. of A. does not just grant freedom of speech "if it does not offend people".
Not exactly relevant to the point I was making, but dealt with by others nonetheless.


Would the Muslims in Dearborn have rioted and furiously uulated at Jones' protest?  I guess we will never know, until maybe a few weeks or months from now when he, and now a huge number of additional people, ultimately mount their LEGAL protest.  If the Muslims had (or do in the future)  caused violence, then the law enforcement officials in Michigan should focus their efforts on the violent Muslims, who, of course, would have been violating the protesters' right to free speech.

Personally I think that Muslims here, there and everywhere else should grow up and act like they actually have an all-powerful god behind them.  But their behaviour really does suggest that in their heart of hearts they know that there is no Allah and are desperately trying to cling on to their belief somehow.  Otherwise why do they not say "Insh'a'llah" and leave it up to His will to deal with insults to Islam?

Honestly I think most Muslims in America just wanna be treated as equals and Muslims abroad just want U.S. bases out of their land.


Thank you - karma


Thank you for the karma!  What purpose does it serve, anyway?

Your position defies logic.

What you are saying is that by threatening violent acts, I can suppress the Free Speech rights of somebody else.

Does not pass the stink test... 


Where do I take the stink test?  Do I need a no. 2 pencil?
???

Somebody already linked to Wikipedia "Fighting Words."  It's only illegal if it is a call to definite, immanent lawless action.  You can say "Mayor Joe Schmoe should be shot."  You can't say, "I'm taking my Glock down to City Hall on Friday and shoot Mayor Joe Schmoe." 

Anyway...

If Muslims are to survive in a free society, they have to accept that a-holes like Jones might burn their holy book.  I know it hurts and it's despicable, but the best strategy against Jones is for Muslims to ignore him.  He's only burning the Koran because he knows it will provoke rage among Muslims. 

Where do I take the stink test?  Do I need a no. 2 pencil?
???

Somebody already linked to Wikipedia "Fighting Words."  It's only illegal if it is a call to definite, immanent lawless action.  You can say "Mayor Joe Schmoe should be shot."  You can't say, "I'm taking my Glock down to City Hall on Friday and shoot Mayor Joe Schmoe."  

Anyway...

If Muslims are to survive in a free society, they have to accept that a-holes like Jones might burn their holy book.  I know it hurts and it's despicable, but the best strategy against Jones is for Muslims to ignore him.  He's only burning the Koran because he knows it will provoke rage among Muslims.


1. That was me.

2. That "Mayor Joe Schmo should be shot" rule might be changed in the near future, considering what happened with that Arizona congresswoman.

3. I think actually the problem isn't American Muslims so much as Muslims abroad.  The matter of fact is the acts of violence from American Muslims haven't really happened in response to these sorts of things, and in fact violence in the last decade from Muslims who were born here and not elsewhere are few and far in between (yes obviously many terrorist attacks have been by Muslims living here, but they tend to come here from abroad and live a while before committing those acts).

Thank you for the karma!  What purpose does it serve, anyway?


None at all.  We just use it as a way to say "exceptionally good point" (or exceptionally funny response, or whatever) when it's deserved.  Karma is freely given, but its counterpart - fudge (from the message board filter's euphemism for a certain reproductive act) - pretty much demands that someone cross the line. 

I've earned the -10 points of it I've accumulated over the years, but to put things in perspective, a couple of them were from a motivational poster parody based on a photograph so depressing that its photographer killed himself as an act of karmic debt for having won the Pulitzer for it.

Back on topic, you raise an interesting legal question.  The doctrine of "fighting words" (or similar concepts like "incitement to riot", etc.) applies to anyone in the immediate vicinity of the speech, because such people are (by definition) in the same jurisdiction as the speaker, but I don't think a court has ever had to decide if the concept applies to the incitement of riots outside a court's jurisdiction.

Even governments have tended to be pretty touchy about this.  Even at the height of the Cold War, Reagan didn't say "People of East Germany, rise up and forcibly overthrow your Commie Overlords" (though I'm sure he didn't exactly complain), he said things like "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

To be honest I think that's more an example of diplomatic prudence than avoiding fighting words.  Fighting words, if I have it correctly, implies that saying them would actually rouse someone or some people to actually get up and start physically assaulting someone, such as the speaker.

I've earned the -10 points of it I've accumulated over the years, but to put things in perspective, a couple of them were from a motivational poster parody based on a photograph so depressing that its photographer killed himself as an act of karmic debt for having won the Pulitzer for it.




I was against the forum instituting the fudge counter.  I've racked up -33 and counting.  I think it's encouraged me to be less of a dick.  Less.  But still.  I'm reluctant to hand out fudge points 'coz the more you hand out the more you get.
:P

I was against the forum instituting the fudge counter.  I've racked up -33 and counting.  I think it's encouraged me to be less of a dick.  Less.  But still.  I'm reluctant to hand out fudge points 'coz the more you hand out the more you get.
:P


Shiiiiiiiiiiiiit, I welcome the fudge points.  It means I pissed off someone somewhere.

I was against the forum instituting the fudge counter.  I've racked up -33 and counting.  I think it's encouraged me to be less of a dick.  Less.  But still.  I'm reluctant to hand out fudge points 'coz the more you hand out the more you get.
:P


Yeah, even though you guys have been here longer than I have, how'd you get 33 or Jessica get 51?  I had to try to get my 10.  (For the noobz to this thread, Jessica was here for a few years before her current incarnation that started in 2009.  She pulled fewer punches than I do, but not that many fewer.)

Yeah, even though you guys have been here longer than I have, how'd you get 33 or Jessica get 51?  I had to try to get my 10.   (For the noobz to this thread, Jessica was here for a few years before her current incarnation that started in 2009.  She pulled fewer punches than I do, but not that many fewer.)


I've been here, off and on, since 2000-2001ish. :o

As to the original post, the counter protesters shouted him down, but he said he'll be back.  Here's hoping he gets shouted down again.

Yeah, even though you guys have been here longer than I have, how'd you get 33 or Jessica get 51?  I had to try to get my 10.   (For the noobz to this thread, Jessica was here for a few years before her current incarnation that started in 2009.  She pulled fewer punches than I do, but not that many fewer.)


There are catty grudges you see on boards where you don't out.  That might be where a nice gal like Jessica racked up so many fudge points.  I got most of mine for acting like Dennis Leary with hemorrhoids!
::)

There are catty grudges you see on boards where you don't out.  That might be where a nice gal like Jessica racked up so many fudge points.  I got most of mine for acting like Dennis Leary with hemorrhoids!
::)


Again, I reiterate my original point.  I did the dame samn thing, repeatedly.  I mean, I didn't tap-dance on it, I've been known to positively stomp on the land mine, and what do I have to show for it?  A mere ten points, and only one post that had to be taken down!  I don't know whether to be embarassed for my cowardice or grateful for the mercy of my fellow 00zers.