U.S. pastor says he will put Mohammed 'on trial' next (& plans protest outside biggest Mosque in US)

[Turborama]

Source: The Daily Mail

Despite clear evidence that his actions have led to multiple murders and widespread violence in the Middle East, controversial Florida pastor Terry Jones has vowed to step up his provocative campaign against Islam.

The radical pastor said that he was considering putting Islamic prophet Mohammed 'on trial' for his next 'day of judgement' publicity stunt.

=snip=

But the vilified pastor remains unrepentant about his actions, and has even hinted that he will take his provocative stance further. He said in an interview today: 'It is definitely a consideration to stage a trial on the life of Mohammed in the future.'

=snip=

But Mr Jones shows no signs of backing down, refusing to admit the violence is his fault, and apparently proud of his actions.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372827/Terry-Jones-says-It-indented-stir-pot-Koran-burning-sparks-second-wave-violence-leaving-10-dead-78-hurt.html

---

He also admits in that interview: "It was intended to stir the pot... ...Did our action provoke them? Of course."

These freely given confessions of guilt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)">legally make him an accessory to murder!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Koran-burning pastor unbowed, vows new anti-Islam protest

YUSILA RAMIREZ
GAINESVILLE, FLA.— Reuters
Published Saturday, Apr. 02, 2011 8:31PM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Apr. 02, 2011 8:36PM EDT

A militant fundamentalist Christian preacher in Florida whose burning of a Koran triggered deadly riots in Afghanistan was unrepentant on Saturday and defiantly vowed to lead an anti-Islam protest outside the biggest mosque in the United States.

The planned demonstration could further inflame tensions over the Koran burning, which led to two days of protests in Afghanistan that included the killings of U.N. staff and stoked anti-Western sentiment in parts of the Muslim world.

Mr. Jones, a former hotel manager turned pastor who claims the Koran incites violence, said he will go ahead with a protest on April 22 in front of the largest mosque in the United States, located in Dearborn, Michigan.

U.S. President Barack Obama denounced the act of burning a Koran but did not mention Mr. Jones by name.

Full article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/koran-burning-pastor-unbowed-vows-new-anti-islam-protest/article1968648/

[pnwmom]

1. And the freedom of speech we have in this country allows him to do that.

This is where our values are sorely tested.

[sabrina 1]

5. He has now admitted that he intended to provoke violence.

He also admits in that interview: "It was intended to stir the pot... ...Did our action provoke them? Of course."

And he is now guilty of a pre-meditated act which he intends to also cause violence.

This is NOT protected speech. Sorry. He has now taken away the argument all those defending him have made on his behalf. That he could not have known that his actions would result in violence.

Apparently he not only knew, he planned it. Not protected speech anymore. He, however appears to be protected.

Hopefully the media will do a little research into his background and his associations now.

[Paradoxical]

8. Provocation is still far within the realm of free speech.

[sabrina 1]

13. Then why is an Islamic preacher not afforded the same protections?

Why did the POTUS issue an assassination order for an Islamic Preacher who it is claimed, may have incited the Texas man who killed U.S. troops and the Underwear Bomber to go blow up a plane?

Is there a difference because of their religious beliefs? I do not believe speech that incites violence against others is protected. See the Islamic Preacher.

[Paradoxical]

15. Selective morality. Racism. etc.

An islamic preacher can preach the same bullshit. In fact, there is a group in New York City that does exactly that almost every day.

Like I said, provocation is not inherently illegal speech.

I could say "Jews are dirty cockroaches and they should be exterminated."

That is completely protected speech.

[sabrina 1]

35. I am speaking about this man:

Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki is an eloquent Muslim cleric who has turned the Web into a tool for extremist indoctrination. Mr. Awlaki is perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States. The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of Mr. Awlaki, who is in hiding in Yemen.

Mr. Awlaki, born in New Mexico in 1971, served as an imam in California and Virginia. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked through e-mails with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009 and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25. He also had ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers although the nature of association remains unclear.

And according to the article, he has done nothing more than preach:

Mr. Awlaki has never been accused of planting explosives himself, but terrorism experts believe his persuasive endorsement of violence as a religious duty, in colloquial, American-accented English, has helped push a series of Western Muslims into terrorism.

So, why is he not protected by the 1st Amendment? Provocative speech is really all he is accused of?

[Bragi]

39. Where does Jones advocate violence?

So I gather Awlaki runs afoul of U.S law because he engages in advocating violence against the U.S.

How is this similar to Jones, who is condemning a religion, and has not called on anyone to commit any acts of violence, particularly any acts of violence against the U.S?

I think this analogy fails.

[sabrina 1]

54. Well, tell that to those who are claiming that we can say

anything we want in this country, including advocating violence so long as we do not engage in it.

And Jones is now advocating violence. Once he was told that his behavior was a threat to U.S. troops, he knew that what he was doing was likely to end in violence. Now, he knows for certain that it has. Just as Awlaki knew his words could result in violence. He too denies being responsible for the acts of others.

So what if he advocated violence, it is those who committed the acts who are responsible. That is the argument being made here on DU. And since that is the argument, then Awlaki should also be protected. But he isn't.

[Bragi]

60. I disagree profoundly

You seem to think that free speech rights should be limited if they might rile up a group that may become violent, lawless and crazy at some vague future point.

I don't think many would agree with you on that. I doubt many people want to see the limits of their free speech rights defined by groups that are violent, lawless and crazy.

[sabrina 1]

85. No, the U.S. Government is who thinks that 'free speech rights

should be limited if they might rile up a group that may become violent, lawless and crazy at some vague future point'. I believe I just gave you one example of that.

Alwaki did not engage in any violent acts even according to the government. He engaged in violent TALK! SPEECH! That is all. He is NOT responsible for the actions of others. THEY are. And if we do not want our rights decided by groups that are violent and crazy, then why are we allowing that to happen?

Why has this president issued an order to assassinate this man for SPEECH?? You did not address that at all.

[pnwmom]

87. Who says the President gave an order to assassinate this man?

Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

[leftynyc]

154. The President has issued an assasination order?

I'd like a link to that please.

[joeglow3]

159. So, if Tea Baggers go nuts from liberal speak, are we banned from discussing liberal ideas?

That is your logic and I certainly hope you don't think that to be true. Again, this is where your belief in the Constitution is tested.

[pnwmom]

77. Jones is not advocating violence against PEOPLE. He burned a book

but didn't call for any human being to be harmed.

Awlaki, a follower of the book, does call for violence against people.

[CarmanK]

57. Jones murdered 17 people. His speech wasn't free, was it?

It's just that the preacher is a leader of the Baptist Church murder arm. It is time for the so called Baptists to get rid of this evil, he is poisoning their message and Jesus of Nazareth would be appalled at his behavior.

[pnwmom]

74. He murdered no one. All he did was burn a book, on the claim

that the book advocates violence against others.

Then, some of the followers of the book murdered 17 people.

[cali]

110. uh, no. he burned a book. it was a vile act by a vile little man

under our laws his act was protected.

[leftynyc]

155. Jones burned a book

That makes him an asshole, not a murderer.

[DiverDave]

Oh give me a fucking break

Where does Jones advocate violence?

Are you for real?

He KNOWS that people will get hurt, and killed, if he does this crap.

I have a question for him:
Why does he hate our troops?
Because,by his actions, many more will be killed by fanatics that will do it, not only because they are american solders, but in response to this freak.

So where does he advocate violence? EVERYWHERE!

And your question was pretty unbelievable also.

[pnwmom]

81. Is freedom of speech in the U.S. now supposed to be limited

by how fanatics in another country may respond?

Did you also think the Danish cartoonist should have been prevented from drawing his cartoons of Mohammed because they might inflame someone in another country? Should Salman Rushdie be muzzled, too?

Where do you think we should draw the line? Wherever some fanatic might take offense?

[pnwmom]

72. We don't know that Obama has authorized his killing.

But if Obama has, the reason is that the Islamic preacher is calling for violence against other people. The most Jones has done so far is advocate book burning.

[sabrina 1]

80. Ah, the goalposts move now.

So what if he's calling for violence? That is still just SPEECH! It is protected by the 1st Amendment. I have been told this over and over again on DU.

Jones' speech is NO different. It is incitement to violence. And now his speech has resulted in violence. He has admitted it and he is threatening to 'stir up the pot' again, to get more people killed.

How odd that you would defend one and not the other.

[pnwmom]

84. Show me where he's calling for violence against people.

A book, even a so-called Holy Book, is just a thing -- no matter which religion claims the book. Calling for a book to be burned is not equivalent to advocating violence against people.

[sabrina 1]

88. I'll try to explain this assuming you are serious in your

claims to be totally ignorant of what this man Jones is doing.

Let's say you have a neighbor. You know your neighbor loved his dog. His dog is long dead but he once told you how much he loved it. You hate your neighbor. You try to figure out to hurt him. So you get a photo of his dog. You make an announcement that you are going to burn his dog's photo in public.

But, you are just innocent right? You're not trying to do anything except burn a stupid photo. A photo is not a dog. Why should anyone be upset? And of course you were not trying to provoke anything, just exercising your 1st Amendment rights.

And if the neighbor lashed out and punched a friend of yours you would then say 'well, I meant to get him riled up. And now I'm going to get a photo of his wife and put her on trial, for prostitution'. And your defenders would say, yeah, go ahead, a photo of his wife is just a thing. It's not his real wife, it's just a photo. If he gets upset over it, he's a nutcase'.

I can't believe anyone has to explain any of this. Especially to progressives.

Sad, sad country we live in.

Jones is not an aberration.

He very well represents this country.

He is who we are.

[sabrina 1]

90. I wouldn't waste the time. I have come to realize something

over the past few days. Jones represents this country. This country is filled with people like him. Not just on the right, but on the left also. I don't know why it took me so long. And I know why the rest of the world hates us now. I kept thinking we were better, but thank YOU and a few others for waking me up.

I'm going to a party now so I'll leave to your defense of one our own. A 1st Amendment hero! I expect to see a statue of him somewhere one day. That is how low we have sunk.

[pnwmom]

95. Didn't you support the right of people to burn the flag during Vietnam war protests?

Don't you understand that that is the same kind of protected speech?

Freedom of speech doesn't include just nice, polite speech. It includes rude, nasty, and disturbing speech -- exactly the speech that others would seek to stop. As I said in my first post, this incident with Jones sorely tests our values. Are we for free speech or aren't we?

[sabrina 1]

100. Are we for speech that gets people killed or not?

Are we for speech that libels and slanders people?

Are we for speech that allows verbal abuse against women by their abusive spouses?

Maybe we have a lot of questions we need to ask ourselves as to what kind of country we want to be.

[pnwmom]

101. The speech, as despicable as it was, didn't get anyone killed.

The killers exercised their free will when they chose to kill.

Saying that Jones is even partially responsible implies that the killings were at least partially justified -- by what he did or said.

[sabrina 1]

105. Good, then you disagree with President Obama's assassination

order against Islamic preacher, Awlaki. His speech, hateful though it was, didn't kill anyone. The people who killed are responsible, all he did was TALK!

No, I do not agree with the assassination order, that too is reprehensible. We have laws in this country. However, I do believe however hateful speech is a weapon used to incite others to commit violent acts and it is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Awlaki should be charged and tried, not assassinated, if it is true that he deliberately incited violence.

Some speech is not protected. This man Jones, has now admitted he got what he wanted. There really is no way to defend him anymore. I care about the innocent people he got killed and the ones he's planning on getting killed. He is a vile, evil human being and it's a shame to see so many people trying to defend him even after his public admission of having accomplished his goal.

[pnwmom]

107. I keep asking but you've never shown me any proof that Obama

ordered anyone's assassination.

Some speech may not be protected, but Jone's speech clearly is. There are no possible charges against him under either state or federal law. If you think there are, please site them.

[stockholmer]

109. here's your proof,which you know quite well existed-Barack Obama orders killing of US cleric Awlaki

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations


Obama gives order to kill American terror imam
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7089899.ece

[pnwmom]

134. I agree with you that no US President, including Obama,

should be ordering the assassination of US citizens whether abroad or in the US.

That said, what Awlaki is accused of has nothing to do with Jones' case. This has nothing to do with free speech. Awlaki is accused of being actively involved in the 911 plotting. And plotting to murder people has never been a protected form of speech.

Burning a book, on the other hand, is similar to burning a flag -- and the Supreme Court determined long ago that this was a protected form of speech.

[stockholmer]

136. I agree w/ the free speech position you take,just wanted to clear up Obama 'did he or didnt he issue

cheers

[sabrina 1]

138. He is 'accused' with not a shred of evidence. Until

now he was not accused of anything but influencing others by his speech. In fact if you read the link I provided above, that is all he is actually known to be guilty of, making incendiary speeches. Based on that, with nothing but as of now, baseless accusations, an order of assassination was issued against him.

We have a judicial system for a reason. It's interesting that you accept mere, and pretty recent accusations as grounds for silencing this preacher, but do not accept accusations against Jones. Both are merely that, accusations. And without a judicial process there is nothing, other than both of them speaking hatefully, to prove either guilty of anything other than that.

You proclaim to support the constitutional rights of all citizens, yet without granting Awlaki any of HIS Constitutional rights you state that 'plotting to murder people has never been a protected form of speech'. How do you know he plotted to murder people when the government itself admitted they did not know what involvement he had, and up 'til recently admitted he was not known to have actually been involved in any terrorist attacks.

Awlaki is as innocent of the accusations now being made against him, according to our Constitution, as Jones is of any such accusations made against him. If we really do believe in the Constitution.

[Bragi]

118. Actually, I do disagree with that assassination order

However, this does not prevent me from seeing the significant differences between the Awlaki and the Jones cases.

[crim son]

125. Sabrina, you won't win this one.

A person can be prosecuted for libel but not for something like Jones' actions. We have "news" like the shit spewed by POX which misinforms and does terrible damage to our country, but that's just fine. The country is full of callous idiots at whose mercy you and other good people are allowed to exist. Go U.S.A.

[sabrina 1]

131. Thank you, crim son I understand that. It is a sad thing though that

a tool that was meant to do so much good, is taken and used to cause so much harm. The FFs did not go into detail when they added the 1st Amendment. I would love to know what they would think of how it is so abused, used by vindictive people to deliberately hurt others?

I imagine they realized it would happen and left it to us to figure out.

This country has a lot of thinking to do about what kind of place we want it to be. The FFs responded to the times they lived in and tried to project into the future as much as they could. And imo, they did a fantastic job. They trusted the people to guard it and use it properly. People like Jones and those who insist on ignoring and disrespecting the cultures of others (it's just a book) undo all the work they did by using their work to do so much harm.

Anyhow, thank you for your thoughts :-)

[Turborama]

137. I've been looking up accessory to murder and mens rea

They both seem to cover Jones' admission of guilt....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#United_States">'Accessory'- Legal Term in the US

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting">Aiding and abetting

The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime:

(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

A person may be convicted of aiding and abetting any act made criminal under the code. The elements of aiding and abetting are, generally:

(1) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused ( the mens rea);
(2) the commission of an offense by someone; and
(3) the defendant assisted or participated in the commission of the offense (the actus reus).

So I went and looked up mens rea and it seems his admission of guilt really would stand up in a court of law...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States">Mens rea - United States

Title 18 of the United States Code does not have a culpability scheme but relies on more traditional definitions of crimes taken from common law. For example, malice aforethought is used as a requirement for committing capital murder.

Model Penal Code

Prior to the 1960s, mens rea in the United States was a very slippery, vague and confused concept. Since then, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout North America in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability.

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.

Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.

Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.

Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.

There's also this, with regards to aiding and abetting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting">United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal

Where the term "principal" refers to any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense.

For a successful prosecution, the provision of "aiding and abetting" must be considered alongside the crime itself, although a defendant can be found guilty of aiding and abetting an offense even if the principal is found not guilty of the crime itself. In all cases of aiding and abetting, it must be shown a crime has been committed, but not necessarily who committed it. It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed, that he does, through his own act or omission, as he would do if he wished for a criminal venture to succeed. Under this statute, anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act himself. This is distinct from the concept of being an accessory after the fact, a charge distinct from being a principal.

BTW this is an OT announcement but I wanted to share. I am now carrying out a zero tolerance campaign against Terry Jones apologists. Each and every single one of them that I see are instantly put on full Ignore, permanently. Safe to say that list has grown exponentially over the past 24 hours and I can see hardly any threads supporting him anymore.

I think what finally pushed me over the edge was seeing a valid comment someone made about how everyone (including myself) was up in arms when Giffords was shot and were, rightfully, casting blame on Palin et al but now this has happened suddenly everyone's jumping to Jones' defense. The comment that poster made was something along the lines of, "is it because they're Muslim now?" (I can PM you a link to it, if you'd like?)

I know you never do this but after all these months of it it is making me feel astonished and furious every time I come here and I've finally had enough and have decided to go for a big purge. I had a couple on before and I always knew who "Ignored" was, or at least could make a safe guess, and would sometimes take them off to see what they'd said. Now there are so many I really don't have a clue and going past the point of no return is more liberating than I thought it would be.

Thank goodness there are wonderful people like you who can handle it for longer than people like me.

:hi: :yourock:


I've come back to thoroughly recommend watching this. Ignore the title, the video itself has the best analysis I've seen so far: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x569488

[sabrina 1]

152. Hi Turborama, that is great information and I personally think

especially now with his admission of 'guilt' that he could be successfully prosecuted.

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.

Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.

Especially that last one. He was told by both the State Dept and the Pentagon that if he did this he would be placing lives in danger and he did it anyhow. And he's planning to do it again.

I'm going to watch the video you linked to in a minute. I know what you mean in your OT comment and even though I understand guarding such rights as free speech, this case imo, goes way beyond just free speech. When you know in your heart that something is wrong, and just so you know, almost everyone I have seen discussing this agrees, it is generally wrong.

Out of thousands of comments around the web attached to articles about this, people overwhelmingly, just using common sense, believe he was at the very least an accessory to a horrific crime. I hope there is a way to prosecute him for his role in those terrible murders. And when they are more ready to deal with life again, I hope the families of the victims take him to court, either criminally or civilly. He is a threat to world peace and he is cleverly using the U.S. Constitution to get people to defend him in his evil pursuits.

He is the equivalent of a defiant teenager daring his parents to 'stop me if you can'. And instead of trying to find ways to do that, so many are rushing to his defense. Which he counted on. Ironically, he is totally against freedom according what I have been reading about him.

Btw, did you see Hannah's thread about his past and his possible connections? It will make you wonder about just who this guy really is :-) I'll PM you the link and yes, PM me the link you mentioned.

Great research btw and after reading it again, I think he could be charged with 'Reckless Endangerment' at the very least, under that statute.

[joshcryer]

99. Jones does not represent this country.

:puke:

[cali]

112. wow.

you really are jaw droppingly clueless.

[RKP5637]

132. I don't know if he represents the whole country, but I bet if you could get the

numbers there are quite a few to whom he's some type of hero.

I find the level of hatred by some in this country for many things concerning, disgusting, ignorant and outright stupid. ... which often leads me to say US = United Stupidity.

And with people like Trump, Palin, Bachmann and the rest running around spouting crap we look and sound like a bunch of loonies to the rest of the world IMO.

[sabrina 1]

133. I know there are good people here, but as you say,

what the world sees are far too many like Jones, and many of them are in positions of power, elected by a large number of people.

Maybe it's growing pains, we are like spoiled rotten teenagers who care very little about the rest of the world. In fact, and Palin is a perfect example, far too many Americans have little knowledge of the rest of the world or how they appear to people in other countries. It's sad to learn that we are now considered the #1 threat to world peace by a large number of people on this planet.

[RKP5637]

135. I used to travel a lot internationally for business, I would be embarrassed to do that

today because of what these visible fools say in the US of today. I agree with you so much, many think we are all like them.

One of my friends summed up IMO rather well the attitude by many in the NEW US of today. Too many have had it too good in the US off the backs of previous generations and lack the foundation of feelings, knowledge and insight that enabled us to be the wealthiest nation in the world, at least for now.

Exactly as you said, "we are like spoiled rotten teenagers who care very little about the rest of the world." And when I dig down into what some people have said to me it often turns out they have never even traveled outside of the US. They are absolutely ignorant about other countries and sound like babbling fools.

[leftynyc]

157. Yes, assholes to the right of you

assholes to the left of you. Over 300 million people and you're surprised some are assholes? Meanwhile I've watching you minimize the actions of those who just couldn't ignore what Jones and just had to go and prove him right. Fucking brilliant.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

71. Jones didn't issue an assassination order, which would NOT

be a protected form of speech.

[sabrina 1]

19. I'm not sure about that.

If someone knows that by provoking someone else enough that it can lead to murder yet they do it intentionally anyhow, then after those murders, they announce they intend to use the same methods to provoke even more violence, do you seriously believe this was the intention of the FFs as to how the 1st Amendment would be used? He is now trying to get people killed. He has said so.

[Bragi]

62. So those who threaten violence set the limits on free speech?

I don't think that's a compelling argument.

[sabrina 1]

143. We as a society decide what limits there should be on all

kinds of things.

Criminals DO limit our freedoms. It is because of them that we have so many restricting laws which most of us do not need. But, because society as a whole is not stupid enough to demand no laws, we recognize that they are necessary to protect the rest of us from harm.

We are always giving up freedoms. There are many people here on DU who totally defend the destruction of their 4th and 5th Amendment rights even though they are innocent, in order to keep them protected from a possible terrorist attack. They willingly submit themselves to anti-Constitutional searches and slam anyone who objects to the theft of our freedom to travel unassaulted by the Government.

So terrorists have severely restricted our freedoms over the past ten years. And there's been barely a whimper from the same people who 'will fight to the death' for this Jones' character's freedom to spew hateful, and according to the Pentagon and State Dept. harmful speech, now proven to be true.

Maybe we need to get our priorities in order in this country. We are losing our rights daily. I would love to see this much outrage over the Patriot Act eg and this much passionate defense of, and demands for the restoration of our all too many lost rights.

But OPs about those lost rights tend to sink here on DU. Maybe if we pointed out that Jones too has lost many of his constitutional rights they would get more attention ...

[pnwmom]

86. He did not say, "I'm trying to get people killed."

Yes, he's trying to disturb people. Are we supposed to ban all disturbing language now?

[cali]

113. Proving intent in a case like this is exceedingly difficult

under the law. do try and learn something- fucking anything- about the constitution.

[Bragi]

119. I think his views are largely irrelevant

Personally, I don't actually care what Jones may think now, or might have thought at any point in time. What I care about is what he has or has not done.

On that, what matters is that Jones has expressed views some find offensive, has not engaged in or even advocated violence or law-breaking. He has exercised his right to legally-protected free speech.

[Bragi]

117. I think it's exactly what the FF intended

They wanted a new country where people would be free to choose any or no religion, and where they would be free to express their views, however stupid and offensive some may find those views to be.

I'd say Terry Jones is a classic case of the kind of speech they intended to protect.

[Bragi]

22. What is this "background and associations" thing?

Is that the stuff about him going to the same high school as Rush Limbaugh? What's this all about? Why is it relevant?

I ask because about relevance because I really don't give a shit what Jones thinks now, or may have though at any time. It's irrelevant to me.

He exercised his right to free speech. That's about all that's relevant about him in this matter. I have no real interest in what he thinks he is doing, and what effect he thinks it might have. The man's an idiot.

[RKP5637]

23. That's how I feel about it too, inciting violence on purpose ... n/t

[Skip_In_Boulder]

42. Oddly enough, him and Rush Limbaugh

went to the same high school together. Must be something in the water in that neck of the woods.

[pnwmom]

68. It is still protected speech.

He isn't being protected by anyone -- free speech is. We have no laws that could charge someone for speaking in a way that was meant to provoke violence in another country.

[plumbob]

73. You are right. Fighting words are not protected.

History of limits on speech confirmed by Supreme Court

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/gvpt339/fightingwords.html

One of the unprotected categories of speech consists of so called "fighting words," that is, words which are likely to make the person to whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words receive no First Amendment protection, because, like other unprotected categories (i.e. defamation, obscenity, etc.) They are not normally part of any dialogue or exposition of ideas. But, the Supreme Court today keeps this exclusion within narrow limits.

The fighting words doctrine originated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). The Chaplinsky ruling defined fighting words rather broadly. This doctrine included words which are likely to incite an immediate fight and words which inflict injury.


much much more at link

[sabrina 1]

102. Thank you. I can't believe what I read here sometimes.

While people will excuse the destruction of practically all of our rights, depending on who is taking them away, I have never seen anything like the way people here attempt to defend this kind of thing.

I will bookmark that link to read later .. :-)

[louslobbs]

97. +1000, couldn't have said it better myself Sabrina, thank you.

Lou

[RKP5637]

20. Freedom of speech IMO also implies responsibility in using freedom of speech. This guy

in my book is totally irresponsible.

[PatentlyDemocratic]

38. "Reasonable" is a subjective term

I don't think that burning books is reasonable, especially with the intent of agitation. That being said, committing murder in response is not reasonable either. Religion somehow gives outrageous, irrational behavior the guise of legitimacy.

[RKP5637]

49. Agree! I think you hit the key words in all of this. "Religion somehow gives outrageous, irrational

behavior the guise of legitimacy."

[iemitsu]

56. i agree with both of your points.

jones is an immature ass whose stunt has cost the lives of real people.
legal speech or not, his actions need to be condemned.

[pnwmom]

69. Not under the U.S. constitution. n/t

[RKP5637]

114. I know ... I don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned it being used the

way it is today. I have a feeling what we've seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg of violence caused by his crap. His next antic is to possibly try Mohamed or something like that.

[roguevalley]

91. until it facilitates a crime. he's a murderer. there is no doubt about it.

he already knows it but he loved dead people. Drop him into Afghanistan with a Bible.

[humblebum]

164. Everyone should have the right to free speech unabated. That

is at the core of any informed democracy, BUT people must also be held responsible for the results (if only partially) of their words and actions. Pastor Jones should be charged for inciting riots and possibly aiding the enemy in a time of war.

[femmocrat]

2. Maybe if the press would stop covering this nutjob, he would pack up his tent and go home.

Doesn't the media realize that giving him a platform is increasing the danger to others?

Yes, I know... freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. No need to remind me, but IMO there is no reason to catapult him onto the world stage and make him more important than he is.

[PSPS]

4. No legitimate "press" would write about these nuts. But we're in the age of infotainment now.

The race to the bottom requires newspapers and especially TEE VEE "news" to see who can "out crazy" the other to eek those few extra eyeballs for the advertisers and their $$.

[RKP5637]

29. Exactly what is going on !!! n/t

[Bragi]

16. Sorry, the media are not the problem here

The mobs were not informed of Jones burning of the Quran by irresponsible US media. People there learned of it mostly because (the always-helpful) Afghan Pres Karzai made a statement condemning it 4 days after it happened.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/obama-condemns-koran-burning-afghan-riots-continue/433154

Going on a tirade against MSM media on this is misdirection.

[freshwest]

92. I guess Karzai had the sacred sanctuary bugged, that's how he found out what this media whore did.

Damn that Echelon, they're everywhere. MSM didn't say a word.

[PSPS]

96. You may be right in regard to this incident

I say this because, until the reports of the riots, I had no idea the freak had done another publicity stunt.

[freshwest]

103. I forgot to add the sarcasm icon there...

[AllTooEasy]

18. I disagree - in the age of the internet, youtube, blogesphere, tweeter, etc...

...this Koran burning story can/would get across the world easily without media coverage. Heck, I get more info from DU then I get from Cable news, who repeat the same shit everyday/hour.

I think internet news is travelling faster than traditional media news now.

[Bragi]

26. My point is that the U.S MSM has been irrelevant to this story

Many here claim the U.S media has been salivating to cover this guy. They haven't.

In fact, up to Friday, when the mobs started killing people, they were quite happy to continue to ignore this guy.

[freshwest]

93. Closed doors at the for-profit church would have stifled that.

Most of what goes on during sermons is never reported anywhere.

[iemitsu]

59. he is following the phelphs' model

of public testimonial of his faith.

[redwitch]

130. I wish Phelps and Jones would get together and rapture themselves.

Sickening.

[pnwmom]

70. I agree. The media helps fan the flames. His rantings deserve no attention.n/t

[howaboutme]

3. Why are taxpayers protecting this AH?

Didn't I read where Florida police spent hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting this ass-hole? If he wants to rile up billions of people and risk whatever happens, so be it. It is absurd that innocent people have died because of his actions. Let him fund his own protection if he feels a need to publicly scream fire in a theater. The police can come in after the fact as they would do if most of us experience violence.

[Paradoxical]

6. He has the right. But I will not waste a single ounce of effort supporting that right.

I think that's reasonable?

Same thing goes for Westboro. I would never actively try to infringe on their rights. But as far as protection of their right to freedom of speech, they better hire some body guards.

[sabrina 1]

10. I agree. And he has the right to go to Afghanistan with his next

act, which he knows now will likely get people killed. The least he could do is risk his own miserable life since he's so willing to risk the lives of other innocent people.

But now that he has admitted he intended to 'stir the pot', and since he was warned previously by a U.S. general that his actions could harm U.S. troops, I do not believe his speech is protected.

It is incitement to violence. You cannot incite others to kill. That is not covered by the 1st Amendment no matter what the absolutists say.

[Paradoxical]

12. You could argue that it's "treasonous" in nature. But I think that would be a witch hunt.

[kelly1mm]

17. You certainly can incite others to violence so long as it is not imminent

see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

[Paradoxical]

24. Fo sho. Shit sucks. But that's how the law works (or is suppose to work).

And I'm inclined to agree with it.

[tpsbmam]

41. I'm not sure I agree it applies....

"...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The preacher clearly intended, by his own words, to incite a reaction in the Islamic world. By seeing the result of his actions already and continuing to incite in the same way as before, as he says he intends to do, it could be argued that he is, indeed, inciting to "produce imminent lawless action." Granted this falls outside what the court addressed given its international nature and the question of "lawless" as applied internationally.

I fully believe that this asshole is acting to prove his bigoted point about the Islamic religion and he's doing so by inflaming tensions already heightened by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as by idiots like Peter King and bigoted teabagger types protesting mosques all over the place.

And, as unprogressive as I might sound right now, I don't think that's covered by the 1st Amendment.

[Bragi]

45. Your "imminent" lawless action issue is dealt with here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4798553&mesg_id=4798595

[tpsbmam]

50. I read it. My quote IS from that decision. nt

[kelly1mm]

51. The book burning was done almost a month ago. Thus, even if international

lawlessnes (and I believe Brandenburg would require a proximity prong as well so I do not think international criminal actions by others would apply) were covered it was not imminent. What was imminent was the clerics at the mosque that were inciting the mob THAT DAY to avenge what happened weeks ago, thousands of miles away, and not in the presence of the mob.

Jones is an ass. We can and should condem his actions. They are also not illegal.

[Bragi]

58. Why should offended people get to limit the rights of others?

I agree with you that Jones actions are well within the 1st amendment.

In general, I don't think free speech rights should be limited because the people who might take offense over views expressed are thought to be lawless and violent and out-of-control.

I don't want those people defining the limits of free speech.

[kelly1mm]

66. Totally agree. nt

[Turborama]

111. Correction. The Qur'an burning took place on Sunday the 20th of March, less than 2 weeks before...

...the terrible events on Friday.

There was a media blackout even in America.

The only article one can find is http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiqhizasRIx4id4gcrj5d09Gg_5g?docId=CNG.3c9302d7a8d3fe772d9bb86f058e598c.3b1">this AP one which didn't get picked up.

There is hardly any electricity in that area of Afghanistan, let alone TV or computer owners, and illiteracy rates are amongst the worst in the world.

Thus, ANY news from the outside world takes relatively a VERY long time - if ever - to reach villagers there. When it does it is obviously by word of mouth.

This comment to AP from top UN envoy in Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura is worth noting...

Karzai has in recent months increasingly criticized both the international community and U.S.-led foreign forces — the first for being ineffectual and unaccountable, the second for causing unnecessary civilian casualties in its campaign against insurgents.

Some Western diplomats privately say Karzai stoked some of the tension in recent days by making speeches about issues that had not gained much attention in the country, including the Koran burning.

De Mistura, however, said he drew no connection between the riots and Karzai's earlier condemnation of the Quran-burning. He said it takes "two to three weeks for information to percolate. It's not like in the West. Then it goes through the mosque and then through the Friday prayers."

"I don't think we should be blaming any Afghan. We should be blaming the person who produced the news — the one who burned the Koran," he said.

Source: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/obama-condemns-koran-burning-afghan-riots-continue/433154

[kelly1mm]

145. Thanks for the correction. My bad - but 2 weeks is still not imminent. nt

[Turborama]

147. The timescale is relative, as I clearly explained. Plus his intention has to be taken into account

Also, see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4798553&mesg_id=4799186

[kelly1mm]

148. I read your link and it is very interesting - I will think on it for a while. However,

I still believe per a Brandenburg analyis, Jones is untouchable by the govenment. Obviously his intent has to be taken into account as that is one of the three prongs of the Brandenburg test (intent, imminence, likelihood). If imminence is not proven when when one urges attacks on blacks and jews in Ohio (even in the whitest areas it could not take more than an hour or two to find a majority black area), I cannot think of any way this incident would meet that prong. Basically, for the government to prohibit or punish someone for inciteful speech, there would need to be an identifyable target within view of the people being incited, as far as Brandenburg is concerned.

As I said, your link was interesting so I will ponder that for a while. Thanks for the link!

[Bragi]

30. I don't think any lawyer would agreee with you

In fact, there are several that have been posting very usefully in these threads, and they all disagree with you.

[sabrina 1]

65. Well, I think it might depend on the lawyers. If they are Government

lawyers, and the preacher is an Islamic Preacher, they might even agree that he deserves a death sentence, without trial. Like this guy:

Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki is an eloquent Muslim cleric who has turned the Web into a tool for extremist indoctrination. Mr. Awlaki is perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States. The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of Mr. Awlaki, who is in hiding in Yemen.

Mr. Awlaki, born in New Mexico in 1971, served as an imam in California and Virginia. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked through e-mails with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009 and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25. He also had ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers although the nature of association remains unclear.

And he is not suspected of actual violence himself. Just talking about it. And now a target of the CIA for assassination.

Mr. Awlaki has never been accused of planting explosives himself, but terrorism experts believe his persuasive endorsement of violence as a religious duty, in colloquial, American-accented English, has helped push a series of Western Muslims into terrorism.

[riderinthestorm]

89. I would stipulate that the govts case against al Awlaki is that he's an American citizen preaching

treason against fellow Americans.

Terry Jones is not.

[sabrina 1]

98. No, they have not said anything of the kind.

He has been charged with nothing. That could be because there is nothing to charge him with. They have made allegations, all of which have been denied and they have provided not a shred of proof.

He has used speech to express his views about this government. He denies encouraging others to be violent.

And yet, this president has issued an order for his assassination, without trial, without charges even.

So, I guess speech is not so free if you are a Muslim preacher. There ARE limits to free speech.

Jones IS provoking violence, and unlike Awlaki, he admits he meant to do so and is planning to provoke even more violence. He ignored the warning of a U.S. general that his speech could threaten the safety of U.S. troops. He is proud of what he has accomplished.

But Awlaki is a Muslim. So, no free speech for him.

[glinda]

37. But what if I wanted to burn a Bible? Would I get arrested? Would it

provoke an extremist to attempt to murder me? Just wondering....

[Bragi]

46. It's perfectly legal in the U.S to burn a bible

So what's your point?

[tpsbmam]

47. With some of the right-wing wackadoodles out there....

yeah, it could provoke some of them to do some pretty nasty shit to you. Those "Christians" don't like folks messing with "their" Bible & "their" flag.

[Bragi]

53. If the Xians said they'd kill you

According to your theory upthread of "imminent unlawful activity" limiting 1st amendment rights, if a particular group of Xians said they would kill their neighbours if you burned their bible, then you would have reason to think that burning the bible would result in unlawful action, and suddenly your 1st amendment rights disappear.

This is why that theory doesn't work. You can't limit peoples right to free speech based on how they think some group might react if they feel offended.

[tpsbmam]

61. Good point. nt

[glinda]

55. Just some perspective in that they are "books". It is the people who are crazy.

[Arrowhead2k1]

106. If you had a bible beating neighbour who you knew was very mentally unbalanced.

And you had a strong inclination that burning that bible and sending him the tape would incite a violent reaction out of him. You'd be very irresponsible for burning up that bible to say the least...

[sabrina 1]

146. No, you could burn it. You'd probably hear from some rabid

Fundies and Limbaugh et al would no doubt villify you as a traitor to 'god and country'. One of them might even decide to take up arms over it, who knows?

But if the Pentagon and the State Dept. called and told you that if you went ahead and did it that people, not you, but U.S. troops and/or other innocent people might die, would you go ahead and do it anyhow? Would you want to risk other people's lives just to burn a book?

[Turborama]

149. Time's editor Bobby Ghosh explained the difference...

Chuck Todd: ...but talk about the story and for more on what it means for our troops, the mission and the safety of Americans in Afghanistan and our standing with Muslims around the world, Bobby Ghosh, editor of "Time" and Jim Zogby president of the Arab American Institute and author of "Arab Voices."

Basically, we have two sets of extremists. An extremist in Florida and a couple that took advantage of the moment to stir people up in Afghanistan. How much is this spreading around the Muslim World?

Bobby Ghosh: The real concern now is, Chuck, it spreads from here. That you have other small groups of extremists in other parts of the Muslim world who feel like they have to do a copycat thing. We saw that many years ago and much more recently with the Danish cartoons.

The thing to keep in mind that's very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not the same as the Bible to Christians. The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men, the story of Jesus. But the Koran if you are a believer, if you're a Muslim, is directly the word of God. Not written by man, it is trancscribed directly the word of God. That makes it sacred in a way it's hard to understand if you're not Muslim, so the act of burning a Koran is much more potentially much, much more inflammatory...

Chuck Todd: Directly attacking God.

Bobby Ghosh: ...than burning a Bible.


Full segment (incl. transcript), which is in fact a really good overall analysis: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42383673#42383673

In videos forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x569488#569538

On YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoCo3WDj-hQ

[Bragi]

28. Slippery slope

So free speech rights are safe with you, as long as someone doesn't say things that offend you?

[RKP5637]

32. Very good way of looking at it IMO. That is reasonable to me! n/t

[Yavapai]

7. It kind of reminds me of

being at a birthday picnic, and having some dumb fuck take a stick
to a beehive in a tree and treat it like it's a pinada???

Someone should tie him to the tree!

[jmowreader]

9. Something occurs to me...

If this man keeps up his one-church jihad against Islam, and if the United States is as packed with Evil Muslim Terrorists as the Bush administration says it is, one of these days one of these Evil Muslim Terrorists is going to google Terry Jones' church for directions then go down there and blow the church, WITH Terry Jones and all twenty of his followers inside, off the face of the earth.

Then again...I don't think Terry Jones is enough of a pimple on Osama's ass to warrant wasting his once-per-decade Huge Attack on blowing Terry Jones to shit.

[tpsbmam]

21. Nah....this is exactly the kind of crap the bin Laden types want...

keeps the "us vs them" anger going, riles up the tiny percentage prone to terrorism. This asshole feeds right into that shit -- he's worth his weight in gold to them.

[Bragi]

31. Agreed! /nt

[Auntie Bush]

11. I'm throughly convinced this man is out of his mind...just like

many other right wing Christian Fundamentalists.

[Paradoxical]

14. It's funny because the more he does, the more sane I think he is.

What he is doing requires calculated effort and a comprehensive understanding of ones actions of the consequences of ones actions.

The nastier he gets, the less credibility I am willing to give to the possibility that he is nothing more than a crazy fundy.

[glinda]

40. He is and so maybe he should be hauled in for psychiatric evaluation as a danger to others.

[Bragi]

48. The Soviets did that a lot /nt

[glinda]

52. They threw rich Corporate people in prison also. hmmmmmm.

[freshwest]

94. Muahaha...

[applegrove]

25. This is just awful. The people in the Middle East will not hear about how

the pastor is rejected and hated in the USA. They will only hear that he put Mohammed on trial.

[freshwest]

27. He can go for it, it might be interesting.

Maybe witnesses of other religious figures molesting, robbing and slaughtering nonbelievers worldwide will arise in the guy's defense. You know, their rotting corpses in their lovely costumes.

List all of the dude's sins and then do a comparsion study. This should be a real eye opener. Maybe Islam will modernize and all the other religions will as well.

Let's put our current crop of GOP Dominionists in government now on trial as well. Bring in John Haggee to explain his and the rightwing punditry calling for killing Muslim children, even the unborn ones, since they may grow up to be the USA's enemies.

I'm not going to hate an entire region of the world for this and all the people who believe in this guy, which is the motivation behind the push on these stories. The Florida reverend is a media whore, makes his living off publicity, and I'm sure he votes GOP.

They might even be funding this to get everyone's mind off the rage of the day against them and the Koch brothers. Hey, focus that rage on a guy who's been dead for years. Yup, they'll chew that red meat right down to the bone! Go for it! Here's a few grand...

Nice way to get everyone's minds off the unmitigated attacks on unions, teachers, firefighters, the poor, the disabled, those struggling to get buy with a roof over their heads, the theft of trillions will end democracy as we ever dreamed it, radioactive fallout, and all the rest.

While the GOP works to create our own theocracy here, I'm sure this will give them some ammunition and get more donations.

Don't look at the man behind the curtain pulling the strings and buying up media time for all this crap. Let's all get our eyes off what they're doing to all of us, defuse every story that encourages progressives to fight back, and listen to the rightwing spin machine.

A wonderful use of our limited time to act and save our country. Hope the entertainment value of all of this will be worth it to our kids and grandchildren in the future.

Oh, wait, while we get into this GOP orchestrated hate fest, we're tossing their future away. They won't have one.

Never mind.

[glinda]

43. You might be on to something. He might well be a bomb thrower to take attention away.

[freshwest]

79. I am sure of it. The media technique has been used time and time again.

The rightwing media has used it whenever their bosses' bums were in the fire, or some popular movement gathered movement.

He's the Lindsay Lohan, Anna Nicole Smith, whatever it is of the day. That's why I hate to see people falling into the hate and fear fest.

Every time that the media goes on sensation, there is some major screwing over going on that they won't report.

We know this. We keep falling for it. And then we get mad at each other over trifles. Mission accomplished.

The reason it's so hard to escape this game is that we really do need information to make decisions and find out what is going on. But the corporate media will give us just enough to get us watching and then they'll shift the focus.

Give us a little satisfaction, then direct us to some other story. We can see how biased they are in not covering the successes by the Democrats and unions in Wisconsin, the protests against the Koch brothers in San Diego, but then they throw the red meat out there.

The thing is, there are people killing people of other religions, but there are also people mowed down daily that don't make the news.

Considering the emotional impact of either story in energizing the public, the decision is made by the owners. It will always, pro or con, come out favoring them. It's hard to see this going on over and over and people can't learn, it looks different. The appeal to the gut is simply overwhelming.

I hope he has his little media circus, but only if it's fair and the other dead religious figures are put on the stand in his kangaroo court in his polluted little sanctuary.

Hey, maybe people can dress up and play the roles for the trial. I suggest some of the Conquistadores who crucified natives here. And dress some guys up in priestly robes and have them defend themselves. Oh, this trial could go on for years and finally make the world see exactly what has been going on.

P. S. The First Amendment is alive and well. The Supreme Court just said the Phelphs Family can do whatever they please, as long as they please, wherever they please. Did we forget that already?

[laylah]

33. What an ugly excuse of a human being! nt

[Downwinder]

34. Time to start working on the bible thumpers and mackerel snappers?

They incite just as well as any other religion.

[jmowreader]

44. I wonder how long it has been...

since anyone referred to a Catholic as a mackerel snapper?

[russspeakeasy]

67. Just a minute ago. I think it died with sodbuster tho.

[Ernesto]

36. Chunk of fecal matter...... that is all.

[Arkana]

63. He's a goddamn worthless, xenophobic waste of ape sperm

but the First Amendment protects him too.

And the people who are to blame in the previous case are the people who killed those aid workers, not Jones--they just served to reinforce his point.

[russspeakeasy]

64. He puts the duh in Floriduh.

[plumbob]

75. If there was actually a gawd, he's strike this bastard dead.

Rest my case.

[EC]

76. Isn't inciting violence illegal?

Inciting violence isn't covered by free-speech is it?



Hasn't anyone told him that his actions against Islam is what is inciting the violence. If the Koran burst into flames by itself, no violence would have occurred.

[Bragi]

129. Not in this case

Read upthread, there are some good exchanges on this.

[Botany]

78. He is guilty of something .... Free Speech issue? please

He (Jones) also admits in that interview: "It was intended to stir the pot... ...Did our action provoke them? Of course."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

120. Intended to stir the pot? Yeah, the money pot.

I just hope all the news trucks don't screw up traffic. If that happens, then yes, he's gone too far!

:hi:

[Bragi]

128. That's irrelevant

I couldn't care less what Jones thinks now or used to think.

His stunt constitutes protected free speech in the US.

That's what is relevant.

Free speech should not be constrained because a group being criticized is has within it violent, pathological nutbars.

Violent pathological nutbars don't get to define the limits of free speech.

[Dappleganger]

82. Donations must be down.

[freshwest]

104. He might have to give back some of the gifts he got for NOT burning it earlier...

[Bragi]

140. I saw the video

He has his assistant pastor or whatever he is actually do the Bic-to-Koran procedure, while pastor dufus looks on from the pulpit, if memory serves.

I hadn't thought about it, but maybe that means he gets to keep the car!

[freshwest]

141. Not following your logic about him keeping it for not doing it the first time, but doing it later...

Each to his own, though.

[Bragi]

142. Just this

Maybe the deal was he gets the car but agrees not to torch Korans. So he has his assistant torch the Koran after his mock trial on March 20. He gets to keep the car. That's all.

[freshwest]

144. He's the Boss at his church. He's a psychopath if he tries that excuse. Oh, well. EOD.

[fortyfeetunder]

83. The way I see it, folks like him are cowards.

They are hiding behind the cloak of free speech in America. If they are so bad and bold, why don't they go to Afghanistan, etc, and say/do the same thing...see what it gets them.

[dkf]

108. Yeesh, he is just as crazy as those Westboro Baptists.

What is wrong with these idiots.

[RKP5637]

115. Exactly!!! Cut from the same piece of cloth. See post #38, that made a

lot of sense to me. "Religion somehow gives outrageous, irrational behavior the guise of legitimacy."

[CJCRANE]

116. This is a RW media campaign designed to change the narrative.

The neocons obviously want to shift the emphasis away from the "Arab Spring" and back onto ground that the RW are more comfortable with.

It's a blatant and transparent ploy, for anyone who digs just a micron beneath the surface.

[Bragi]

127. There is no evidence that this is the case

To the contrary., the US MSM has been most reluctant to cover Jones since last September's fiasco. In fact, there was virtually no coverage of his recent stunt before Friday when the Karzai-fuelled murderous mobs appeared.

I distrust the MSM as much as anyone, but blaming is a distraction here.

[juajen]

121. There's a law against people inciting riots, no?

What am I missing here. Someone needs to arrest this dude, post haste.

[Bragi]

126. I'd say you're missing the 1st amendment implications /nt

[treestar]

122. No, he's not an accessory to murder

He's a vile SOB. But no one had a right to kill anyone else as a result of his activities.

[slackmaster]

123. I have mixed feelings about this. I strongly support the right to free speech and expression.

I also laugh at religious fanatics crapping their pants over it. If only the Muslim fanatics could react in a way that doesn't involve hurting and killing people, it would all be in good fun.

[Bragi]

139. Yep, pretty much -nt

[annabanana]

124. Stupid AND ignorant AND dangerous

trifecta!

[Vinee]

150. He should burn a Koran for every person they kill for his Koran burning.

[Nossida]

151. Oh Jesus, Mary, Allah, & Jehovah,

With due Respect to you God's

We know you are all rather busy taking Care of the Universe.

But could you possibly, Get control of your Fruitcakes?

None of them can control themselves, and Stop Killing
each other, over just who you Love the Most. They've
all become quite tedious, and bothersome. Rather vulgar.

ThankX in Advance, nossida

[Vidar]

153. Airdrop the SOB into Mecca!

[nalnn]

158. Hah!

This guys is a barrel of laughs isn't he? :sarcasm:

While I do believe in protecting his right to do things like this (within the law of the U.S.) and I don't think any of us should caower in fear of what "might" happen in the form of a radical response from "over there"; does this guys think it through?

I mean really, does he not see how this puts his own countrymen in danger who are over there fighting these people would would stone a woman for being raped, or behead an aid worker because they are not indigenous to Pakistan.

[nalnn]

160. I want to add/alter my above post here.

Here is why:

I am beginning to think that this misguided pastor in Florida may be one of the catalysts that does one of two things:

1. We finally decide that the middle east et al is not worth it and leave.
2. U.S. Administration permitting, we go all out and win.

I have no idea how this will turn out.

[BigAnth]

161. Can't the Muslims just BBQ a couple of bibles and call it even? n/t

[LibertyLover]

162. I guess that perks and goodies that Jones collected after

he agreed not to burn the Koran the first time either were not received or stopped. What a scumbag weasley little POS he is.

[skip fox]

163. One simple solution: do nothing. No press, no condemnation, no protection.

Probably pragmatically, legally, and morally wrong, but if he incites violence on others and himslef, why should taxpayer money go to protecting him?

Well, that sounds like Fox News.

[skip fox]

165. The real answer can only come from concerted voices explaining Jones is not reflective of US.