America now needs to defend Jones' right to free speech

[Bragi]

Last year when Jones' fondness of Quran-burning first surfaced, Muslim leaders demanded that the President intervene to stop Jones, and top figures in the administration responded by properly condemning his actions, and called on him to back off, which resulted in Jones backing off.

Fine. What no-one in the administration said at the time, however, (and I mean no-one) was this: Because of the First Amendment, Americans have a right to burn any holy book they choose to burn, even if it offends other people, and the government cannot, and will not, try to stop people who choose to exercise their right to offend from doing so.

My concern at the time (and I wrote about it here) was that by not making it clear that Jones had a legal right to be an offensive asshole, many people outside the US would conclude that somehow the US government actually did have the power to intervene to stop Jones from burning the Quran, and that the administration actually did stop Jones from doing what he said he would do. It sure looked that way from the outside.

So now we come to the present. Jones stood by as a Quran was burned following his mock "trial" in March. And, as is right, no-one stopped him.

Now however, people like Hamid Karzai are demanding that Jones be "brought to justice." But we all know that can't and won't and shouldn't happen, because Jones was exercising his right to free speech, he did not break any US laws, and there is no punitive justice a government could invoke, even if they wanted to.

The Karzai's of the world will now claim otherwise, and will now point to the fact that last September Jones was "stopped" from burning the Quran as proof the government could have stopped him this time, and that he was actually "allowed" to offend Islam, which is then proven by the fact that no-one will even punish him for his blasphemy.

All of which makes me lament the fact that no-one defended the right to fee speech last September. I hope that US leaders are now prepared to explain to the world what the First Amendment means, why it matters, and why it means that nothing can be done to anyone who chooses to engage in legal, offensive free speech.

(edited for grammar)

[Mimosa]

1. Agree: Hamid Karzai's opinion matters not

Bragi, some links might make for a better OP. ;)

I think everybody probably can agree Terry Jones is a boor and an idiot.

But if the USA ever had European style 'hate speech' laws re: what people can publish, we could kiss our freedom goodbye.

[Bragi]

3. I agree entirely

I didn't use links because I'm expressing my own opinions, based on my own observations of how this thing has come down.

And I couldn't agree more with you re: European style "hate laws" that are used to disguise "blasphemy" laws that suppress free speech.

They are very dangerous in my view, and are completely inconsistent with First Amendment rights.

Having said that, I believe that this challenge will soon be upon us.

[marginlized]

2. So What Books Would You Burn?

Maybe we could make a point that they're just books by burning a few of them our selves?
This could make for some amusing street theater.

For example, I would start with Chicken Soup for the Soul. Just because.

[Bragi]

4. I've gone totally e-books, so I'd just have to delete stuff! /nt

[Adsos Letter]

5. Somehow the mass deleting of e-books doesn't have the same cachet as mass book burning.

:D :hi:

[Rage for Order]

36. Maybe if you press the 'delete' button really hard it would be an acceptable alternative to burning

:rofl:

[boston bean]

8. the problem is when the government burns or bans books.

an individual or a group of individuals burning books is free speech.

learn the difference.

[vim876]

40. I generally consider burning books to be a problem.

Illegal? No. Do I think it should be? No. But is it a problem? Yes. Regardless of who's doing it.

[northernlights]

37. howzabout the Bible?

eye for an eye, and all.

[riderinthestorm]

6. Westboro Church's SCOTUS victory isn't anything we can point to

as illustrative of our first amendment rights because the batshit fundy religionists we'd be trying to persuade probably agree with them!

It's a good point Bragi. Alas, there are more than a few posters on DU who will disagree with you and argue that Jones needed to be shut down.

[Bragi]

12. True. Defending unpopular free speech is a slog

It's even a slog on DU I find, but it has to be done because it is a big part of what is good about America.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. if he didn't have an audience, he wouldn't have done it. What is really

the problem is the way this world thrives on our attraction to asshole activities.

Not saying that it should be illegal for media to cover him- but the media is promoting and profiting off of shit like this.

And when we spread it around, we're contributing.

[riderinthestorm]

10. Well, what's done is done now. Better air the issues and figure out a way to go forward.

[Bragi]

11. Actually, the MSM virtually blacked him out

This story did not reach Afghanistan via MSM.

In contrast to last September when he decided not to burn the Quran, there was almost zero coverage of Pastor NutBar in March when he did his show trial and burning of the Quran.

The story is spreading through other media channels controlled by political elements outside America who want to use Jones to inflame relations with the West.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. like?

who? where did they hear about the fact that he actually followed through with this stunt?

He did it for publicity- plain and simple. If he only had his silly congregation witness it, who would have known or cared?

[Bragi]

14. Same way word spread about the Danish cartoons

If you recall the Danish cartoon riots, these took months to get going, and it wasn't because it was being covered in the MSM.

There are political forces at work here who are happy to promote purported insults to Islam in the West.

They may be a tiny part of the whole, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out who they might be.

As for the MSM, check the record. The story had virtually no coverage in the MSM when it occurred, and has had none until today. Someone else is peddling it.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. well, I did

what you suggested, and it wasn't as under the radar as I'd expected.

the links below all originate before the slaughter in Afghanistan.

here is a sampling:

complete with a video of it on youtube. :shrug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDmaFehshys

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/22/national/main20045858.shtml

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiqhizasRIx4id4gcrj5d09Gg_5g?docId=CNG.3c9302d7a8d3fe772d9bb86f058e598c.3b1

http://freeourpress.info/freedom_of_the_press_videos/pastor-terry-jones-911-burn-the-quran-day-12-jon-stewart-daily-show-islamophobia/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368543/Florida-preacher-Terry-Jones-burns-Koran-bizarre-trial-execution-crowd---30-people.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304937

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/34981/terry-jones-moron-fame-seeking-koran-burning-pastor-gives-islam-hezbollah-mosque-thumbs-up/

http://blog.seattlepi.com/hottopics/2011/03/22/2-2-million-fatwa-on-terry-jones-after-quran-burning/

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-22/us/29174123_1_wayne-sapp-desecration-terry-jones

[Bragi]

16. Sorry, that's not a lot of coverage

That is not a lot of coverage at all, and those aren't the media sources likely used by the people who killed the UN workers today. I think blaming the media for this tragedy is a dead end, and a distraction.

[Bluerthanblue]

18. what media sources would they use?

As for it not being a lot of coverage, it's what I found in less than 10min.

He got a HELL of a lot of coverage when he planned his "burn a Koran day" last Sept. He put his face on every major network for several days and attracted the attention of Hillary Clinton, and Pres. Obama. I'm sure that those who were sensitive to this, didn't stop watching his actions.

He was also banned from entering the UK in January of this year "for the Public Good".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/terry-jones-barred-from-uk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12231832

I'm not trying to shift blame for what was done onto the media- but they do stoke the flames. It is very clear that Jones KNEW that what he was doing was likely to incite violence- he was warned about it by many people. That doesn't make those who did this innocent, or excuse what they did, but it doesn't exactly leave Jones in a completely clean position either. He had the "right" by law, to do what he did. But that doesn't make what he did any less 'wrong'. imo.

[Bragi]

26. I mostly agree.

Thanks for your response. Let me take your points sequentially:

You wrote:

As for it not being a lot of coverage, it's what I found in less than 10min.

That isn't surprising. My point is that from a coverage standpoint, there are distinct phases, from high-level saturation to an agreed-upon blackout. I don't see the MSM as an aggressive player in any but the initial phase.

You continued:

He got a HELL of a lot of coverage when he planned his "burn a Koran day" last Sept. He put his face on every major network for several days and attracted the attention of Hillary Clinton, and Pres. Obama. I'm sure that those who were sensitive to this, didn't stop watching his actions.

I agree with everything above. Phase I started when the MSM started paying attention to his threat to burn a Quran, which I recall as maybe a bit in late summer, then building into September. Then a bit of panic set in as important people realized that his stunt could possibly trigger a bad reaction among some radical Islamic political groups. It could not be ruled out that the reaction might be similar to what happened when the Dutch Muhammed cartoons were published, which was characterized by a slow build of riotous and murderous protest, spreading geographically as news and awareness of the perceived insult to Islam spread.

Phase I ended after the White House got involved, told everyone to chill out, even Jones got scared off, and things calmed down. That was it for phase I. The MSM played their part in keeping the story scarce until just recently. Except dumbass Jones wasn't finished. Now we're into phase II of trouble from Jones.

He was also banned from entering the UK in January of this year "for the Public Good".

Quite so. What he did in the US was legal in the US, but it was not protected free speech in the UK, where governments have been persuaded to use hate laws to prosecute and supress blasphemy against Islam by making it illegal.

I'm not trying to shift blame for what was done onto the media- but they do stoke the flames. It is very clear that Jones KNEW that what he was doing was likely to incite violence- he was warned about it by many people. That doesn't make those who did this innocent, or excuse what they did, but it doesn't exactly leave Jones in a completely clean position either. He had the "right" by law, to do what he did. But that doesn't make what he did any less 'wrong'. imo.

I agree with the above. My unvarnished view is that Jones is an asshole. I also think that sometimes people who aren't assholes have to defend the right of assholes to be assholes. (As John Mellencamp put it: Ain't That America?)

We have to think and talk about this now not because we want to, but because this Jones incident isn't the last we are going to hear of Quran burning in America. Make no mistake, it will happen again, and not just by Jones, but also by others. It may get real ugly. So the situation needs to be addressed and discussed. What is non-negotiable is that the carnage has to be condemned and stopped.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. His book burning was very unadvisable, even if legal

He needs to be audited by the IRS annually for the next 20 years. Call it non-judicial punishment.

[lunatica]

17. He's got far more pressing things to worry about

There's a fatwa out on him. If they're willing to kill others for what he did, he should be thinking they're more than willing to kill him. He may not have a pleasant day for the rest of his life.

And I don't feel like defending him. He's a grown up who deliberately pushed fundamentalists' buttons. Sure he has the right to free speech, but I think wisdom could have prevailed.

And lots of people get killed over free speech all the time. It's not free speech that's in trouble. It's the very idiotic use of it.

[Bragi]

27. High risk warning

You wrote:

It's not free speech that's in trouble. It's the very idiotic use of it.

Yikes. So who gets to judge what is and is not idiotic so speech an be free? The offended parties? Mobs of zealots? Me?

This a very slippery slope that I'm reluctant to slide down.

[roamer65]

19. Makes me want to start burning bibles.

[cali]

22. go for it.

[Bragi]

28. I'm not going to stop you either

I'll even defend your right to do it, just as I defend Jones' right to free speech.

[Yo_Mama]

31. But plenty of people in the US desecrate other people's sacred symbols

Go ahead. Burn a bible (just make sure it's yours). Make a chocolate Jesus or a Piss Christ. Stomp on a crucifix. It will be a big yawn. So you'll piss off a few Christians - it still wouldn't get you dead. Or anyone else.

What's wrong with the idea that we should be blocked from saying or doing certain things that amount to symbolic speech is that it would spawn a crazy society.

I assume that a lot of people are very offended by misuse of their sacred symbols. The whole flag-burning case was such an example (such symbols may not be sacred due to religious feelings). If we adopt the idea that speech of which we do not approve should be made illegal on the grounds that it will offend someone so much that they will get violent, we'll be handing the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church members a fearsome weapon to control us all.

If the most crazy-mad person in the room gets to pick the dinner topic, the conversation's gonna get pretty weird very fast. And if the most crazy-mad person gets to say what cannot be spoken of, the conversation's going to be controlled by nutcases. The Koran is a book of poetry and a book of law, and the idea that Shariah represents is of the divine state - the community under Allah, living by Allah's law, and thus protected by Allah. To make it our law to forbid the expression of disrespect for that concept is essentially to make the US state enforce a type of religious proscription. I can imagine nothing more inherently subversive of our Constitution (which of course absolutely allows individual freedom to follow those beliefs).

The distinction - and it is a profoundly important one - is that I have the right to believe whatever I want, but I do not have the right to make you express respect for my beliefs, or forbid you to criticize or question them.

I'm going to quote from Texas v Johnson:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/491/397/case.html

Texas has not asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression and would therefore permit application of the test set forth in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, whereby an important governmental interest in regulating nonspeech can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms when speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct. An interest in preventing breaches of the peace is not implicated on this record. Expression may not be prohibited on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace, since the Government cannot assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but must look to the actual circumstances surrounding the expression. Johnson's expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's policies also does not fall within the class of "fighting words" likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. This Court's holding does not forbid a State to prevent "imminent lawless action" and, in fact, Texas has a law specifically prohibiting breaches of the peace. Texas' interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity is related to expression in this case and, thus, falls outside the O'Brien test. Pp. 491 U. S. 406-410.
...
The restriction on Johnson's political expression is content based, since the Texas statute is not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed to protect it from intentional and knowing abuse that causes serious offense to others. It is therefore subject to "the most exacting scrutiny." Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312. The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved. Nor may a State foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it, since the Government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a limited set of messages. Moreover, this Court will not create an exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment for the American flag alone. Pp. 491 U. S. 410-422.

We have historically not allowed people to make their own symbols sacred and binding upon the rest of society. And when we start to set up such a situation (at the time of this decision, 48 states had laws protecting the flag), we knock it down.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Not really.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. Never has been. Inciting an angry mob to riot isn't protected under the First Amendment.

See: Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1 (1949), in which William O Douglas says for the majority:

Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above the public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.

I would think that the likely reaction in the Muslim world to Jones's publicity seeking (which was known when he started his whoring for publicity) probably meets the test for "clear and present danger"; the results certainly meet the test for "serious substantiative evil".

[uppityperson]

24. Thank you.

[amandabeech]

25. I sincerely doubt that the reverend's action meets the test.

It is clear that burning the Koran would rile up some people, but it is not clear that 7 UN workers would die because of this, in part. As another poster on another thread pointed out, some members of the US forces shot up some civilians, including a 12-year-old boy. Afghans were incredibly upset by this, as they should be. In a court of law here, it would be extremely difficult to pin the deaths on the minister following the atrocitiy against the civilians.

It is also clear that the danger wasn't "present." The bloodshed occurred two weeks after Pastor Loonie-toon burned the Koran. Courts would probably rule that the provocation and the bloody response were too far apart in time. "Present danger" generally refers to actions occurring within minutes or hours, not two weeks.

Our system is run to maximize free speech, and the presumption is that all speech, particularly religious speech, will be protected.

It is very different from any "free speech" everywhere else.

[Bragi]

29. Great post! Thanks for that

The only thing I would add is that it is important to talk about this now not because we want to isolate or attack any or all Muslims. We have to talk about it because we have not heard the end of murderous protests against Jones yet, and because no matter what we do, there will be more Qurans burned in the future. It is inevitable. We have to find a way of dealing with this that doesn't include either the suppression of free speech or the killing of innocent people by enraged zealots. That is no trivial matter.

[amandabeech]

34. The three professors from whom I took my three constitutional law classes many, many years ago

thank you for your compliment!

Have a great weekend! :hi:

[MellowDem]

32. It doesn't even come near meeting the test...

it's a very stringent test.

The cartoonists drawing Mohammed would be banned under that logic.

[northernlights]

39. thank you for that. Freedom is not freedom without license. nt

[white_wolf]

21. I propose a mass bible burning.

If we can disrespect others beliefs we can disrespect us. He has a right to be an asshole, but so do we.

[Bragi]

30. You have a right to do so /nt

[Rage for Order]

35. You're a bit late to the party

Go to youtube and search "burning bible" or some variation of same. You'll get enough hits to keep you busy for quite some time.

[Modern_Matthew]

23. I agree. Burn whatever book you want. Flag, too. Just because some idiots

feel strongly enough about some lame symbols to retaliate for their burning doesn't mean burning them should be made illegal.

[The Northerner]

33. Exactly

[Hannah Bell]

38. why does this phony preacher & his church of 50 people that's a tax dodge for

a for-profit furniture import business, with the "parishioners" providing cheap labor -- which has furniture stored in its sanctuary --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x794849

why does he get so much press?

he can burn all the korans he wants so far as i'm concerned, but it's curious that he gets so much press for doing it.