Freedom of Speech for Terry Jones?

[Anonymous]

The Qur'an burning pastor wants to hold a demonstration outside the country's largest mosque, in Dearborn, Michigan. A Detroit prosecutor has filed a motion to block it. Pastor Jones says they come in peace and are not opposed to all Muslims. But he also says they will be packing heat (my words, not his). Is this an issue of free speech or intent to cause a riot?

Here is an article and video: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/19/detroit-prosecutor-looks-stop-protest-organized-koran-burning-pastor/

[Anonymous]

Well, let's take a look at this mess.

1. Not that it's relevant, but I don't know how he can carry a concealed weapon in Michigan. Such a permit requires you to be a resident for at least six months. It can be waived if you have a prior permit, but my reading is that you still have to be a Michigan resident.

2. Given that concealed weapons are legal in Michigan, and assuming he has the required permit, it seems that he should be allowed to carry them at the demonstration. Remember, the Black Panthers did the same thing years ago.

3. His inability to explain the purpose of the guns in this peace demonstration is puzzling, but I'm not sure that one is required to make sense in order to exercise first or second amendment rights.

4. I imagine that the presence of guns is a factor that will have to be included in the time, place, and manner restrictions that the city is allowed to set. But I think they will be required to provide some opportunity to stage the protest, guns and all. Maybe it will be 100 meters away from the Mosque or something.

5. The guy is an ass, and he doesn't even seem to have a logic for what he is doing. But I think it's best to let him protest, put the protest a decent distance away from the perimeter of the mosque, and line the street with National Guardsmen.

[Anonymous]

Even an ass, under our Constitution, has a right to free speech, to wit, DCUM.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, the ACLU defended Jones: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/23/terry-jones-jailed-michigan_n_852916.html.

[Anonymous]

The law that they used to imprison him before he even spoke seems very backward and maybe hasn't been tested.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The law that they used to imprison him before he even spoke seems very backward and maybe hasn't been tested.

I agree. I'm not big on prior restraint. It appears that even CAIR-Michigan thought Jones should be allowed to protest and that the arrest was a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The law that they used to imprison him before he even spoke seems very backward and maybe hasn't been tested.

He and an associate were imprisoned about an hour until they agreed to pay a one dollar fine. Sounds like a pissing battle with the judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law that they used to imprison him before he even spoke seems very backward and maybe hasn't been tested.

He and an associate were imprisoned about an hour until they agreed to pay a one dollar fine. Sounds like a pissing battle with the judge.

Correction: not a fine, a bond.

[Anonymous]

Several prominent Muslim leaders in Michigan and at the national level have come out to support Jones right to protest. I'm curious how many people will view this as evidence that not all Muslims are terrorists who want to kill Westerners and/or subject them to Sharia law. Unfortunately, my hunch is that very few will. Of course, they'll be quick to pick up on any Muslims who do have negative reactions (which would be entirely justified so long as they don't rise to attempts at limiting Jones' rights) and REALLY quick to pick up on any who do respond inappropriately.

...sigh...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law that they used to imprison him before he even spoke seems very backward and maybe hasn't been tested.

He and an associate were imprisoned about an hour until they agreed to pay a one dollar fine. Sounds like a pissing battle with the judge.

Not really. To get out of prison, they would have to pay the $1 fine but also agree not to come near the mosque for three years. The bond may be a technicality, but the agreement to give up first amendment rights is not. It's prior restraint.