Terry Jones

[Kevin]

Is this protected speech?

Could the U.S. or Florida have jurisdiction to prosecute?

If they prosecute, what do they prosecute him for?

[33girl]

Just to clarify for all, this is not re: Monty Python's Terry Jones.

[AGDee]

Being an ignoramus is not a crime. The guy is free to do what he did in this country. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it is illegal.

[Drolefille]

Yes it's protected, ask MC about jurisdiction, and prosecution.

Should they prosecute? No. Should we collectively shun him? Yes.

Luckily it's my right to call him a fuckwit.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes it's protected, ask MC about jurisdiction, and prosecution.

Should they prosecute? No. Should we collectively shun him? Yes.

Luckily it's my right to call him a fuckwit.

He truly is that. I heard him the other day on nationally syndicated radio show. Jones is a TOTAL nutjob.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Is this protected speech?

Could the U.S. or Florida have jurisdiction to prosecute?

If they prosecute, what do they prosecute him for?

Yes.

No.

Absolutely nothing.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes it's protected, ask MC about jurisdiction, and prosecution.

Should they prosecute? No. Should we collectively shun him? Yes.

Luckily it's my right to call him a fuckwit.

Actually, I think it's an interesting question whether it's protected speech or not. I'm not quite sure it's that clear. I can see at least a colorable argument that it's akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, which is not protected. Not saying that would be a winning argument, but who knows.

The question is, if it's not protectes, what he could be be proescuted for? Inciting a riot? The riot wasn't in the US.

And if he can't be prosecuted for something, whether it's protected speech becomes something of a moot issue.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Actually, I think it's an interesting question whether it's protected speech or not. I'm not quite sure it's that clear. I can see at least a colorable argument that it's akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, which is not protected. Not saying that would be a winning argument, but who knows.

There's nothing directly on point. Brandenberg v. Ohio requires the speech to produce "imminent lawless action," but we all know what happened in a very similar case in Texas v. Johnson where the burning of the American flag was found to be protected expressive conduct because it only sometimes would result in lawless action, and that the test under Brandenberg required that the lawless action be imminent.

Here, I think the sort of lawless action certainly had a higher degree of imminence, what with the riots over the Mohammed cartoon, and with the lawless action that had been threatened.

The question is, if it's not protectes, what he could be be proescuted for? Inciting a riot? The riot wasn't in the US.

I think a good argument could be made for a depraved heart murder sort of homicide crime, or at the very least, negligent homicide, assuming the jurisdictional issues can be made sense of. Inciting a riot would also be a possible charge.

And if he can't be prosecuted for something, whether it's protected speech becomes something of a moot issue.

The jurisdictional stuff is interesting to me. Would Florida have jurisdiction because that's where the actions occurred which led to the deaths? The U.S. probably has a plausible theory as well.

The First Amendment issue is also really interesting, because I think there's a good fall back position if the courts would find that Brandenberg was satisfied. We live in a world which is extremely interconnected these days, and if some (admitted) wackadoodle in Florida does something not protected by Brandenberg, can he be held responsible for conduct only occurring in other countries and other cultures? Are we Americans going to be limited in our actions because those actions might incite mob violence halfway around the globe?

I would *really* like for someone to file criminal charges in this case just to see how it plays out.

[PiKA2001]

^^^^^
How about we start rounding up and prosecuting the folks that burn flags, bibles, books, and bras?

Do we *really* want to go there?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

^^^^^
How about we start rounding up and prosecuting the folks that burn flags, bibles, books, and bras?

Do we *really* want to go there?

Well, as Kevin pointed out, we've already been there with flags. Bras, of course, are a completely different situation.

In any event, the question wasn't whether we want to go there. The question was if we did go there, would this be considered protected speech.

Originally Posted by Kevin

There's nothing directly on point. Brandenberg v. Ohio requires the speech to produce "imminent lawless action," but we all know what happened in a very similar case in Texas v. Johnson where the burning of the American flag was found to be protected expressive conduct because it only sometimes would result in lawless action, and that the test under Brandenberg required that the lawless action be imminent.

Here, I think the sort of lawless action certainly had a higher degree of imminence, what with the riots over the Mohammed cartoon, and with the lawless action that had been threatened.

I agree, and that's why I think it's at least a colorable argument.

I think a good argument could be made for a depraved heart murder sort of homicide crime, or at the very least, negligent homicide, assuming the jurisdictional issues can be made sense of. Inciting a riot would also be a possible charge.

Inciting a riot was the first thing that came to mind.

The jurisdictional stuff is interesting to me. Would Florida have jurisdiction because that's where the actions occurred which led to the deaths? The U.S. probably has a plausible theory as well.

The First Amendment issue is also really interesting, because I think there's a good fall back position if the courts would find that Brandenberg was satisfied. We live in a world which is extremely interconnected these days, and if some (admitted) wackadoodle in Florida does something not protected by Brandenberg, can he be held responsible for conduct only occurring in other countries and other cultures? Are we Americans going to be limited in our actions because those actions might incite mob violence halfway around the globe?

My first thought was that the US had the more likely jurisduction, particularly if the riots elsewhere had a direct affect on life or property at a place like a US embassy or military base, or had an effect on overseas troops.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

^^^^^
How about we start rounding up and prosecuting the folks that burn flags, bibles, books, and bras?

Do we *really* want to go there?

Like I said, the difference is that burning a Koran and broadcasting it on the internet after months of pre-publicity is basically guaranteed to result in riots and deaths. Burning a flag is unfortunately not all that rare an event and I don't know of a single act of violence that has occurred because of it.

All I'm saying is that an argument can definitely be made that this wasn't protected speech. Now, whether it is or not, we'll only know once the courts have had a chance to weigh in.

[Drolefille]

^^ I doubt the courts WILL weigh in though.

And if I burned a Bible and someone shot me, I seriously doubt they'd get off because I'd incited them/"fighting words"/whatever.

It's disrespectful to the extreme and irresponsible due to the international climate (and in Europe with their hate speech legislation it would be prosecutable I believe) but someone would have to pull something out of their asses and dress it up real pretty to make any sort of charge stick.

Civil suit, now that's a possibility - family members of those killed in the riots suing the pastor... hmm.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

^^ I doubt the courts WILL weigh in though.

I doubt they will either, because I doubt any charges will be brought.

That's what makes it an interesting hypothetical.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I doubt they will either, because I doubt any charges will be brought.

That's what makes it an interesting hypothetical.

See I'm far more intrigued by the idea of a civil suit.

I was reading some interesting opinions in the Post's On Faith about this whole issue and a lot came down to the fact that this is an American value, freedom of speech, and we should not infringe on that right and value just because others don't share it. I pretty much agree with that.

Terry Jones should follow Jon Stewart's long suggested advice - be a fucking human.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

^^^^^
How about we start rounding up and prosecuting the folks that burn flags, bibles, books, and bras?

Do we *really* want to go there?

I'd give you my bra to burn but I just bought it and it was expensive.

Sorry. Maybe I'll find an old one in my drawer that you can burn.