Terry Jones

[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.