Why are you always comparing America/Americans with other countries and non-Americans? I highly doubt anyone on clutchfans isn't American or lives in America.
Are you serious? There are tons of Chinese fans on here, for starters. ChrisBosh lives in Canada, I believe. Mathloom lives in Dubai. arno_ed lives in the Netherlands. I live in Switzerland/Germany. Etc. etc.
I don’t see this as being about the right to protest. I think this is about the inflammatory way Jones chose to protest, threatening to burn a Koran. It was needlessly extremely inflammatory. There are many ways to protest and people don’t, and shouldn’t, have the right to do anything they want in the name of protest. You can’t behave in a way that endangers people. You can’t fire automatic weapons into the air in the US as a form of protest, for example. Why? Because it’s reckless and you might hurt someone. What Jones was doing was reckless and pointless, and it forced the city to act to protect its citizens. Think about this from a tort law perspective, and maybe one or two of our lawyers will chime in on this. Jones should have known that what he was doing would be extremely inflammatory, and if he didn’t know initially he found out very quickly, and yet he didn’t back off. There was no point to burning a Koran. It didn’t say anything he couldn’t have said in another way. He was grandstanding and he put his neighbours and community at risk by doing it. duty of care -> breach of duty -> damages
The difference is that when you fire automatic weapons into the air, you endanger others. When this guy threatened to burn the Quran, if anything, the danger to others emanated from others, those who might react violently (fanatical Islamists). It's not like he was threatening to do physical harm to anyone else. While he might have been the one that triggered the reactions, he was not the immediate source of danger, for any violence to ensue, a conscious decision by someone else to act violently would have to come first. All this other stuff about whether there was another way he should have expressed himself, was grandstanding, etc., is besides the point. It would have been his constitutional right.
trust me, you couldnt be more wrong. SJC handled a brief overview, but I can tell you we have a rather large amount of members from other countries all over the world.
People do have the right to protest, but they don’t have the right to protest in any way they want. It doesn’t matter whether Jones had his finger on the trigger of a gun or whether he was using extreme measures to provoke a group of people he and everyone else knew would react. You can’t provoke someone you know will react and then say you’re not responsible when they do react. He knew that what he was doing would endanger his community. His responsibility, which is what’s at issue here, is to not do things that he knows will needlessly endanger his community. There is no greater good in this situation, or other mitigating factors. What he did was pointless and reckless, and he should be held responsible for his actions.
Yes you can, if it is your constitutional right. Your argument fails to take into consideration that the ones who would have been violent are those who "do react". The whole argument "you cannot provoke the crazy Islamists or you will have to bear the cost and the consequences" is...crazy.
Sure what he did was reckless and provocative. But, what happens here sets a precedent for next time. Say Obama makes himself dictator and enslaves all the Canadians. Fair-minded people protest, so Obama provides 'security' to make sure these things don't get out of hand. Then he sends the bills to the protesters who are only trying to protect their own rights. This is a ridiculous example, but that's not a path I want to go down. I'd much rather just pay for the idiots. If what he's done is truly reckless and beyond the protection of his free speech rights like crying 'Fire!' then charge him with a crime. If you can't find one that sticks, that's probably an indication that his speech is protected after all. I know, and I thought it was a needless potshot. I (we) disagree with Mathloom, but I would go on to say it's because people of his ethnicity or nationality or religion or even Mathloom himself doesn't value civil rights like we do.
First, it’s NOT your constitutional right to do anything you want in the name of protest. Your right to protest does not cancel your duty of care to your neighbours and your community. You can’t build a bomb in the name of protest, for example. You can’t turn a pack of rabid dogs lose in your community in the name of protest. There are all kinds of things you CAN’T do in the name of protest. Second, we’re talking about Jones’ responsibility here. The city may be contemplating action against “Islamic terrorists” as well, but that’s a separate issue. With respect to Jones actions, however, he had a duty of care to his community. He knowingly breached it. There were damages, which were foreseeable btw. He should have to pay. Why should he have the right to play his pointless games, endanger his community, and then have the tax payers pay for it? That would be crazy. And if Jones gets away with doing this it would be an invitation to every other fringe wingnut to do something extremely provocative, get their faces splashed all over the national news, and then have the tax payers pay for the consequences. I get that you want to make everything the responsibility of the “Islamic terrorists”, however, and that's why you'll never agree.
He didn't do any of that. What damages? Did he ask for the security? Was it necessary to that extent? I actually thought the initiative by the Imam who spoke to him was good, and Jones, crazy as he may be, was obviously not such a fanatic Muslim hater that he would have refused to speak to the Imam. He thought better of it and it did not happen, and I think that is a good thing.
This is a question we can have an interesting debate about. I think in that scenario the problem is that the government has become corrupt, and in that case I'm not sure it matters what the law says. I understand your concern, and I agree that the question becomes about where to draw the line, but I think you have to make Jones responsible for his actions in some way, and I think there needs to be some kind of deterrent to make people think twice before doing something as extreme as this. Protest is one thing, but this was not really about protest. I think it was attention seeking behaviour, and it cause some very serious consequences.
This doesn't happen often when discussing the Islam with SJC, but I agree with him. Do I think that guy was a complete idiot? Yes Do I think disagree with almost anything this guy has said? Of course I hate the people who offend people just to get attention. I believe in respecting others, even if they have different opinions than me. I do not agree with people who try to offend other, just to get a reaction (like this guy did, and some other people I will not mention). However I do not think they should pay for the security. I believe they are not responsible for the reaction of others. The media should have just ignored this person. unfortunately the media are ratings whores. That being said I believe most people are offended way to fast.
well said. burning books, although stupid, is not illegal nor is it an act that puts others in danger in any tangible way. the danger comes from those who would want to do harm to the book burners. to try and fine a group for attempting to exercise their 1st amendment rights sets a very bad precedent. if i was police chief i would have simply told the cops working that beat to keep an eye on the place. if a confrontation erupted they could call for back-up. you arrest anyone who is engaging in physical assaults or other illegal activity (again, book burning is not illegal). but you dont fine citizens for engaging in legal activity - again, it sets a bad precedent. did the book burners even get any death threats? the south park guys get death threats, the draw muhammed person gets death threats - but this pastor does not? seems odd. ATW, is it true that in germany you can be charged w/ a crime for denying the holocaust?
So to be clear, you believe your right to protest goes only as far as another group's patience? If a group will react to your protest in an unpleasant way you no longer have the right to protest? What is the point of a protest again?
building a bomb in your neighborhood is probably against the law. and most communities have laws against rabid dogs as well. burning books is not against the law. when a crime is committed individuals should be held accountable for it. if any "islamic terrorists" did physical harm to the book burners then they should be charged w/ a crime. but until a crime is actually committed there is no need to get the law involved. theres an idea! fox, cnn and msnbc should have to pay - those idiots were out there for weeks running this story and at the same time criticizing the overexposure and asking "is the media giving this guy too much attention?" some jackass w/ 50 followers can dominate our news for this long? does this mean that if me and 30 of my friends get together and decide to have a quran burning in my backyard that we will get all that free publicity too?
Yes but it's about what is reasonable. I can tell you as a government agent, when the costs are so dramatic that they could not have been accounted for in advance, you have to start charging people otherwise they will ultimately hold you hostage with the ability to increase costs dramatically with no reprucussions. There has to be a balance. I think this is a classic case of a situation where the government is within its rights to charge the pastor/church. The church can always fight it in court or challenge the amount being charged, but it's IMO a fair and legitimate action for the government to take. So while I agree that cost-prohibitive security is bad, I also think that balance should be maintained by ensuring that creating extraneous insecurity is not free. There is a guy who works in a department which spent a lot of money because this pastor decided to go crazy. Who's wallet should it come out of? The guy who was securing the pastor or the pastor who created this security situation? Is it fair to expect the government to eliminate all potentially problematic elements to the point where security costs shouldn't be a problem? If this action, or any similar action, is seen as unfair or selective, then the matter can again be referred to a court or be investigated. Just because something CAN go wrong through corruption, doesn't mean you should abolish it - it just means you have to make sure there are controls in place to ensure that the actions are logical and suitable.
