Texas Skateboarder Stops Christian Extremist From Burning The Qur’an

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

Texas Skateboarder Stops Christian Extremist From Burning The Qur’an

.............................

In Amarillo, Texas, David Grisham, director of Repent Amarillo, “which aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship practices through confrontation and prayer,” planned to burn the Islamic holy text at a public gathering. But before he could set the book ablaze, a 23 year-old skateboarder named Jacob Isom swooped in and grabbed it:

***** A planned Quran burning Saturday in Amarillo was thwarted by a 23-year-old carrying a skateboard and wearing a T-shirt with “I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke” scrawled by hand on the back.

Jacob Isom, 23, grabbed David Grisham’s Quran when he became distracted while arguing with several residents at Sam Houston Park about the merits of burning the Islamic holy book. “You’re just trying to start Holy Wars,” Isom said of Grisham after he gave the book to a religious leader from the Islamic Center of Amarillo.

Local news station News Channel 10 covered the event and interviewed Isom. Isom told News Channel 10 that “he heard something about burning the Qur’an. Then I snuck up behind and told him, ‘Dude, you have no Qur’an,’ and took off.” Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/12/skateboarder-extremist-burning-quran/

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/12/skateboarder-extremist-burning-quran/

---

[Mz Pip]

1. Hah!

That's priceless.

Of course the kid will probably get busted for theft and assault.

[razorman]

5. Well, it is Texas. The authorities may find that he stole more chain

than he could swim a river with.

[ThomasQED]

259. Congrats. You found a way to turn it into a Texas-bashing thread.

Oh wait, that's nothing to be proud of.

[razorman]

277. So who's bashing? That's one of the things I like about Texas.

[66 dmhlt]

128. Sorry to cut in, but too good NOT to share

There's a Rec'd http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/13/901417/-UPDATED-artwork:-Dude,-you-HAVE-no-Koran!">Diary by 8ackgr0und N015e at DailyKos - and he's created an instant classic icon of the event:



... and alternate spelling:



I didn't see his original Diary, which apparently had quite different grpahics, but he responded to constructive criticism to create what I think is an instant classic icon.

[Igel]

185. Too bad he got the alternate spelling wrong.

It's not "Qu'ran", it's "Qur'an".

There's no root, as far as I can tell, q-'-r. Q-r-' means 'read' or 'recite'. Spelling it "Qur'an" is rather like having an image that proudly says, "Support the Decomrat Party." All the letters are there, but the order matters a bit.

[RedCloud]

219. maybe it's a new alternate alternate spelling, just for rescues.

[stlsaxman]

253. i did a little tribute to him here...

[66 dmhlt]

258. Very nicely done! [n/t]

[Skip Intro]

2. The skateboarder had no right to do that.

Our rights apply to all of us or to none of us. Defending freedom of speech and expression requires we defend everyone's rights, especially those with whom we do not agree.

[ThomasQED]

4. You are right.

But I still find it very amusing.

And he's an individual, not the state.

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

10. Why doesn't he have the right to stop some one from starting a fire in a public place?

Judging the outcome exclusively, this was good citizenship.

[ThomasQED]

21. "starting a fire in a public place"

is just police jargon for "we want to arrest you for burning a flag."

[meow mix]

195. preacher wanted to yell fire in a movie theater. i see little difference

people would die. this guy stopped him hes a hero

[PatrynXX]

124. I'll have to side there. good citizenship

Yes the guy has a right to burn it, but a good citizen swooped in and w/o violence , the provocateur no longer had it. You would have thought they might have considered this and have a backup.

[PatrynXX]

125. although there's always ted nudgent aiming a

lit arrow and getting arrested for it. yes it was in a non public place.. and stupid too...

[earcandle]

179. I agree!

[glitch]

159. Well said, that is an important distinction. nt

[The Northerner]

11. I have to concur.

As despicable as the Quran-burning folk are, they still have the right to free speech.

[mbperrin]

15. And if he had forgotten his matches, would we be obliged to give him

some?

[The Northerner]

16. I don't know where it's required by law for people to provide matches

but I do believe that offensive speech is still free speech, even if that speech consists of destroying one's private property whether it is a flag or a religious document.

[skoalyman]

30. if he was soaked in gasoline. I supposed we could lol

[Hulk]

190. Maybe that's the answer.....

douse the idiot in gasoline prior to his striking the match. THEN, let him burn the holy book.

[Igel]

188. Not by traditional conservative norms.

Rights are protected and inherent, not given or requiring that others to enable you to practice them.

Since some think
(1) that there are rights to education (apart from due-process considerations), food, jobs, and other things, all of which require the government to provide the material basis for engaging in the practice of those rights and
(2) if an individual infringes on a right it's the same as the government infringing on those rights, so the Constitutional restrictions apply to people,
then perhaps those people would assume that a right to free speech requires that individuals that have the materials provide them to those who don't.

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

19. I simply see no individual right to burn public property,

Burning the Flag or the Koran on public property is not a valid expression of free speech. As soon as the material engulfed in flames touches public property, it stops being an act of free speech, and becomes an outright offense against the community, no different than vandalism.....

[ThomasQED]

22. Wasn't it on the barbecue?

You know, the public place intended for burning stuff?

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

24. Cooking Food. You might burn your food, but I like my meat medium rare.

The city or community provides public goods with the condition that citizens use them properly.

[ThomasQED]

181. In that case, I should be angry every time I see some idiot smoker throw their lit cigarette in the

street.

But no one has enough outrage to cover how many times I see that every day.

[The Northerner]

23. I hate to propose this comparison, BUT what if the Bush admin wanted to prosecute flag burners

or people who desecrated the US flag during anti-war demonstrations in 2003?

Should they have been stopped from or prosecuted for destroying their own flags?

I find it despicable that anyone would want to desecrate a Quran or flag BUT does the 1st Amendment not guarantee them the right to free speech?

Was the SCOTUS case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas v. Johnson">Texas v. Johnson decided wrongly?

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

28. You have no right to burn the public's concrete or grass, period.

If flag burners wanna burn the flag on their own property, that's their right, so long as it doesn't pose a reasonable threat to the safety of their neighbors.

[The Northerner]

33. I hate to propose this, but would the Bush admin be justified if they PROSECUTED anti-war protestors

who marched against the Iraq war in 2003 and desecrated or burned US flags in the public streets?

Was the SCOTUS case of Texas v. Johnson decided wrongly?

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

47. I would argue....that you do not have the right to destroy, misuse, or abuse public property.

Grills are made for cooking food...not burning paper soaked in kerosene...

Now as far as this harming other people's liberty...well obviously the smoke and smell poses a nuisance, bordering upon a real threat to their liberty, we can debate this.

But, now someone interested in using the grill properly, you know...to cook food with it, like the city or community intended for the grills use, well they cannot use the grill while its occupied, and I don't think this is up for debate.

[The Northerner]

49. Since it seems related, would Bushies have been justified if they prosecuted anti-war protestors

who publicly protested against the Iraq war in 2003?

Remember, plenty of them desecrated and burned US flags in public streets to express their opposition to the imperialistic Bush administration.

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

56. You do not have the right to burn the American flag, if that means also vandalizing public property.

So, I would support the prosecution of Flag Burners for vandalism and littering, not for the act of Burning the Flag, itself. Reasonably, one could conclude, that should little damage to public property come of the event, they should be provided the chance to immediately clean up the debris, provided that the demonstration is a lawful assembly. However, should damages to public property prove beyond a reasonable expectation of that which is to be expected from use of said public good, i.e. excessive, permanent damages.. then the case could be made for an immediate arrest. You can't set fire to public property itself; you can not scorch the street, sidewalk, or grass, and call it your liberty to do so.

[The Northerner]

64. You can't set fire to public property, that's right but

you also can't deny an individual's right to express himself/herself just because such an act of offensive and despicable.

As for the littering argument, maybe I can agree but the despicable bigots who want to burn flags/Qurans still have their right to free speech and still have the right to do so in a public park.

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

82. Not if they permanently damage the park, litter, or misappropriate the use of a public good.

They can burn the Koran...but not on the park's bbq grill....or in a manner that causes excessive permanent damages to the park, or to the liberties of other people, who also have a right to be there...and have a reasonable expectation that they will not be smoked out of the park by toxic fumes. So yes, its possible to burn the Koran...without vandalizing, littering, breaking the fire code, or violating other people's liberty and rights to use the park, and without things descending into an unlawful assembly. Why didn't the Koran burner bring his own sand for a fire pit, that he could essentially shovel into the trash, or his own barrel that he could wheel away? One book burning in a park does not constitute an unreasonable threat to air quality..20 books burning and we might have a problem on those grounds...but the point, again, is that from a legal standpoint, I'm not against the content of his expression, but the means set about to achieve it.

[provis99]

237. the Bush administration DID prosecute flag burners.

The charge was incitement to violence. The flag burners were convicted. Cheryl Lessin served one year in prison.

[totodeinhere]

154. People drop burning cigarette butts on public property all the time.

And nobody stops them and they are not arrested for it.

[14thColony]

129. It's not an equivalent comparison though

Jacob Isom did not represent the state; Jacob Isom acted as a private citizen against another private citizen. The First Amendment forbids THE STATE from infringing on legitimate political speech, but private entities are under few such limitations. So far in this scenario the state has not attempted to prosecute anyone for anything.

[deutsey]

163. Exactly...Unless Isom is Obama's Chief of Skateboarder Dudes or something,

the government is in no way involved in this incident.

I think burning the flag is as stupid as burning a Koran, but Americans have the right to do both (and for the record, as someone who went to numerous anti-war demonstrations, I only recall one flag burning and I remember many marchers expressing disapproval and even accusing the persons doing it as provocateurs).

Still, if the Bush administration had come down on flag burning, I'd oppose them, just as I would if the Obama admin. had tried to take legal action against the idiots who want to burn Islam's holy book.

[Kber]

144. The Bush Admin represented the "government" and therefore can't interfere in free speech

The skateboarder is a "citizen" and his Koran rescue might be as much of a protected form of expression as anyone else's.

The Government has not outlawed burning flags, Korans, or anything else. Private citizens, however, have every right to express their outrage and even, in a non-violent and law abiding manner, interfere.

[lumpy]

43. The definition of speech has been polluted. Speech does not

mean anything other than used verbally or written. The intent of free speech under the Constituton refers to just that. Verbal or written speech.

[The Northerner]

44. The 1st Amendment upholds the right to free speech and free expression

so, as despicable as the fundie Islamophobes are, they still have the right to express themselves even if that expression is offensive because it's protected by the Constitution.

[lumpy]

55. Where does it say in the Bill of Rights anything about ' free

expression' ?

[The Northerner]

60. Freedom of speech & expresion are pretty much the same

http://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/issues/freespeechexpression/

Speech includes expression and offensive expression should always be protected and upheld as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[lumpy]

80. Speech is a means to convey expression. Hardly the same thing.

Burning is not speech. And again, the Constitution does not mention freedom of expression.

[Heywood J]

112. Right here.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


People always forget about that pesky 9th Amendment.

[COLGATE4]

132. You've fucking got to be kidding me!!!!! n/t

[sabrina 1]

102. Where does it say 'freedom of expression' in the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see nothing there about 'freedom of exression'.

The commenter above is absolutely correct. The 1st Amendment HAS been poluted. It was done by rightwingers who wanted to use money as speech for one thing. 'Money is speech' they say. Which means if you have it you can the government and if you don't, you are mere peasant with no access to the system of government. So we are essentially back to the old way where Royalty Rules and makes the laws. All becasue people are so stupid and willing to literally give their freedom away.

I think the FFs would be horrified at how the Constitution has become a tool for bigotry and to take away the rights of the poor to an equal chance to influence government. I KNOW that was not their intention.

'Freedom of expression' can be taken to a ridiculous level. Eg, you could even claim that murdering someone is simply an expression of opinion. With the way we are stretching the right to freedom of speech, I would not be surprised to see it used as a defense for murder. Because the Jones book burning, even when warnings by three members of this government of possible violence against Muslims in this country and by extremists elsewhere, was still being defended as freedom of speech. It was absolutely ludicrous.

[notesdev]

108. Freedom of expression is the point of the First Amendment

It's a term that covers the various individual freedoms enumerated therein.

Go argue it with the ACLU if you think otherwise:
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/freedom-expression

Go Google "freedom of expression" and you'll get a virtual phone book of human rights organizations all in agreement on this point.

[sabrina 1]

211. I have googled it, I have read the ACLU's opinion

I don't agree that inciting violence was intended by the FF when they wrote the Constitution.

And I think they chose their words very carefully. If they wanted 'expression' in there it would have been there. Their intention was to protect political speech. To make sure that people could express disagreement with the government without fear of retaliation.

Now it is used as a shield for bigotry and hatred. Not all speech is protected. Which is why we have civil laws against libel and slander and incendiary speech. It's getting a bit ridiculous when someone is allowed to incite violence, which has already happened, to keep claiming that all speech is protected. I think the FFs were a bit smarter than that.

[veganlush]

245. You said it.

.... Absolutely right..

[Igel]

194. This is a narrow-minded, self-serving argument for this instance.

And only, really, for this kind of instance.

It means that you can speak freely, but not broadcast because that's different from speaking. You can print freely, but you can't post or disseminate what you printed. Text is protected; art is not. If I decide to have a march and play the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the music can be banned freely because it is not protected. Acts aren't a form of speech.

Much of the public/private distinction is also specious. It's one thing to have a right to assemble; but where does it say you can trample the grass at the Mall or other public spaces? That's destroying public property, and and is therefore illegal. If burning paper on concrete and metal is dangerous (when charcoal is far hotter), then we mustn't let crowds of protesters damage sidewalks and roads with their petty feet; perhaps if they're all barefoot, but only perhaps.

This makes strict constructionists seem expansive, and most freepers seem like extreme civil libertarians and civil rights advocates. Fortunately, rights belong to the people of the United States of America, not to some arbitrarily delimited "we the people."

Note that your final point makes a slippery slope argument based on a straw man: It presupposes that the first amendment rights trump all other rights without restriction, and that there is no limit to what can be construed to be "expression." Both are false, bound by tradition, statute, and case law.

[COLGATE4]

204. Your second paragraph is a virtual cornucopia of incorrect

statements. Broadcasting is somewhat different only because the use of the public airways is controlled by statute. However on cable or Public Access you can broadcast any damned thing you have a mind to. You can print and freely dessiminate what you have printed. Art is just as protected as text. Your music can't be banned when you have your parade. Acts (expressive conduct) are such a part of free speech that nude dancing is protected speech under the First Amendment.

You need to educate yourself a little better on how the whole First Amendment thing works.

[sabrina 1]

216. I am not making the point that the 1st Amendment trumps all

other rights, without restriction and that there is no limit to what can be construed to be "expression". This is the argument being made HERE on DU. 'I am an absolutist' I have seen people say here, 'when it comes to speech'.

Not all speech is protected. I don't know why that is so hard for people to get. And I would be willing to bet that the moron 'pastor' Jones, backed away from his plans after he was informed that what he was about to do was 'dangerous' by several members of the U.S. government. In fact in a comment somewhere here after those pronouncements from Holder, Obama and Petraeas, I predicted he would be advised, legally, not to go ahead.

[Turborama]

213. It still is being defended that way

On here. Vehemently. I just had to hide my 1st thread ever because it's getting beyond ludicrous.

[sabrina 1]

218. Yes, I know. I have seen them try to defend the 'pastor'

even after he was told by the POTUS, a U.S. General and the AG that what he was about to do was 'dangerous'. I believe they did that publicly to let him know that if he went ahead with that knowledge, it would cost him. I was not at all surprised to see him back down at that point. Because there is speech that is not protected, such as speech that can result in the deaths of other people.

I wish all these absolutists would try a little experiment, although I doubt they'd have the nerve. Call someone up and threaten to kill them and see what happens.

The Abortion case involving incendiary posters which were threatening to abortion doctors, defended at the time by 'absolutists' is an example of speech that was not protected.

It is ludicrous to believe that the FF intended that the 1st Amendment would be used by bigots to arouse dangerous anger against any religious group or by anyone else that would threaten lives.

[Turborama]

236. "Absolutists"

Perfect description. Similar in their character make up to "fundamentalists".

I was using dogmatists but absolutists seems better.

[sabrina 1]

265. I have to give credit to one of them

who described himself that way 'I am an absolutist when it comes to Free Speech'. Anything goes? Not really but it's odd to see so many actually WISHING that were the case.

[druidity33]

116. The GOVERNMENT shall not

restrict free speech. What the skateboarder did wasn't restricting freedom of speech, if anything it was theft pure and simple. Besides, if free speech is such a paramount issue for you, shouldn't the skateboarders act also qualify as free speech? He was surely making a statement by secreting that Quran outta there...

:shrug:

[Kber]

146. Exactly.

And the Skateboarder is not THE GOVERNMENT, either, so it really doesn't matter.

[Scruffy1]

220. No wonder this country is such a mess..

When a simple act like this is controversial. This from a people who stood by while thousands were being slaughtered in illegal wars. This false morality and holier than thou attitude has been the death of the left for my whole life. I call it the "Be careful not to jaywalk" syndrome. It never accomplishes anything. No wonder the politicians laugh at us.
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing ground."

[sabrina 1]

266. Exactly. The Skateboarder was exercising his right to

'freedom of expression'.

[G_j]

168. What about the KKK burning crosses on public property?

is that lawful?

[onenote]

225. When the Constitution was drafted, nonverbal expression was viewed

the equivalent of verbal speech in many instances. Symbolic acts could create liability for libel just as could verbal expression. Old cases involving the display of "liberty poles" establish that as far back as the 18th century, such actions were regarded as a form of protected speech.

[elleng]

29. Yes they have the right, and the government did not say 'No,' a citizen did.

[safeinOhio]

72. An individual risk his

freedom to preform an act of civil disobedience. Deeds not creeds, that's what UUs are all about.

[sabrina 1]

97. And others have the right to express their disagreement.

That's what the skate-boarder did.

'Dude, you have no Qu'ran'! :rofl:

And if the bigot doesn't like how he expressed his disagreement, he can sue him. Ain't Democracy great?

I hope this becomes the standard way to protest Book Burners. Very creative, and apparently effective.

[Kber]

143. The right to free speech only applies to the government.

It does not guarantee anyone a platform, audience, or that anyone else has to listen. It only guarantees that the government itself won't interfere.

[thereismore]

149. Burning the Koran amounts to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. People might die. nt

[Igel]

197. Immediacy.

Burning the Koran is like going to the American South in the '60s and decrying racism and insulting the sensitivites of racists. People might die. Yet while speaking freely might get you killed, neither MLK nor Emmett Till are responsible for their own murders.

[COLGATE4]

205. No, no it doesn't.

[sam sarrha]

240. good thing they are a Religion of Peace....

[AlbertCat]

170. they still have the right to free speech.

Yes they do... and the government has not made any laws to stop them from speaking freely.

They can get the skateboarder for theft I suppose, but not anything having to do with free speech.


Besides, this way they get more publicity..... which is actually what burning the Koran is all about.

[gort]

13. What if he was preventing the burning of the American Flag?

The man was going to destroy a holy book in an effort to foment more hate and violence against Muslims.


We need more people like this skateboarder.

[The Northerner]

18. Flag desecration is still free speech

As upheld by the SCOTUS case of As upheld by the SCOTUS case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas v. Johnson">Texas v. Johnson.

Just to clarify, I support neither Quran burners nor flag burners (I find both actions to be disrespectful) but we must always defend freedom of speech if it that speech is considered offensive.

To not defend freedom of speech would only allow us to have selective free speech.

[gort]

32. and what if he was going to burn a baby seal?

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Free speech also means I have a right to protest what that bastard was saying and if I could have gotten away with it I would've grabbed and ran away with that book, too.

Peace to you.

[The Northerner]

37. You have the right to protest and disagree with the fundie nutjobs who want to burn Qurans

but the 1st Amendment does not guarantee the right to take property from someone who wants to engage in offensive free speech, regardless of whether that speech is flag burning or Quran burning.

[gort]

46. I dont see how his free speech was infringed on.

He was going to destroy the property he held so in effect he was throwing it away, so it was no longer his property.

Now, what if it was a cross?

A burning of the cross is considered an act of terror against a specific group of people and from what I understand is not protected free speech.

How many Mosques need to be vandalized and Muslim taxi drivers slashed before we stop this insanity?

[The Northerner]

51. The fundie bigots owned the Qurans they wanted to burn

and a Mosque's owners also own their Mosque property.

Just because I damage my car doesn't invalidate the fact that I still own my car.

As for the case of Mosque vandals, vandals do NOT own the mosque so they are damaging someone's property who didn't want it damaged.

[gort]

59. Property, free speech, Property, what about context?

Burning a Quran is an act of terrorism same as burning a mosque and attacking someone for their religious beliefs.

I don't give a crap about who owns the property. It is the context. To make us live in fear. That the skateboarder did an act that saved a book that 1.5 billion people find holy was a fantastic counter-protest against a hate-monger. As for the poor bastard losing his property "waaah" is all I can cry for him.

Take this quote to heart from Arthur Miller's novel Focus:

Finkelstein: "For God's sake, don't you see what they're doing?! There's hundreds of millions of people in this country, and a couple of million is Jews. It's you they want, not me! They are a gang of devils, and they want this country."

End quote

Stop these bastards, now.

[The Northerner]

63. So, you're perfectly OK with sacrificing essential liberty for security?

Even if that essential liberty includes the right to express offensive speech?

The 1st Amendment states otherwise and should be defended on behalf of every individual, even despicable individuals such as those bigoted fundies.

[druidity33]

118. do you see Congress

abridging those rights here? Who's sacrificing here in this situation? I don't think the government should stop Quran burnings. I think people should go down there and kick the shit outta this guy, or do what this 'boarder did. Civil Disobedience? Radical change through action? Comic Book superhero? Maybe.

But i think you've been arguing an irrelevant point. Who's talking about screwing with the 1st amendment?

:shrug:

[totodeinhere]

156. It' just like the Patriot Act sacrificing essential liberty for security. And some of

the same people who rightly oppose the Patriot Act nevertheless seem to have no problem with sacrificing free speech liberties in this case. Folks, you can't pick and choose when to apply the Constitution and when not to.

[AlbertCat]

173. The 1st Amendment states otherwise

ALL the 1st Amendment states is that the GOVERNMENT can make no LAWS abridging free speech.

Has that happened here? NO!


You have got your panties in a wad for nothing. Take a Klonopin and calm down!


You sound like a right wing nut mad because they got fired for saying the N word 11 times! Go on Hannity and complain why don't you?


Cheesus on a cracker!

[Turborama]

215. What's a Klonopin?

I just gave up my nicotine gum and am getting really tetchy. Do you think it'd help with that?

[gort]

174. Cliche time

My rights end where your rights begin.

That asshole had the right to burn the book in protest and the boarder had the right to take it in a counterprotest.

No one from the guvmint was involved in abridging their rights to express themselves.

[Igel]

198. Ooh!

So if somebody took the guy's skateboard that would have been okay? After all, there's apparently the Constitutional right to steal if it means exercising freedom of speech.

So if some racist had snatched the textbooks from black students when they first went to white schools, we'd be defending his free exercise of the right to free predation?

I have to wonder if people posting above would have been okay with the skateboarder's being beaten, though.

[SlimJimmy]

235. Wrong, the book belonged to the protester,

and the sk8r had no right whatsoever to take that property. The situational constitutional rights being applied here is really frustrating, and very hard to explain to my conservative friends.

[gort]

246. Wrong, the greater evil was an attempted act of terrorism

akin to burning a cross.

cancel my subscription

[SlimJimmy]

262. Wrong, my ass

The Constitution is very clear. We may not like what he was attempting to do. In fact, it was onerous. But it's clearly protected speech and the Sk8r had no right whatsoever to take the property. As a matter of law, that's theft. Some of my fellow DU'ers are dead wrong on this one.

[sabrina 1]

105. Exactly! Some common sense at last.

I cannot believe some of the stupid comments defending these bigots. They stepped way outside the protection of the 1st Amendment when they decided to try to use it as a shield for bigotry and hate and potential violence against Muslims in this country and BY extremists around the world. This was NEVER intended to be the interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

I cannot believe the idiocy, the lack of common sense regarding this issue.

The Skate-boarder is a hero. HE is a true American patriot, upholding the principled upon which this nation was founded, prevention the persecution of American citizens because of their religion.

[COLGATE4]

133. Try checking Constitutional Law on the subject before

you make such sweeping (and totally incorrect) pronouncements.

[sabrina 1]

212. I have checked Constitutional law and cases where people

found that there are limits to the kind of speech that is protected. Maybe you should do the same. Causing the deaths of others is one kind of speech that is not protected. Try calling someone and issuing a death threat and see what happens.

[COLGATE4]

248. I taught Constutional Law. You can't run through a couple of

cases and assume you see what the holdings are. It's a lot more complicated than that.

[sabrina 1]

270. You don't need to be a lawyer in this country to study

cases related to topics of interest to citizens. And to be honest, I have not been too impressed with many of the lawyers I have seen discussing Constitutional issues in the media in this country.

Torture lawyer Yoo from the Bush era is currently teaching Constitutional law in this country. If that isn't a travesty I don't know what is. So just being a Constitutional lawyer doesn't mean being a GOOD lawyer.

Are you disputing the fact that some speech is not protected? We have civil laws that say otherwise, Libel and Slander laws eg. Courts have recently ruled that Cyber-bullying is not protected speech. Speech that incites violence, threats etc. is not protected speech.

'Pastor' Jones quit after he was told that his intended buring of the Quran was dangerous by three Government officials including the president. Any deaths that were caused by his despicable little stunt would have resulted in lawsuits and rightly so imo.

[stlsaxman]

123. "... whether that speech is flag burning or Quran burning"...

Flag burning is covered by the right to dissent. Burning the Quran is hate speech.

[Turborama]

272. NAILED IT!

But people love hate speech so much they'll die to defend it! :crazy:

Thanks, stlsaxman, for making the point so succinctly.

[jhrobbins]

101. I agree with you 100%. I abhor what that reverend intended, but it was within

his constitutional rights. It seems like a lot of folks in here are espousing arguments that are OFTEN practiced by the Republicans and when they do there is a hue and cry from DU. We need to be bigger than them and really uphold the Constitution, even when it is distasteful to do so.

[AlbertCat]

171. Just to clarify,

...the GOVERNMENT has made no LAW stopping anyone from burning a Koran.

The skateboarder STOLE the Koran.... so he could be arrested fro theft.... if anyone wanted to go through that process.



All the 1st amendment says is the Gov. can make no LAW restricting free speech. The Gov has and did not act here.


What about that do you not get?



Now look up Satyagraha... thats what we have here. Civil Disobedience.

Who are you people? Dr Laura?

[Igel]

199. Don't stop there.

Arrest the imam for receiving stolen property.

Don't have much respect for the would-be Koran burner. Don't have much respect for the petty thief, termed a "kid" by an earlier poster when the "kid" is 23 years old.

Now, if the imam found the Koran's owner and returned it to him, showing respect for the law of the land over his adoration of wood pulp and ink, I'd have a fair amount of respect for the imam. Otherwise I view him as implying that the law properly yields to his religion.

[roguevalley]

26. agreed. and I am torn over this because of free speech but I am

also intensely tired of bullshit.

[lumpy]

25. The skateboarder was exercizing HIS free speech rights.

v

[The Northerner]

27. As much as I disagree with the fundie Quran-burning nutjobs

free speech does not entitle Person A to steal property from Person B, even if Person B was to engage in offensive free speech that's protected by the 1st Amendment.

[lumpy]

40. I happen to believe that burning anything is not an expression of

free speech. The right to free speech should be limited to what it was intended ie. speech, oral or written. Can we declare smoking a cigarette a matter of free speech? Apparently not, since it is verbotten in many areas. No one can walk in public in the nude although it might be a statement supporting nudity. The free speech thing has gotten out of hand by using it as an excuse for spreading hate.

[The Northerner]

41. So, was the SCOTUS wrong to side with an anti-Reagan demonstrator who burned a US flag

outside the 1984 Republican Convention as they decided in Texas v. Johnson?

Should Texas have been allowed to prosecute and possibly punish Gary Lee Johnson?

[lumpy]

45. Yes, wrong. Unless he had a permit to burn the flag in public.

This helped to open the door to the ridiculous idea that any act contrary to public acceptance can be an expression of free speech. Do I have the right to burn a bucket of BP's crude oil in the state park expressing my right to free speech?

[The Northerner]

54. Huh? People need permits to destroy their own property even if it's a flag?

In the case of Texas v. Johnson, Gary Johnson had every right to destroy his property and TX had no right to interfere with his freedom of expression.

Has it really come to the point at which people need permits to express their speech or behavior?

Wasn't the 1st Amendment included to protect our right to speak or express ourselves freely without being hassled or interfered with?

[lumpy]

68. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about 'free

expression'. Nothing wrong with burning anything unless it is being used in public as an 'expression' supposedly covered by the right to free speech. That does not give people the right to burn anything in areas that are not designated for that particular purpose.
There are many areas where people cannot express themselves freely without being hassled or interfered with, such as telling off the cop who just issued a citation, inciting a riot. Shit like that.
Just how far can people go using the free speech clause as an excuse for any act?

[COLGATE4]

137. See my previous posts. Your opinion - nothing more;.

[COLGATE4]

136. You can believe anything you want - burning something isn't

free speech, the moon is made of green cheese, but that is nothing more than your opinion (and you know what they say about opinions). The fact is that the USSupreme Court has ruled that this type of activity IS proteted, free speech and that is the law of the land. The rest is just wishful thinking.

[SemperEadem]

119. sure it does

you dont' get to define what free speech means to other people who don't agree with your spin on it.

[COLGATE4]

134. No, he wasn't. You can try and try but you can't get

over the legal hurdle that Quaran burning (or flag burning) IS protected speech. All the kid did was swipe property belonging to someone else, legally no different than if he had taken someone's purse.

[TygrBright]

48. Skateboard Dude was also exercising his first amendment right of protest. n/t

[The Northerner]

67. The right to protest doesnt include the right to prevent fundie idiots from expressing stupdity

[TygrBright]

77. It does indeed, if he's willing to risk arrest.

Just as the first amendment protected the right of an anti-war protesters to stand in between the cameras and the pro-war speaker, and chant anti-war slogans loudly enough to drown out the American Legion idiot at a Memorial Day celebration during the Vietnam war.

One person exercising their first amendment rights in opposition to another person exercising their first amendment rights is, indeed, protected speech.

Although they'd have a case if they wanted to prosecute him for pinching the book, which is legally a no-no. Theft and all that. I'd enjoy watching the trial as they tried to explain that he stole the book they were about to burn, though.

helpfully,
Bright

[sabrina 1]

107. Of course it does. Where do you come up with these silly ideas?

Either you believe in the freedoms of people to say or do unpopular things or you don't. You dont' get to choose who is allowed to do them. The Skate-boarder dude had just as much right to express his disgust at the bigot as the bigot had to burn the Quran.

And someone else could probably have taken it back and had the same right, and on and on we go. Because we have stretched the intent of the 1st Amendment so thin, we have lost all common sense and become worse than any absolutist, radical, fundie group in defending people who are abusing the Constitution to oppress the rights of others, the exact opposite of what the 1st Amendment was intended to do.

Skateboarder dude was far more in line with what the Constitution intended. He was protecting the right to practice one's faith in peace in this country.

[jberryhill]

187. It was an act of civil disobedience

If he is prosecuted for theft, so be it, but civil disobedience has a rich tradition as well as that of free speech.

[safeinOhio]

75. He did the right thing

even if it broke the law. Many laws are broken for moral reasons and I applaud that.

[Igel]

202. Who's morality?

Many people are sent to jail and roundly condemned here for breaking a law for moral reasons. It's just that the reasons don't conform to our morality.

Some laws tend to encode morality (others don't, really). Freedom of speech, for example, is rooted in a moral norm; protecting it is a moral act. Denying freedom of speech, on the other hand, is also rooted in a moral norm; denying dissent, protest, and unsavory images or text is also a moral act.

Breaking the symmetry is the claim that one morality is superior to another. Breaking democracy is the claim that one's personal morality trumps the order generally agreed to; that way leads to anarchy, and justifies both acts we despise as well as acts we like because they hurt our enemies. (And, for many, hurting our enemies is morality itself.)

[SemperEadem]

120. exactly

[jobycom]

57. I'm not convinced the Burner had the right to burn a Qur'an.

The law allows one to make a statement of any kind. The law also forbids threatening speech or expression, such as burning a cross on someone's lawn, or burning a cross (or flag, or anything) in public with the intention of threatening someone. Burning a flag or a symbol of your own culture is a clear statement. Burning a symbol or a holy relic of someone else's faith to show someone what you think of them is much closer to a threat than a statement.

If it had been a cross instead of a Qur'an, and the Burner was wearing a white hood, would you feel the same? If so, then at least you are consistent. I'm not sure I agree with you, though. I grew up in cross-burning territory. Their message was the same as the one these Burners now are sending.

[crim son]

61. You nailed it, jobycom.

And I don't say that simply because I want the skateboarder in question to receive an award for his shocking behavior, heh.

[The Northerner]

70. I hate all idiots, whether they are flag burners or Quran burners but free speech must be defended

Even the ACLU defend the rights of despicable neo-nazis to march through Skokie, IL and express themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

I do NOT support the racist neo-nazis' actions but they, as well as every one of us, have the right to freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment.

[jobycom]

222. Free speech must be defended, but threats must be stopped.

Which this was, I'm not convinced yet. But it isn't a simple case of flag burning, where a person is protesting their own government. It's a case of threatening and intimidating an entire culture and religion.

And anyway, this wasn't a case of free speech. No law or police action tried to stop the burning. It was stopped by a counter-protest. That's speech against speech.

[SemperEadem]

121. exactly

the message is intimidation and thuggery. Period.

[COLGATE4]

138. Nope. Close, but no cigar.

[jobycom]

223. I didn't say anything about a cigar. I don't even smoke them.

:shrug:

[FourScore]

148. This is the best argument in this entire thread.

Thank you, jobycom!

[joeglow3]

201. Maybe it was art...

Apparently putting crucifixes in piss is art and not an attempt to piss people off (pun intended).

[jobycom]

221. That's a good counter-argument, I admit. But not perfect.

The Qur'an burner wasn't trying to explore the many dimensions of emotions that burning a Qur'an would affect, he was trying to express his hatred of a religion and a people.

Still, just because it's bad art doesn't make it not art, I guess one could argue, and art shouldn't be defined as only being a display in a museum.

But the burning wasn't banned or prevented by any governmental law or action. It was interfered with by people making their own expression. That wouldn't be equivalent to a law banning the Piss Jesus. It would be the equivalent of someone stealing the crucific before it was dropped into the piss and turned into a photo. There's still a valid argument to be had over rights there, but it isn't an argument about freedom of speech, exactly.

And it does matter whether the statement being made is against one's own symbols or someone else's. Burning your own flag is different from burning the flag of a different nation. By itself that doesn't turn expression into threat, but it's a factor in that discussion.

[NBachers]

58. Hey, fuck that. This guy's a hero and I'm glad he did it and I support him

and if he does it a thousand times I'll support him a thousand times.

[Indianademocrat91]

90. Bush didnt have the right to lie to all of us about Iraq

and fuck our economy with his lies but he did it without consequences even though there should have been many.

The skateboarder has every right to do whatever the hell he wanted. It may lead to consequences afterwards but he can do what he wants just like the GOP's baby Bush.

[emilyg]

92. +100

[sabrina 1]

96. Of course he had the right to do it.

If the bigot has the right to burn the Quran, the skate-boarder had the right to express his disagreement. Freedom of expression, you understand that don't you? Why is his freedom of expression in question but not the bigot's? And he did it in such an 'artistic' way too!

Excellent way to express disagreement. Brilliant actually.

I am stunned at the amount of support for bigots on this board.


But I love the photo. THIS is what the Founding Fathers intended by the 1st Amendment.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: For the person protecting citizens from bigotted harassment because of their faith and/or ethnicity! That is what the 1st Amendment was intended for!

[Turborama]

114. Yes he did, maybe it's time to re-read what the 1st amendment actually says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=bill_of_rights_transcript_content.html&title=The%20Bill%20of%20Rights:%20A%20Transcription

[Blue State Bandit]

122. Our rights do apply to all or none...

and that's why I support the skater and his right to make such a bold and righteous statement.

Freedom off speech and expression works both ways. Just as the pastor has the right to burn Holy books and instigate Holy War, so too does the skater have the right to make a damn fool of the pastor and save that Holy Book in the process.

Burning Korans, Bibles, or even the I'Ching for the expressed purpose of religious persecution, suppression, or the instigation of violence should be a hate crime; no different than screaming fire in a crowded theater.

How's that for freedom of expression.

[OrangeGrapes]

178. Jacob Isom did have that right

Burning a Qur'an is a hate crime. Of course, not a crime in the typical sense, but morally unjust. Just as if the person had set a Jewish person ablaze (which I know Americans are fond of mentioning, at least in my presence, since I'm German), the malice is the same. And that people defend burning it and criticize those that hinder others' ability to burn it is as equally sickening.

[ooglymoogly]

180. Ah but breaking the law for so fine a purpose?

Priceless.

There are times like these, when burning a Quran is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater; And is not acceptable, even under freedom of speech.

Sanctimony over a constitutional issue, that is not valid here, should be saved for clearer cut issues where it is justifiable.

If it had been the constabulary who took the Quran, you might have an arguable leg to stand on.

People v/ people....I don't think so.

[SteveM]

234. Well, yes, but the Constitution protects expression from GOVERNMENT action...

not the skateboarder. If someone wants to charge him with theft, that's another matter. But they better not put me on a jury.

[Botany]

3. Dude, you have no Qur’an

:rofl:

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

6. The skateboarder is an American hero.

THIS IS THE BEST NEWS STORY I'VE HEARD ALL YEAR.
What valor...What great conscience...Democrats take note...

Someone give that man an award!

[mbperrin]

20. I agree. I know no rule or law that says I have to be silent or agreeable

when someone is doing something hateful, harmful, and just plain shit-disturbing.

The park belongs to everyone, not just haters.

[COLGATE4]

139. You don;t have to be silent, or agreeable, or smile, or

anything else. What you can't do is take action to stop him. Different issue entirely.

[mbperrin]

141. Sorry, can't have you or him infringing on my sacred first amendment

rights, eh?

[COLGATE4]

206. That's a non sequitur

[mbperrin]

239. So is the idea that putting the public at risk is just free speech.

Thanks for noticing.

[COLGATE4]

249. No risk to the public. What he did is classic free speech.

All the wanting in the world can't change it into something it's not. It's not hate speech, it's not prohibited. You don't have to like it but you do have to let it happen. All the rest is just wishful thinking.

[mbperrin]

260. "HAVE to let it happen"

How strange, since it didn't.

[sabrina 1]

279. Wow, you don't much about Constitutional law for someone

claiming to be a lawyer.

Any citizen has the right to stop him. And someone did and I hope this will happen more often. Good thing you weren't advising people during the Civil Rights era.

Would this have been your argument? "The Government has the right to pass laws. People have the right to disagree with them, what they DIDN'T have the right to do was to move to the front of the bus"!

[thereismore]

153. That is so funny! Jon Stewart material. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

162. Ashton Kutchner already bought the movie rights...

Actually, there probably is a pretty good stoner movie in there somewhere.

[Wilms]

7. I guess you can say he shred their plan to burn the Qur’an. n/t

[bluescribbler]

39. +1

[onehandle]

8. He's lucky he wasn't shot.

He'll be lucky if he isn't shot.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[backscatter712]

9. That's awesome!!! n/t

[svpadgham]

12. Why couldn't he just toss a bible in with the Quran?

That would have been my solution.

[ProudDad]

53. Now I like that idea...

A Bible in 2 separate books; old and new testament and a copy of the Constitution -- the blueprint for the corporate state...

[David Zephyr]

14. Jacob Isom is now a Texan Legend. K&R

What a swell fellow, Jacob is.

What a great Texan and American, Jacob is.

:applause:

[mbperrin]

83. This is just as funny as the KKK demonstrating in our west Texas

town a few years ago. They had five in robes at the courthouse. A crowd of 1200 or so folks of all races and ages showed up, threatened them, shook their fists, and the K-idiots had to appeal to the sheriff for protection.

The punchline? Reggie Yearwood, the sheriff, is black. He urged the crowd to disperse and helped the goons make their escape. THAT is a priceless memory for me, and a great moment in Texas history.

Jacob Isom created another memorable moment against another hateful, shameful blot on the Texas landscape.

[David Zephyr]

95. Great story. Thanks for sharing.

Something is happening in Texas. I hope that Rick Perry goes down in November. It appears he might. :)

[martymar64]

254. That would be wonderful

I for one am sick of Gov Goodhair.

[Irishonly]

17. That's Cool

Good for him I don't know nor do I care if what he did was legal or not. I like the story.

[WCGreen]

31. cool beans!!!!

[craigmatic]

35. That is so fucking cool.

[Initech]

36. It's fucking scary to think that Terry Jones inspired copycats.

[BrklynLiberal]

38. Really chipping away at my cynicism there...

[azul]

42. OMG the Silver Surfer.

Sometimes I wish Superman was still alive.

If someone says something really offensive, like your mother is a ....., you do have the right to punch him in the nose, right? A coward if you do nothing. Excusable action in any US court of law: fighting words. Or have things changed so much?

[Odin2005]

50. BRAVO!!!

[ProudDad]

52. Pretty Cool (n/t)

[Jack_DeLeon]

62. Disgusting that some people support theft instead of freedom of speech...

Theft violates the rights of the individual who had his property stolen, he also prevented someone else from exercising his right to protest.

[The Northerner]

66. Thank you! I hate the fundie bigoted Islamophobes more than anyone can imagine

but I cannot tolerate someone engaging in theft to prevent them from expressing their right to free speech.

Remember , folks, two wrongs DO NOT make a right

[harun]

71. If there was theft let him press charges. Until then it is alleged and he is innocent

until proven guilty.

Suck on those rights.

[mbperrin]

74. Exactly and thank you.

Thank you.

[lumpy]

73. Pathetic that anyone should feel compelled to snatch a religious

book from a racist bigot who uses the 'freedom of speech' excuse that was clearly not intended to apply to book burning.

[azul]

76. Taking the consequences of moral action

against reprehensible idiocy is disgusting?

I say that he is brave and a hero to try to prevent mindless bloodshed while taking on the legal consequences, and further that any governor or president would be a fool not to pardon him should he be so charged with the crime.

[safeinOhio]

79. I'll bet you thought

Rosa Parks was terrible for breaking that law too. Sometimes breaking a law IS a statement and a form of speech. If the government, like a cop did it, I could see your anger.

[EFerrari]

84. LOL.

[Chulanowa]

100. I think your priorities are mixed up if that's what you find disgusting

I love that, so long as it's Muslims, so many DU'ers are eager to line up and suck the asscrack of the bigoted right.

[COLGATE4]

207. Absolutely correct!

[sabrina 1]

280. Was it disgusting when people didn't recognize the right

of individuals to refuse to allow Blacks to sit in the front of their buses? The law was on THEIR side also. And look at all the money they lost when citizens prevented them from exercising their right run their buses the way they wanted to. Arrogant second class citizens, demanding the right to sit wherever they wanted to on someone else's bus. Breaking the law too. How dare they.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. kick and recommend!! that was truly fantastic!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

69. Yes!!

(Pumps fist) Yes!! (Pumps fist) Yes!!

[eyeofdelphi]

78. there's a problem with this flag/Qur'an analogy

this guy wasn't trying to burn a flag. a flag is just a symbol of a country, of it's government. and no one else takes their flag as seriously as we do. but in the end it's just a piece of cloth.
the Qur'an is the islamic holy book. it's part of their religion. it's what they use to guide them in the right ways and behaviors to attain a happy afterlife. the flag doesn't even compare to that. no flag, or country for that matter, has ever promised acceptance into heaven if you follow it's rules.
burning the Qur'an is just hatemongering. it's just an attempt to start some shit. burning any religion's holy book is just a big no. it's ignorant and crass. nothing good can come of it. the islamic religion is not going to change because you protest it and burn it's book. protesting a country and burning it's flag may get it to change in some way or at least draw attention and put pressure on the issues. but this analogy making burning the Qur'an and burning the flag seem equal is totally wrong.

[AlbertCat]

175. the Qur'an is the islamic holy book. it

It actually a bunch of pulp paper with symbols (letters) printed in ink on it. And a flag is just a piece of cloth. The rapid oxidation of each is as significant as the other.

[eyeofdelphi]

191. true

but what the book symbolizes is way more important to believers that what the flag represents to americans. and sorry, but in this climate of extreme hate in america, the "rapid oxidation of each" is symbolically different and one will have a much greater effect than the other. already people have died in protests overseas because of this idiotic Qur'an burning stunt. how many fucking people have to die before we get it?
i'm not religious in the least. but i would feel the same way about burning any religion's holy book. is america on a mission to show the world how self absorbed and ignorant we are? if the taliban hated america before, i can't imagine what they must feel like now.

[AlbertCat]

228. is america on a mission to show the world how self absorbed and ignorant we are?

Obviously.... YES! The GOP is anyway.

[eyeofdelphi]

263. totally agree with you there

i wish the world saw less of the batshit insane qur'an burning side of america and instead saw us in a more positive light.

[EFerrari]

81. 'Way to go, kid!

LOL

[ismnotwasm]

85. "Dude, you have no Qur’an,"

LOL. Good for him.

Awesome picture

[glowing]

86. He looks much older than 23.

[mackerel]

87. Jacob Isom deserves a christian side hug!

[Hekate]

104. That too; he's getting an Islamic side hug in the photo. Go, skateboarders! Go, Unitarians!

This story has cheered me up immensely. :toast:

Hekate

[BillH76]

88. Almost everyone wants to tune down the antagonism....

Isom really did something about it. There are other examples, too, of people stepping in to stop a good old fashioned Koran burning.

[meowomon]

89. Beautiful.

I hope some right winger cop doesn't try to arrest him for strong armed robbery! Bless his skateboarding little heart!!!!!!

[MaynardGeeKrebs]

91. There is a difference...

It angers me when people burn the US flag, here or abroad. But, as a supporter of free speech, I must accept it. When people burn flags here, they are almost always protesting against a policy. The burning of Quran is about only one thing. Hate. Hate of another religius group. And we do have very strict hate crime laws.

Freedom of religion (as long as it's my religion)

[DFW]

93. No one was completely "within his rights" here, so I side with the lesser of the 2 offenses

The Koran was swiped from a guy who "aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship."

Therefore, the guy has himself plainly stated his opposition to free speech. He's the last one to whine about
protecting his own, even if he is entitled to it. Also, ANY publicity about a Koran burning in America, especially
by a Christian extremist, is known to be an incitement extremists in countries where thousand of guys armed to
the teeth would get set off by the news and go out and try to kill American citizens that might not otherwise be
targeted.

If killing a guy with a suicide bomb belt before he can set it off in a crowded market is "jusitifiable homicide,"
and I submit that the clause covers that, I'd say that the theft of the Koran in Texas, if it saves even one American
life by preventing its burning, is "justifiable theft." Theft itself is wrong, just as killing, in itself, is wrong.
But if my family is in a market and I see a guy with a belt of suicide bombs about to set it off, you better believe
I'd have no qualms about trying to stop him with deadly force, if necessary. If I had a relative serving (in ANY capacity)
in Pakistan, the Arab world, Afghanistan, etc etc, you better believe I'd try to prevent a public Koran burning.

As it is, if this manages to get any publicity on Al Jazeera or any other mainstream Islamic media, it might just do
America some good, letting them see that fanatic Christians do NOT speak for our country. If the skater gets cited for
petty theft, let him do his 30 days or 50 hours of community service. He has already done the greater community a big
service.

The "victim" of this theft, with his publicly stated "aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship,"
has already exercised his freedom of expression. The world now knows about it. The only way he could be freer in his
expression of his views would be if he were to get them inscribed on a plaque we leave behind at the next moon landing.
I think his point has already been made without the book burning.

The book burner would have been a not-so-indirect accessory to murder, and he didn't even care. The skater's action was
by far the lesser of the two offenses, whether the law was on the side of the book burner or not. Rosa Parks was on the
wrong side of the law once, too.

[COLGATE4]

140. And you went to Law School where???

[DFW]

184. Not me

But my daughter just graduated magna, National Women Lawyers Association award, UN citation for work with its War Crimes Tribunal in Sierra Leone, etc. etc. etc. and we are on very good speaking terms ;)

[elias7]

200. Is that like staying in a Holiday Inn Express?

I would say that the imperious postings of Mr/Mrs Colgate does not take into account the legal thread you raise. I have no law background (though my brother has a law degree), and it seems that though Free speech vs Hate Speech may not pass muster in the courts, the incitement to violence cases may have new meaning in the era of international terrorism. It is certainly an interesting question to me, whether speech or an act can be deemed so extreme and directed as to incite violence against our country.

In any event, I sure wish Mr/Mrs Colgate would stoop to discuss the case with us mere legal mortals, rather than cast the debate as decided and one side as a bunch of idiots...

[COLGATE4]

209. Lawyers have a saying

Trying to discuss legal issues with a non-lawyer is like trying to teach a pig to sing
You don't get anywhere and it just irritates the pig

[Nihil]

274. Is there any wonder that there are so many "dead lawyer" jokes (*) ...

... when they are so brazenly condescending & insulting?


(*) = category name, not a threat
e.g.,
Q: What's the difference between a dead lawyer on a street and a dead dog on the street?
A: There are skid marks in front of the dog.

Q: What's black and brown and look great on lawyers?
A: A Doberman

Q: What do lawyers and sperm have in common?
A: One in 50,000,000 has a chance of becoming a human being.

Q: Why do they bury lawyers 27 feet under?
A: 'Cuz deep, deep down, they're good people!
...

[elias7]

283. What is your law background?

And why couldn't you give more than one line missives in your responses and share some of your expertise with us mere swine?

[DFW]

226. When I was little, I practically grew up as a child of Capitol Hill in DC

I've heard more people that are always right than you can imagine. You'd be amazed how many people
in positions of responsibility only see one side of any question. But they do. You get used to it.

[elias7]

284. I do not see diplomacy in COLGATE's future

In my line of work (medicine), I am constantly translating the esoteric into common language. Just because I am a physician, I don't have some special order of conceptualization conferred upon me. Most people get it if you explain it right.

We also don't have any jokes putting non-doctors down. It is our failure if we cannot get our meaning across.

[COLGATE4]

208. Congratulations! You must be very proud of her. Have you

asked her about the legal underpinnings of your response?

[DFW]

227. She wasn't at the top of her class for nothing

She said both sides of the argument would be defensible in court (surprise--not). Better she
do it than I. Better I do the tedious meetings in windowless rooms in weird countries (been
doing that for over 30 years, now station chief for Europe, the penalty for letting the top
brass stateside know you speak nine languages).

For that matter, due to her qualifications (dual national, trilingual German/English/French, US degree),
she was snapped up by the German branch of a top British law firm that has a LOT of US work. Her field is
international law, although she had to do the gamut of the basics, as does any US law student, and knows
them cold, as would any recent graduate who just missed summa by a point or two.

[Ter]

94. 23? Looks close to 40 to me

n/t

[Stevenmarc]

147. OK so I wasn't the only one thinking the same thing

[KT2000]

98. Hey Dude!

Good going!!

:yourock:

[Hekate]

99. "Then I snuck up behind and told him, ‘Dude, you have no Qur’an,’ and took off."

Sweet! AND with Unitarians!!! My people! :bounce: :rofl: :woohoo:

[blogslut]

103. Follow Up: Grisham surrendered his lighter before the skater snatched the Qu'ran

http://myhighplains.com/fulltext?nxd_id=154085

Protesters put their hands over the grill. Grisham knew he couldn't very well set fire to people's flesh so he surrendered his lighter. It was after this that the skater snatched up the book and gave it to someone from the Islamic Center. The Qu'ran was eventually turned over to the police and is now classified as "lost property".

[Progressive Cancer]

106. I burnt a Quran!

1) Open your internet browser
2) Jump to url http://www.qurandownload.com/
3) Download one pdf version of the Quran to your desktop
4) Insert a blank CD in your driver.
5) Now burn the downloaded pdf file on your CD.

Eazzy XD

[AlbertCat]

230. I burnt a Quran!

Loved it!

[Shining Jack]

109. Cool !

:)

[Enthusiast]

110. Hero! nt

[vercetti2021]

111. HOLY SHIT!

This is my hometown! Where i live now and this happened?? I'm going to find this man and shake his hand for this brave act against that moron preacher or whatever the fuck he is!

[slackmaster]

113. So much drama over nothing

:nuke:

[Prometheus Bound]

115. I envisioned him flying through on his skateboard, grabbing the book as it fell to the fire, and off

But good work anyway.

[newfie11]

117. Good for him

America needs more like him instead of the bigot/racists that are all over the news and some on DU also.

[Dappleganger]

126. What if a person exercising their right to freedom of speech begins a humungous forest fire

Burning down thousands of acres of trees and taking out whole neighborhoods as well.

You may think differently about burning.

BTW, the pastor in FL was denied a burn permit...twice, for this very reason. Burning shit gets out of hand FAST and out of the control of the person who is doing the burning.

Find another way to show your dislike of something. Pee on it for all I care, at least it's not burning up everything and we aren't in any danger.

[AlbertCat]

231. Pee on it

Indecent exposure!

Public health hazard!

[Douglas Carpenter]

127. here is a great video of the protest:

http://myhighplains.com/fulltext?nxd_id=154085

[izzybeans]

130. What if I typed in an implausible scenario to create a false analogy here?

What if?

Sometimes a little civil disobedience is called for.

[Bragi]

131. Then we'd all shout out our favorite stereotypes. /nt

[zeemike]

135. Finally someone acted.

I thought some should up with fire extinguishers but this guy did it right....he took it away from them.

[wookie72]

142. At worst it was theft

and probably petty theft. Anyway, who would you rather hang out with?

[felix_numinous]

145. Burning holy books as a PR event

is the best way to incite violence, and irresponsible in a time of war in the MIddle East. The best example of a hate crime.

I consider myself extremely liberal, and believe that inciting violence and hate speech do not come under freedom of speech. Freedom comes with responsibility damnit or we will lose it all!!!

This skateboarding guy made my morning!! :headbang:

[Bragi]

150. How does burning a book incite violence?

So what's your theory here? Does the burning of this particular book trigger some medical condition that forces some people to lose control and to engage in violence?

[felix_numinous]

160. I am not a lawyer

just voicing my opinion. With the patriot act still in effect I am concerned that irresponsible acts such as these would cause even more loss in civil rights. Defining what is a hate crime or inciting violence would help.

I need to research inciting violence and hate crime laws to refine my point of view.

[Bragi]

166. Fair enough

I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that blasphemy and sacrilege are protected free speech in America.

I also understand that no-one has a right to be protected from offense or insult from another person exercising their right to free speech.

[COLGATE4]

177. Absolutely correct.

[LarryNM]

244. Use Your "Right" to Insult People Anytime You Like

And see how long you last.

[deutsey]

167. Well, the reports of US intelligence flushing the Koran down the toilet

while interrogating Muslims in Gitmo didn't go over very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_desecration_controversy_of_2005

"it sparked protests throughout the Islamic world and riots in Afghanistan, where pre-planned demonstrations turned deadly. A worldwide controversy followed."

[AlbertCat]

232. Does the burning of this particular book trigger some medical condition

Yes... the God Delusion caused by the Religion Virus.

[COLGATE4]

151. For all that it may be emotionally satisfying to embrace

or at least enjoy what the kid did, that doesn't change the bottom line that the attempted burning of the Quaran IS protected speech as determined by the US Supreme Court. His right to do that is the law of the land, and other feel-good attempts to justify its interruption just miss the point. The Constitution is designed precisely to protect the types of speech we DON'T like or want. All the verbal gymnastics about how burning this is somehow illegal because of hate crimes law or similar would be mildly interesting on a first term Law School exam, but don't make any difference here. Letting him burn his Quaran peaceably is the absolute essence of what our Democracy is about, and we should not forget that. What the kid did was an adolescent response to s situation which was wrong and which is quite probably a crime.

[totodeinhere]

157. +1

[whosinpower]

229. Burning the Quran is a symbol of intolerance

America being a tolerant inclusive democratic society - IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT YOUR DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT.

What the kid did was to shut down the pastors symbolic gesture of intolerance. You suggest this is wrong based on the 1st Amendment. I would state that the kid's gesture reaffirmed America's status of being a tolerant open society - even if he broke the law to prove it.

I think freedom of speech, or freedom of expression carries a responsibility. I know LEGALLY it does not - but morally, it certainly should. That responsibility would be to think in broader terms that your expression, whatever that happened to be, would benefit society as a whole. Inciting a religious war? Putting innocents in foreign lands in harms way? Endangering troops who are trying to make a positive difference in two war torn nations? Well - self righteous back patting - or - "see how radical Islam is when we burn a book" flies in the face of good judgement when realistically, lives are at risk.

So...perhaps what the kid did was wrong. Perhaps he trampled over the 1st amendment rights of the supposed pastor. But lord love him for it. Even knowing all this, he chose to break the law to prove a point....and in that instant, he was America personified.

[peacetalksforall]

152. There is another level above the legal. It's about what really was stolen.

The radical was grabbing attention and planning desecration of an item - an offensive act targeting everyone.

The skateboarders stole SOME of the attention away from the radical.

Is there a loss to the radical for the full attention of followng through? Is it worth money to the radical, as in damages?

If the radical says yes, let the court prove or disprove it for the radical.

Is there a loss to the radical for exactly what he paid for the Quran?

If yes, let the skateboarder pay for it.

Should the radical start a court case, let someone start a Legal Defense Fund for the skateboarder with the proviso that after all expenses are paid, any leftovers go to a fund for the defense of anyone getting arrested while attempting to stop a desecration.

[COLGATE4]

155. What the kid did was no different legally than if he had

swiped some lady's purse while on his skateboard. Whether or not she suffered monetary damages he has still broken the law and there are legal consequences for having done so.

[jberryhill]

189. Yes, we call it "civil disobedience" when one admittedly commits an illegal act for a cause

Damn you, Henry David Thoreau, you tax dodger!

And, in answer to your "you went to law school where" question above, I did go to law school, and one of the most important lessons to learn is that law is not a good personal moral code.

[ronnie624]

210. It may be the same thing, legally,

but it is not the same, morally.

You don't seem to understand the intellectual exercise of a discussion of what is and is not a 'right', what should and shouldn't be a 'right', and what may or may not be a 'right' in the future. There are no universal 'rights'. We provide them to ourselves, through an ongoing legal/democratic process, and what is considered 'free speech' now, may not be at some point in the future. Some forms of 'speech' and 'expression' are, in fact, illegal, and the 'expression' of publicly burning a religious text may, at some point in the future, be considered too inflammatory and threatening to be considered 'free speech'.

I, personally, think it is silly to grant permits to burn anything on public property in the name of free speech. Burning something is not speech, and I can't imagine anyone receiving a permit to burn their garbage on public property.

But Jones isn't really speaking, he's expressing his hatred through symbolism for more than a billion people throughout the world. If he really wants to express the reasoning behind his bigotry, he should just open a Twitter account and express himself through real speech.

[COLGATE4]

238. I understand the difference between what is legally permissible

and what you may believe to be 'morally' right. However our country is based on the rule of law, not fortunately on various individual's interpretation of what may be 'moral' or 'immoral' at a given moment. You categorically state that burning something is not free speech - however the U S Supreme Court has clearly ruled that it is. The thrust of this whole discussion was whatever this idiot had a RIGHT to burn the Quaran when he did, and whether the young man who stole his book (yes, stole) was right to do so. While at some point in the future what he did may not constitute free speech (and I sincerely hope that day never comes), that is not the state of the law now. The knuckle-dragger who attempted to burn the Quaran was within his rights as an American citizen, and the young man who prevented him from doing so not only violated one of all American's cherished rights but also probably committed a crime in the process. Nothing to applaud.

[ronnie624]

269. I "categorically denied" nothing.

I understand, that in the legal sense, burning a religious text is considered protected speech. But in the practical sense, it is not speech. In no way does it express a coherent idea or concept. It's just a brutish and inflammatory expression of bigotry, designed to promote friction and even violence among peoples throughout the world. It wouldn't bother me in the least, if he was unable to publicly burn the Qur'an, for whatever reason. Now if he was denied by the state, the freedom to express political beliefs through speech and writing or openly practice his religion, then I would become alarmed.

[kpete]

158. it did not take long...

[backscatter712]

161. Dude, that's awesome!!!

For those whining "b-b-b-but, that's STEALING!!!"

Yeah, it is, and I support it!

I doubt that Repent Amarillo douchebag is much of a victim. At best, he's out twenty bucks for a book, and he's out a whoooole bunch of pride, CUZ HE JUST GOT PWNED!!!

Raising my cup to Jacob Isom. YOU'RE AWESOME!!!

[COLGATE4]

172. It's undoubtedly more fun to only agree with the law when

it's convenient, but that's not the way the system works. What the kid did was larceny - regardless of whether they prosecute it or not. Not something to be terribly proud of.

[bighart]

217. I could almost see charing the kid with violating someone's civil rights.

That would be what I would want to happen if I agreed with the protester.

[Stuckinthebush]

164. At first I thought, "HA! Good for him!"

Then I thought, "Hmmm...while it is satisfying it is not something to celebrate."

I wonder if no one cared or showed up for the book burning then it wouldn't be a big deal.

[Spazito]

165. I love it! Go Jacob!

I love, as well, that the Qur'an is now in the hands of the police and listed as "lost property"! It seems even the police don't classify it as 'stolen property'! For those posters who think Jacob's act was theft or worse, it seems the police are not in agreement and I love it.

Recommended.

[texastoast]

169. Did the Grisham nutter have a burn permit?

Vile as it is, if he did, it was his right to do it.

However, Jacob Isom FUCKING ROCKS!! Woo-hoo a Texas hero against bigotry, hatred, divisiveness, and intolerance.



:applause:

[derby378]

176. Maybe Isom should consider running for public office

I like his chutzpah.

[earcandle]

182. An American Hero! The people of the Islam faith have suffered enough from our mercenaries and wars.

Atlas_Wept

Why hurt them further? This is sick. Common sense will have it that this skater
is a hero, not a thief. He has a right to demonstrate that some Americans still
have moral compasses and intelligence and balls.

[barbtries]

183. i'm in repent

no joke
:rofl:
good for him!

[valerief]

186. VERY FUNNY!!!!

:rofl:

[John Kerry VonErich]

192. Should have never posted the pic.

Now his life is in danger because of it.

[meow mix]

193. great job, and look at all the exposure of anti-islam haters in one thread.

lol very nice work exposing the trolls as well

[Quantess]

267. "Trolls"? No, an objective reader could look at this same thread and say,

look at all these people who support freedom of speech.

[Nihil]

273. They "could" ...

> No, an objective reader could look at this same thread and say,
> look at all these people who support freedom of speech.

... but if they actually read the posts (like I did), they would be
far more likely to agree with .193 ...

:shrug:

[Quantess]

278. So anyone whose opinion of the skateboarder falls short of sainthood is a troll, then?

Sheesh. This place, sometimes.

[Nihil]

282. That's your claim, not mine. You said it, you own it. (n/t)

:shrug:

[alp227]

196. Bottom line: Do stupid shit, get called a fool.

If that pastor wants to be hateful of Islam and burn a Quran, fine. That doesn't mean the pastor will be immune to any criticism (which came in the form of protesters and Isom).

[asdjrocky]

203. Dude!

Talk about gleaning the cube! Fierce move my brother!

[Crowman1979]

214. HELLO PEOPLE!!! This "Repent Amarillo" cult has been terrorizing the people of Amarillo...

...for quite some time. Does everyone have collective amnesia or something?

Christian Hate Group ‘Repent Amarillo’ Terrorizes Texas Town, Harassing Gays, Liberals, And Other ‘Sinners’

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/04/texas-taliban/

An evangelical Christian hate group called “Repent Amarillo” is reportedly terrorizing the town of Amarillo, Texas. Repent fashions itself as a sort of militia and targets a wide range of community members they deem offensive to their theology: gays, liberal Christians, Muslims, environmentalists, breast cancer events that do not highlight abortion, Halloween, “spring break events,” and pornography shops. On its website, Repent has posted a “Warfare Map” of its enemies in town.

Calling Repent an “American Taliban,” blogger Charles Johnson notes that the group’s moniker “Army of God” is a rough translation of “Hezbollah.” Led by a man named David Grisham, a security guard at a nuclear-bomb facility called Pantex, Repent first gained media attention in Texas following a campaign to boycott Houston for electing a gay mayor. The group, which is associated with Raven Ministries, collaborates with other Christian groups as well as forced pregnancy advocacy associations like “Bound 4 Life.”

According to a new exposé by the Texas Observer, Repent set out earlier this year to destroy a discreet club of swingers they discovered in town. On New Years eve, the harassment began, with Repent members, almost exclusively young men, showing up in military fatigues and bullhorns, blaring Christian music at the swingers’ club building. The swingers, made up of “regulars” of middle aged, working class couples, were then stalked at every following visit to the club. Repent not only took video of each member, but obtained the swingers’ license plates and dug through their trash, informing neighbors and coworkers of what was once private. Watch a Texas Observer report:

Repent has struck with some success at many of its enemies within the town. A community theater attempted to open “Bent,” a play about the persecution of homosexuals during Nazi Germany. But the day before opening night, Repent members helped shut down the play by calling in fire marshals to complain about the theater’s permit. Staffers at a nature preserve were featured on local news defending themselves against Repent accusations that their site represents something related to witchcraft.

But grassroots opposition to Repent is also building. A group called “Angel Action” has mobilized against Repent, and blogs and Amarillo-based Facebook groups are springing up to protest Repent’s hate.

---------------------------------------

IMO these assholes deserve it! And don't give me that free speech BS.

[ThomasQED]

242. "Free speech BS"???

:wow:

[Hekate]

271. A very belated thanks for this info and link. It deserves to be an OP of its own....

Grisham has declared a form of war. It looks like this guy wants to shout FIRE! in a crowded theater, and would be delighted when there is simultaneously gunfire and a stampede for the doors.

Hekate

[babydollhead]

224. who will portray the skate boarder on SNL? (nt)

[DLine]

233. That was nice of Kip Dynamite to step in...

He then told the guy that you're mom goes to college.

[babydollhead]

255. I knew he looked like somebody!

I was thinking Sonny Bono

[John Kerry VonErich]

257. I was thinking Weird Al Yankovic with bad hair.

nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

241. already on Cafe Express

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/Dude_You_Have_No_Koran












and many, many more:

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/Dude_You_Have_No_Koran

[anthroguy101]

243. My hero

Such bravery, such nobility. Let us all praise his courageous deed.

[Quantess]

247. It's just a book, people.

People still have the right to be an obnoxious a-hole in the name of free speech.

So, the guy saved a Koran from being burned. He also stole it. I guess I'm just not as impressed as other DUers. This just seems like a Dumb vs. Dumber.

[Douglas Carpenter]

250. it is not just a matter of burring a book it is a matter of people taking a clear and strong stand

against the hysterical hatred and bigotry against Muslim people being whooped up by the right wing media.

If America is in danger of sliding down a slippery slope right now .. it would be the slippery slope of anti-Muslim hysteria being pumped up by demagogues across the country and anti-Muslim hatred becoming completely mainstream producing consequences of nightmarish proportions for the country and the whole world.

I cannot compare this with burning the flag, because there simply is no danger of America being swept up into anti-American hysteria.

I cannot even compare it with KKK rallies or Nazis marching, because there simply no danger whatsoever of America at this time being swept up into pro-Nazi hysteria.

There is a real danger of anti-Muslim ethnic and religious hysteria sweeping the nation.

If someone yells n-word, n-word at an African-American in a public city park - and a police officer happens to be hear it - should they intervene to stop the name-calling or should they if necessary intervene to protect the free speech rights of those doing the name calling?

But this action was not the police or agents of the state. It was the actions of individuals of conscience firmly opposing a extremely dangerous tendency now in full form in American society.

It is simply a matter of being moral, sensible and pragmatic for private individuals to take a clear and firm stand against those who for political reasons are attempting to promote hatred and animosity against American-Muslim minority. If we were facing a danger of a reemergence of classic anti-Semitism - it would be pragmatic and sensible and moral for private individuals stand up in the strongest terms possible.

God Bless this young man. What a difference the 20th Century would have been if people like him had spoken up before the krisstolnachs became acceptable.

[COLGATE4]

251. The problem is that he didn't "speak up" - instead he chose

to take the law into his own hands, break it and deprive another American citizen of HIS right (whether we like it or not) to make an asshole out of himself. Don't compare the Dude's actions with the Holocaust,

[Douglas Carpenter]

252. I hardly compared it to the holocaust.

But I did mention an earlier event kristallnacht . Well kristallnacht did not happen in a vacuum. It happened when incidents of hate and intimidation became mainstream and acceptable. We now see many of the same caricatures once directed against Jewish people in Europe being directed against American-Muslims.

I'm not buying this as a civil rights issue anymore than I am buying that yelling nxxxer at an African-American is a civil rights issue. I suppose a person has a right to burn the Koran. And a group of people including this young man let them know how the felt about it. Sometimes breaking the law is the noble thing to do even if not strictly legal. Although I don't think there are any charges being pressed. Even if there were, under the law they are innocent until proven guilty - if one wants to talk about rights.



here is a great video of a local news story about the whole event:

http://myhighplains.com/fulltext?nxd_id=154085


.

[polly7]

261. An asshole of himself?

NOT. He obviously got sick of the PC stuff and decided to take matters into his own hands. He seems fairly smart to me, I'm sure he knows if there will be consequences and is prepared for them. "‘All that is necessary for the triumph (of evil) is that good men do nothing" ` Edmund Burke. A good man, that skateboarder! mo.

[whosinpower]

264. I disagree with your intent

Although I admire your passion.

The pastors words were not silenced. His message rang out loud and clear. His freedom to express hate towards another religion, or groups who do not confine themselves to his beliefs, was not forbidden - that message is strong in him. Nor was he arrested.

The skateboarder deprived him of the actual act - although the intent was never declared illegal. The skateboarder expressed his own disdain by taking the book away. THAT WAS HIS COUNTER PROTEST.

And I'll say one more thing - the heart and soul of this kid, is something to be celebrated....the muslim world could do and should have people EXACTLY LIKE HIM fighting the intolerance and bigotry that too exists in extremist Islam. In my mind, that message rings far clearer than the ashes of a book wafting in the wind.

Actually, I have one more thing about this whole affair. Never in my lifetime, have I heard a group of diverse religious groups come together, unify and take a stand against an act such as this copycat of Terry Jones' protest. Never before have I heard of christian and jewish groups state they will have readings of the Quran during their services - but they did. THAT MESSAGE rings far clearer than the ashes of a book wafting in the wind.

And that freedom cannot be confined to any constitution or amendment.

[autorank]

256. Skaters RULE!!! k*r

[lonestarnot]

268. Dat's what the kid says.

:evilgrin:

[autorank]

275. It's a way of life;)

[lonestarnot]

276. Well, I don't think I would go that far.

[autorank]

281. You and I wouldn't but that guy with the long board looked pretty

committed. I just like the idea of it, they're alienated youth with a philosophy. This hero looked a bit older
but maybe it's like surfing, people will be doing it into their 50's.

There's a cement island between the Willard Hotel and Treasury near the WH in DC. The elite of skaters will show
up, hop on their boards for a down hill rocky ride of about 50 yards. There are almost always police there who
chase them. It is quite a site.

The only skateboard I ever had was one I made myself - a 2x4 with detached metal skate wheels nailed into the
front and back. Did it one time only. I realized I didn't know how to stop and had to dismount heading for a busy
intersection at the bottom of a hill. Those things were weapons. Nobody got hurt and I retired;)