Just heard a caller on Randi Rhodes who said he Googled "cross burning illegal"

[gateley]

I didn't catch the specifics but essentially he said that he learned it was illegal to burn crosses because it was categorized as a hate crime. Again, I'm not sure in what state the suit occurred, but the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

If he's correct, couldn't the whack minister in FL be prohibited from burning the Quran?

[Sinistrous]

1. Yes.

[Common Sense Party]

8. Actually, no.

[rucky]

19. You're both right.

[Canuckistanian]

2. From what I gather

He could only be prosecuted after the fact of burning the Korans.

"Conspiracy to burn religious articles" is not a crime.

[gateley]

4. I guess that makes sense -- but too bad. People can be arrested for other

types of conspiracies. Maybe after the fact they can nab him.

[mjane]

59. It is NOT illegal to burn a cross

It is illegal to burn a cross on somebody else's property.

The Klan still burns crosses, and entirely legally.

[WhiteTara]

11. then, I'd love to see him frog marched to jail

for the heinous act. I think a very public arrest would help the world feel better about the US.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. That won't work either

There is no viable cause of action here, except no burn permit

[sabrina 1]

96. You do not know that. Any person can file a lawsuit

if they are directly involved in this.

I see the possibility of a cause of action, definitely. I wonder if the AG and Petraeas made the statements they made to provide material for a lawsuit.

A cause of action would be the endangering of others, the disturbing of the peace eg, caused by his actions.

He could say 'I didn't intend to harm anyone'. But now that both Holder and Petraeus have warned him of the dangers of his book burning, he cannot make that claim.

Lots of ways he can be sued. Not all speech is protected.

[COLGATE4]

97. You've really got to stop playing lawyer.

[sabrina 1]

98. I'm not playing. Are you? I think this is serious, not a game.

And if you think that ordinary citizens have no right to research other cases and offer their opinions, then you really don't support the 1st Amendment. Because I don't have to stop stating my opinion anymore than this moron doesn't have to stop inciting violence even if it means he can be sued. That's his choice.

Looks like he may now be looking for a way out anyhow ... maybe he found out the liability involved in inciting violence.

[Cleita]

3. I hope so. I heard it too, but

those people who can do something about it apparently aren't listening to Randi. There seems to be no law moving in, if you get my drift, just a lot of begging by our leaders not to do it.

[gateley]

9. Check out Canuckistanian's response above. But I'm hoping that maybe they

can do something afterward, but by then it'll be all over the world.

Oh -- I just heard her say that the Supremes ruled you couldn't burn a cross with the intent to INTIMIDATE somebody. Whatever.

As I was listening, I was thinking this was all the Republicans' fault. Was wondering how 9/11 would have been handled had a Democrat been in the WH. They wouldn't have been banging the drums of TERRA and FEAR and "taking the opportunity" to go into Iraq and nab the oil, and to use it to change laws and yank so many of our civil rights. They have destroyed this country and made the world hate us. I can not conjure up a word to describe how horrified I am that this happened.

[depakid]

5. Cross burning per se cannot be proscribed by statute

there has to be proof of an intention to intimidate in the sense of a true threat, where an actor(s) directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.

See: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-1107">Virginia v. Black

[gateley]

12. I caught that part (by Randi) after I posted. Interesting. And, I think pretty

fair. Thanks!

[aikoaiko]

6. Well, in the court case the yahoos tried to burn a cross in their African American neighbor's yard

One can burn a cross in one's own yard conditional on public safety needs, city ordinances and such.

[Bitwit1234]

7. Someone on TV said that burning crosses

is not illegal unless you can prove it was done to intimidate a specific person. It is supposed to be freedom of speech. I myself wouldn't think so. But a law suit went to the Supreme Court and they ruled on it. And they have said the burning of Koran is not illegal. Only because the fire marshall banned it due to it being dry or something like that. If he goes ahead he can be arrested. But if he does it will be too late.

I know in Minnesota at certain times of the year you can not burn anything unless you get a permit and it is issued only if it is not fire season.

[gateley]

13. I heard the part about him not being able to get a burn permit or something

like that, and Randi later (after I posted my question) said essentially what the person you heard on TV said - about the intimidation.

And you're right, by the time he's arrested for burning w/o permit, it'd be too late.

This is just so sad, and the repercussions potentially severe.

[depakid]

17. Also applies to identifiable groups of people

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. True, but without a law banning it per se, there is nothing illegal about what is planned

at least in the US.

[depakid]

36. As far as we know...

An interesting case in the grey area would arise if there was a mosque (or proposed mosque) in the community and incendiary references were made to "those people."

Florida law might be able to proscribe that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Doubtful...this is really about sacrilege, not threats. Its designed to draw a response

which in turn further confirms in the eyes of the west that islam and muslims are too immature to be treated as equals on the world stage. Its clear and deliberate, the only question is will the response go as foreseen.

[mjane]

60. No, it wouldn't

I can't believe people are making all these stretches to try to discount the 1st amendment.

It's JUST as bad as rightwingers throwing away the 4th amendment after 9/11. People here want to throw away the 1st because of this one fuckstick.

Replace Quran with Flag and see if you feel the same way.

[depakid]

65. Do you actually have an informed viewpoint?

My view is based on the leading case from the Supreme Court on the matter.

What do you base yours on?

[mjane]

69. Mine is based on case law

and the constitution

Flag burning laws were found (correctly) to be unconstitutional.

And as far as incitement goes, the prevailing case is Brandenburg which I'd be more than willing to discuss. It doesn't come close to meeting the standard under Brandenburg.

Fwiw, can you find ANY prominent legal scholar that claims that this Quran burning is not constitutionally protected?

I would bet not.

The burn permit issue is another matter, but I have no idea if the statute is a civil infraction or a misdemeanor. Do you?

If the former, it's just a cite, not arrestable (generally speaking).

Even if the latter, if they go and arrest the guy when they only cite in other cases, they will open up a huge can of civil liability.

[depakid]

75. You must have missed the previous posts

and the hypothetical above.

The controlling case is Virginia v. Black (2003).

The reasoning involves the nature of "true threats" and intent to intimidate -not imminent lawless action (which is the heart of the Brandenburg holding).

Moreover, as the Black court notes: the fact that cross burning is symbolic expression does not resolve the constitutional question.

The statute (as in the hypothetical) wasn't unconstitutional because it banned cross burning with the intent to intimidate. That would have been fine.

The problem the court had was with the presumption of intent to intimidate by the act alone- without the need to adduce further evidence.

Read it for yourself: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-1107

[mjane]

76. There is no way

that banning Quran burning under these circ's will be seen as with an intent to intimidate.

It's a political expression, no different than flag burning.

It's a losing line of argument used to "get around" the 1st amendment by those who don't truly believe in its principles.

Cross burning has, fwiw, a long history of association of impending violence. Iow, you can find TONS of examples in US history where people burn a cross then go out and lynch black men.

You can find no such historical pattern with Quran burning, any more than you can find it with flag burning, or cross-dipping in urine.

The argument fails.

That is a CLEAR distinction between cross burning and Quran burning.

[depakid]

78. No reason whatsoever that flag burning with intent to intimidate couldn't be outlawed!

The symbolic nature of the expression- while not immaterial isn't the salient issue.

And if you go back and look my hypothetical you'll see that there would be additional proof of intent to intimidate on the matter. It's only a "grey area" because we have fairly limited guidance from the court as to what specific conduct would satisfy the requirement.

But we can say that the state or locality wouldn't be be limited to circumstances (or the standard) set out in Brandenburg.

[mjane]

80. There has to be some nexus

between the act and violence for such a law to pass constitutional scrutiny.

And there is no nexus.

[depakid]

82. Virginia v. Black doesn't mention a nexus

though one can readily be inferred in my hypothetical- or in most any other similar set of symbolic acts and statements.

[mjane]

84. Yes it does

Here's a quote from the decision

"Burning a cross in the United States is inextricably intertwined with the history of the Ku Klux Klan, which, following its formation in 1866, imposed a reign of terror throughout the South, whipping, threatening, and murdering blacks, southern whites who disagreed with the Klan, and "carpetbagger" northern whites. The Klan has often used cross burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence, although such burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central feature of Klan gatherings."

That's a NEXUS. It shows a CONNECTION between the act of burning a cross and violence. "Inextricably intertwined" = nexus. Actually, it equals a strong nexus.

There is a nexus between cross burning and impending violence

There is NOT a nexus between Quran burning and impending violence.

If there was a history of Quran burning in the US that was connected (iow a nexus) with impending violence, then we'd have a different story here.

[depakid]

86. There certainly is such a connection in my hypothetical (which you responded to)

and there may well be such language used in conjunction with the upcoming Quran burning (although as has been noted, Florida currently lacks an appropriate statute on point).

That of course is irrelevant to whether Florida or its municipalities COULD constitutionally enact such statutes.

And you're still missing the issue. Under the current constitutional standard, violence does not have to be impending.

There only has to be an intent to intimidate- a "true threat" directed at and conveyed to individuals or identifiable groups.

[mjane]

87. ok, i get you now

there clearly IS no true threat. Not even close. But I get your point now.

[depakid]

88. We don't know if there's a threat or not as the "event" hasn't occurred yet

[mjane]

90. Yes we do

We have a pre-announced event. Based on the attendant facts and circ's it could no more be ruled a true threat than the placing of piss christ in a museum.

It's political theatre.

Look at the facts

1) no nexus between Quran burning and impending violence by the burners
2) a pre-planned, pre-announced protest/event.

Contrast with, for example, the guy going to his buddy's house who lives next door to a muslim family and burning korans on the front lawn while yelling out "all muslims must die"

[depakid]

91. We have no idea what this guy or any other speaker's going to say or do!

I assume your opinion would change in the event that, in the middle of a fire and brimstone speech, this fundy nutter starts hollering about "burning their mosques" right alongside their books.

Then again, maybe not.

[mjane]

92. It would

like all free speech cases, be dependant on the totality of the circ's.

I would suggest that many people who think that the bar is much lower than it actually is, take a look at the text of some of the speeches made in the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.

Look at some of the stuff (constitutionally protected) that, for example, Farrakhan has said.

But in general, I would say if he starts saying stuff like "let's go burn a mosque" AND there was a mosque nearby, that would cross the line.

Otoh, generalized statements (recall for example Malcolm X's "ballot or bullet" speech) are another thing entirely.

Remember, under Brandenburg mere advocacy of violence is not enough to cross the line.

[depakid]

94. Mostly on the same page except that the standard of intent to intimidate

is considerably broader than what's allowable under Brandenburg.

[orleans]

77. right. my community doesn't allow leaf burning. i don't know about

paper or books though.

[Codeine]

10. I cannot believe you people want someone arrested for free expression!

Where the shitfuckhell am I, ferchrissakes? Liberals trying to ban political expression? REALLY?

Fuck that. Dude's a dumbass Christian fundie bigot shitwipe and his flock are dumber than a bag of dog dicks, but they have the right to be as stupid as they want. We fought to let Nazis march in Skokie, we can cope with this.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Maybe YOU can cope with this

But the INTERNATIONAL Muslim community CAN'T.

And that means a whole lot of hurt for Americans serving in Muslim countries.

I DO wish you Americans would take your American domestic blinders off.

Today, our government in Canada condemned the Koran burning.

This has gone FAR beyond your borders now.

[Codeine]

20. Then they have a serious fucking problem.

I cannot imagine abrogating my rights in my own country to appease the fourteenth-century superstitions of religious wackos across the world. FUCK THAT!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. What you are arguing for is the heckler's veto, its not a side I would want to be on

You are correct that the international muslim community does not deal well with what is perceived as western sacrilege. There is a real risk of violence based on recent prior events. Just about everyone is condemning it, even Sarah Palin. However, the 1st Amendment rights for these nut cases is to many of us more important than offending others. Its a matter of basic principles, even though the nut cases are being intentionally provocative in committing a clear sacrilege.

The xtians tolerated Maplethorpe and others without violence and riots. The muslims should do the same here. That they likely will not and resort to violence speaks loudly too.

[mjane]

74. We can condemn it all we want

and we are.

But within OUR borders, people have constitutional right to free speech.

[smalll]

93. "But the INTERNATIONAL Muslim community CAN'T. And that means a whole lot of hurt for Americans..."

Another exponent of the Strategy of Cowering.

You're saying the international Muslim community can't handle it, in the sense that they will do violence in reaction to it.

In other words, you believe this:


And your answer to it is this:

[Skip Intro]

16. +100 nt

[gateley]

18. I was thinking about the repercussions in the Muslim communities.

WE know he's a dumbfuck, but so many Muslims have already been unfairly targeted and the Republicans have made the "Mosque War" their latest war cry.

But you're right. Regardless of the aftermath, we can't deny these people their civil rights. This isn't the Bush/Cheney reign, after all, thank God. My emotions get in the way sometimes.

[Canuckistanian]

22. To put it in simple terms, people are going to die over this

And those deaths WILL NOT occur in America. You'll see the deaths in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia.

But one thing's for sure - Americans will be the targets.

I would think that fact would compel Americans of ANY political stripe to give a damn about what's going to happen in Gainesville.

[Codeine]

24. Book-burning will not cause that.

Whackadoodle Islamic nutfucks getting their panties in a shitwad will cause that. Trying to pretend it's a reasonable reaction is fucking absurd, and cowering before the possibility simply empowers their threats. God-damned sickening.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. I beleive it will. Its a provacative sacrelidge and intemational islam does not react well to it

coming from a western country. The potential for violence is quite real based on recent history. Its the reason Petraeus, Canunckistan, Palin, and others are voicing concern/opposition. Unfortunately they are probably right.

My take is that most Americans think these guys are nut jobs, but support their 1st Amendment rights. As a nation we will support the principles of freedom and take what may follow. If the violence gets out of hand, there are always Tomahawks and Predator drones. I have no doubt this administration will use them.

Hopefully someday islam will outgrow this knee jerk violent reaction to the actions of others. Until then, it will continue to plague the planet.

[Canuckistanian]

30. This isn't a simple "book-burning"

It's someone who's announced, in advance, that he'll burn the actual words of Allah, just to make some point.

Do you remember the riots when a rumor started that some guard at Guantanamo threw a Koran in the toilet? I sure do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_desecration_controversy_of_2005

Seventeen people died because of that.

This will be worse.

[Codeine]

33. Yes it is a simple "book-burning."

If some mouthbreather with a hard-on for religiously-excused murder decides I should have to give up my most basic rights he'll get a big, hearty "Fuck you!" from me and any other self-respecting 21st century progressive.

The Heckler's Veto is a filthy proposition, and anyone advocating allowing it to curtail the rights of fellow citizens should be ashamed.

[Canuckistanian]

So, people in other countries should die for your freedoms?

Ok, good to know.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Blame will be on those commiting the violence, not the Florida nut cases, at least here in the US

[Canuckistanian]

52. Oh, I realize that

I'm just trying to get some here to realize that this is not a purely American issue any more.

Some aren't getting it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. It never was purely an American issue if the nut bags go forward with their plans

But as I have stated earlier, First Amendment freedoms are a bedrock issue for most Americans and I would hope progressives as well. The Heckler's Veto and taking a position that sacrifices principle for safety/security doesn't play well in the US, and never really has.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" is attributed to Ben Franklin, a progressive revolutionary of his day.

[Codeine]

53. My freedoms are not really the problem here, are they?

it's the insane reaction to the exercise thereof that is the problem. Strange that a harmless act is the issue for you and not the insane nutwhackery of Islamic violence over what really amounts to nothing.

I find it instructive that you place blame in the way that you do -- one wonders if you recommend women dress conservatively lest they provoke rape? And if a woman is raped, would you blame her for exercising her freedom to dress as she pleased?

I did not allow my government to convince me I should give up my freedoms to protect me from terrorists, so I will CERTAINLY not allow the terrorist's philosophical bedfellows to convince me to cower and whimper and give up my freedoms because their widdle feewings might be hurt.

[mjane]

62. I agree 100%

Even though I think Codeine is a weak opiate :)

[verges]

63. It seems to me that

if you can reasonably predict the reaction at your actions, you are then partially responsible for that reaction.

If I were to slug you, it would be a reasonable assumption that you would hit me back. And I certainly should have taken that into account. You're reaction was the result of my action. Aren't i responsible for that reaction?

[Codeine]

68. Reasonable reactions are one thing.

If some fundie Muslim wants to burn Bibles in response that seems reasonable. Killing is not a reasonable response.

Using your analogy, if you bust me in the mouth and I respond by burning down your house is THAT something you should have taken into account?

[verges]

72. But it is a reasonable assumption that

Americans will get killed ovr this. By our standards, no, it is not a reasonable response. But, however, it is a reasonable assumption that that is what will happen. I don't deny that he is within his Constitutional rights. But I believe that to purposely set in motion a set of events that you know will result in American deaths is VERY wrong. And all legal avenues to prevent it should be pursued!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. So you are willing to accept the Heckler's Veto and sacrifice principle in the process?

Have you thought about what that would mean in other areas?

[verges]

99. Heckler Schmeckler.

Actions have consequences. I AM NOT advocating thaty anyone's Constitutional rights be denied! I am advocating that that people protest this, using THEIR Constitutional rights! I also feel that it would be wrong for the Government to take any action after the fact. However, I do not feel that it would be wrong for the Government to also point out the problems with Mr. Jones intended action. Doesn't the Government have a responsibility for the safety of to it's citizens and employees abroad (and domestically, for that matter)?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. You are right, its a deliberately provocative sacrilege

You are advocating the Heckler's Veto and taking a position that sacrifices principle for safety/security. That doesn't play well in the US, and never really has.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" is attributed to Ben Franklin, a progressive revolutionary of his day.

[Mz Pip]

38. Targeting and killing Americans

on what 50 religious crackpots do in a country of 300 million is a pretty extreme reaction. I don't think it's reasonable for us to stifle free speech here based on how extremists in another country may react. They really don't seem to need much of an excuse to target Americans as it is. Perhaps they could spend some time listening to the flip side of this issue - all those voices condemning this Koran burning, which is also part of what free speech is about.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Look what happened over some cartoons even in countries where they were not published

Your approach is the calm and rational one. Its also lonely.

[riderinthestorm]

49. Not lonely. I agree with Mz Pip. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. As do I and many here, but we are not the ones who believe it was intentional

sacrilege allowed and therefore endorsed by the US/West.

[mjane]

64. I do too.

I've been lurking here a long time, but this issue was the last straw that caused me to register. I cannot stand that people here are advocating eliminating the 1st amendment because this one fuckstick is engaging in disgusting and provocative speech.

Do NOT give in to the heckler's veto. Ever.

[Mz Pip]

50. Unfortunately extremists

on either side have no interest in seeing what is done right. This Jones character is focusing his anger and hatred on the extremists without giving any consideration to the Muslims who condemn them or those who live peacefully in this country. The Islamic extremists don't hear or refuse to hear the loud objections coming from many in this country who are condemning Jones.

The focus is on the extremes on both sides and everyone else has to suffer for it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Its a principle issue and for most Americans, it trumps most other considerations

We are sort of silly about those things.

[gateley]

31. I'm really torn on this one -- as I often am in many situations. My initial, deep

feeling is that this is a "special circumstance" that would warrant an exception, but then I think we can't start making exceptions, because then where would it end?

I fear for the Americans, and I've been fearing for the Muslims in our country. I blame the hate rhetoric that the Republicans are spewing. This guy probably would never have had the idea to do this until the R's made such an issue about the Mosque in NY.

This entire situation just makes me cry. It's a nightmare.

[Mz Pip]

46. I agree

I really do feel for American Muslims who have to face this hate filled rhetoric. I can only hope they also see the other side of this - the outspoken objections to this hatefest - and realize that they do have a lot of support.

There is something odd about the Republicans who seem to have no problem sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to make those countries freer for the people there, but have such a hard time supporting the freedoms of American Muslims here in the US. The Republicans should be speaking out against this en masse.

I hope there are large counter protests in Florida on Saturday.

[mjane]

61. We can give a damn

We can't violate the constitution

That's the rub.

Free speech is dangerous. It always has been.

The other poster mentioned the heckler's veto. That is exactly how people here are justifying it.

It's legal to burn flags. It's legal to dip crosses in urine. But it's not ok to burn Qurans because it will get a more violent reaction?

That is letting anti-americanism win

It was wrong to throw out the 4th amendment (Patriot Act) because of 9/11. It's wrong to try to throw out the 1st amendment too.

[verges]

71. Does this mean that

the results of this action should not be pointed out to Mr. Jones? Should not all attempys at persuasion be put forth to stop this? He has the Constitutional right to do this. I have yet to hear anybody deny this.

It is legal to burn flags. It is legal to dip crosses in urine. And it IS LEGAL to burn Qurans. It is also proper to point out what the tragic results of a seriously misguided action are. It is a reasonable assumption that Americans will get killed as a result of this foolish, hateful act. Knowing what the results will be; isn't Mr Jones responsible for the predictable reaction to his action?

[mjane]

73. you haven't been reading much here then

plenty of people here ARE claiming he does NOT have the right to do this. I have seen specious claims about "incitement" etc.

But it is correct that most people realize he is within his constitutional rights to so.

I 100% agree with you. Counter bad speech with good speech. Persuasion, condemnation, etc. is great.

[riderinthestorm]

25. Jayzus, the Nazis in Skokie. I vividly remember that fight.

It's true. If we, as a nation, (along with the greater global community of outraged citizens), can deal with the Nazis marching in Skokie, than the Quran burning is just another in a long line of bat shit crazies doing their stupid thang in America.

Ya know, if the media would just ignore the Quran burners and focus in on the counter protests - THAT would send the best message to the world than anything else. If I can recall, that's what happened with the Nazi/Skokie march and it was very effective.

[Codeine]

27. OMG, a voice of friggin reason!

:hug:

[riderinthestorm]

41. The Nazis in Skokie are far more analogous to the Quran burning than anything else

You should post an OP about that. That episode elicited global condemnation but the US allowed it to continue - it happened and the US was stronger for the media coverage that ensued.

The Muslim "world" may actually be able to see that the US is an equal opportunity country where bigots are allowed to speak their piece without interference, but that counter-protests are equally (if not more so) covered.

It would behoove all progressives to get this message across asap. We've had international incidents of provocation towards a specific religion, with serious international consequences before, and as a country we've united in condemnation even as we allow the free expression of those 'beliefs" (cough).

I choose to believe that Muslims are able to understand and comprehend that level of nuance. I choose to believe in their best selves. I choose to believe they are international players and they are more than those who relegate them to "12th century" status. We must as a nation begin to treat them with respect and equality instead of trying to dumb down OUR values.

[TexasObserver]

21. No.

There is no law in Florida or the USA prohibiting the burning of the Koran, unless the starting of a fire itself is a crime.

You can't burn someone else's Koran, but you can burn yours, provided you don't violate any law against having the fire.

[Tx4obama]

29. But the city has told the pastor that there is city ordinance regarding fires

fires that involve paper. And they told him that he burns 'paper' outside that he will be fined and/or arrested.
Hopefully the cops will be there, arrest him, handcuff him, put him in a police car and drive him to the police station - and hopefully it will all be caught on video to show the world ;)

[pinboy3niner]

34. And the FD will be on-site to extinguish--immediately--any fire that is started

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. I doubt it would do any good internationally and I also think that is what he wants

[gateley]

43. I disagree - I think it would make a statement that while his civil rights weren't

violated, we were against the message and used legal means to arrest him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. It would be matrydom for him to many in the US

How do we take it when a city uses a minor infraction to stop a polical demonstration? Why would be expect it to be any different than that for his supporters? I can hear the RW hate jocks on it already.

It turns out that his church opposed the current mayor because he is gay. Maybe that will give the mayor the willingness to take this on, who knows.

[gateley]

39. That would probably be the best possible outcome. The minute they light the

match the cops swoop in and haul them off. And THAT would be the video that gets shown to the world.

[riderinthestorm]

48. And the First Amendment gets thrown out the window?

Is that really the message you want to send to nascent democracies around the world? Or those who are fighting for democracy in the world?

The Quran burners need to get the legal sanction they are entitled to (a fine and a ticket like anyone else who burns shit against the city ordinance - like it or not, this IS a minor infraction for virtually all of the US), and then they need to be summarily ignored afterwards. The media needs to focus on the counter protests and the scores of outraged Americans across the country who are also exercising their First Amendment rights to protest THAT Jones guy and his followers.

This is just like the Nazis in Skokie. We've been here as a country before and we already KNOW how to deal with this. Even Right Wing Rethugs like the Vatican and Sarah Palin are against this - you bet the media, even the RW thugs like Fox, have already gotten their marching orders on this.

[TexasObserver]

54. Indeed. Respecting freedom of expression regarding religion is paramount.

Burning paper against city ordinance is a minor offense for which the proper remedy is a citation.

Each American is entitled to love or hate any or all religions, and entitled to express that love or hate. Burning a book is an expression of disdain and disapproval. If one wants to buy and burn any book, it is his or her right in our country, provided there is no restriction on making a fire. For example, they could shred the book in a shredder instead of burning it, and that would be protected symbolic speech.

[Codeine]

56. That would be anathema to what America stands for.

Freedom - ugly and distastful though the expression of it may sometimes be - is the very cornerstone upon which we have built our nation. Quashing it sucks -- always.

[TexasObserver]

44. "unless the starting of a fire itself is a crime" is what I wrote.

It is in this instance, because the city prohibits such paper burning.

The point is there is no constitutional prohibition against burning the Koran or any book, and there is no such state statute in Florida, either, making the googled material mentioned in the OP completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't care what the cops do about it, one way or another. If the pastor starts an illegal fire of paper in the city, he has to answer for that. The nature and content of the material written on the pages of the book are not relevant.

[mjane]

67. Is it a misdemeanor

or a civil infraction?

And is it an arrestable misdemeanor (some states have misdemeanors that are only citable)?

And does the police dept. routinely arrest for it?

If it's shown to be arbitrary, then it's wrong. Iow, if the cops/fire routinely cite but in THIS case decide to arrest, that can bring civil liability to the city for arbitrary enforcement.

[mjane]

66. Not only is there no law

but any such law would be unconstitutional.

[TexasObserver]

79. I concur with your constitutional analysis in this thread.

I was addressing an important distinction between the circumstance described in the cross burning case and the proposed Koran burning, because of the way the OP framed this thread. In other threads regarding this topic, I've addressed the constitutional freedom of expression issue, and its status as paramount.

[mjane]

81. I think we stand together

on this, then.

This case is clearly about political expression. That, to me, is the most clear thing you can say about it.

[TexasObserver]

83. The hysteria to stop him seems oblivious to the constitutional issue.

The right of one person to embrace religion is the same as another person's right to disdain the religion of first person.

[mjane]

85. Yes, and many countries

criminalize ridicule etc. of religion, such as France, Italy.

We do not. And no such law would be constitutional here.

[Hugabear]

57. Burning a cross in and of itself is not a crime

You can burn a cross on your own private property, and it's legal. However, if you burn a cross on someone else's property, then it becomes a hate crime.

At least I'm pretty sure that's how it is. As despicable as they might be, there's nothing to prevent a bunch of Klansmen from gathering on their own land and holding a giant cross-burning ceremony. However, if the Klan were to burn a cross on an African-American family's yard, then it becomes a crime.

[Codeine]

58. The Klan does cross burnings fairly regularly.

everyone rigtfully ignores their stupid asses, just as we should be ignoring this Jesus freak dipshit in Floriduh.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. Err sort of

You can burn a cross and its not a crime unless its intent is to intimidate etc others. That presumes that there is a state law that defines cross burning with intent to intimidate others is a crime. That was the essence of the SCOTUS decision. The state had to prove intent, the act alone was not enough.

The natural flow from that is that if I burn a cross in the middle of my back 40 acres surrounded by trees and no one knows about it except my local Klan buddies, intimidation could not occur. If I did it in my suburban front yard within plain view of my new black neighbors, it would be a different matter. This all assumes a state law against cross burning with intent to intimidate.

Since there is no law about burning Korans or generically religious literature with intent to intimidate its not clear the decision is applicable to these nut cases.

Obama's high school used to have a flaming "P". Only one it was supposed to intimidate was the opposing team at homecoming.

[McCamy Taylor]

89. It's illegal to burn them on someone else's yard. If anyone burns a Quran on my yard, I'm

calling the cops.

Plus, there are safety ordinances about BIG fires. Burn a mammoth cross in city limits and the fire marshall will have something to say. Light an itsy bitsty rosary and no one will care.