Gainesville to bill Koran burners for cost of security (tens of thousands of dollars?)

[Scurrilous]

City to charge Dove for security

<snip>

"The city of Gainesville's top administrator said Wednesday that he will send Terry Jones, the senior pastor at the Dove World Outreach Center, a bill for the estimated tens of thousands of dollars it will cost to police the area if the church goes through with its plan to burn the Quran on Saturday.

"We definitely plan on sending him a bill," City Manager Russ Blackburn said at City Hall.

Blackburn declined to say how much he anticipates the event will cost the city, but he said it will be substantial because of the personnel and equipment it will take to patrol the area in case anything happens.

And after a number of death threats against Jones have been made, law enforcement officials say they are preparing for anything.

"We have to plan for the worst," Blackburn said."

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100909/ARTICLES/9091049/1118?Title=City-to-charge-Dove-for-security

[Mz Pip]

1. Security?

Let their God take care of that.

[Wickerman]

2. Their insurance company might want to look into the liability

this event will inflict on their policy. I wonder if they have enough coverage?

[damntexdem]

7. Wouldn't it be ironic if winds came up and spread the fire to their church?

But, hey, if they don't have a burn permit, the fire department should be there and put out any fires they try to start.

[lyonn]

18. Yup, get the fire trucks out there to put out any fires

that are either illegal or dangerous to the surrounding area. Get those fire hoses ready.......

Edit: That would make for better pics than the media showing the books burning - fire hoses dousing the fire???

[Bragi]

3. This solves nothing /nt

[notadmblnd]

12. If he can't afford to pay the fees, then perhaps he will rethink his committment to his lunacy?

I've noticed over the years, the only way to truly hurt republicans and their wingnut minions- is to hit them hard- in their pocketbooks. Sounds to me like this problem could very well be solved.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. I agree 100%. If he is going to lose money instead of make money off this insanity, he will

reconsider....

[T Wolf]

4. I would advise that Gainesville let the church provide its own security. The police should stay

away and let events unfold however they will.

If the church goes up in flames - who cares? Just make sure there is no collateral damage to surrounding structures.

If some of these bigots are attacked - who cares? Just make sure no one else is hurt.

[Fuzz]

5. Burn it all and let god sort it out?

[madmax]

6. If he won't listen to reason maybe

he react to the cost of this shit if it has to come out of his pocket. No money? Put a lein on the church and take it and sell it if he doesn't pay.

Seems not to bother those who hold mortgages and leins against property and throw children into the street. I dunno :shrug:

[Gin]

11. according to wikipedia.... he ran a for profit business where his

students worked for no pay...and he didn't pay taxes...so..he was hit with a tax bill and is now charged taxes...and the bank called the loan on his mortgage and the property is for sale..so Mr. Jones...how's all that global publicity thingy workin for ya?

[madmax]

31. Hey thanks for that info

:bounce: Hopefully this will be what finally takes him down, financially. :toast:

[BrklynLiberal]

8. THAT might encourage him to "rethink" his decision, since the entire plan is just a ploy to make $

If it is going to cost that asshat more than he will make, then he will definitely reconsider...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9102340

[drm604]

9. Isn't this what NSPA vs Skokie was about?

The indirect banning of public demonstrations by requiring the posting of an onerous bond?

Granted, this is slightly different, it's a bill that apparently will be sent after the fact, but it's still the same principle - suppression of speech by imposing a large financial cost on the exercise of that speech.

I intensely dislike these book burners, but unless they are legitimately creating a hazard (perhaps a fire or pollution hazard, for example) and all others are also discouraged from burning things, then they have a first amendment right to do this without onerous impositions from the state.

[sabrina 1]

13. Why should tax payers have to support this bigot?

If he wants to do this, let him and let him pay for it. As rightwingers like to point out, freedom of speech goes both ways. If the people there do not agree with what he is doing they too have the right to express themselves, by sending him the bill. Freedom of expression, it's his right and theirs also. Why would you want to suppress THEIR right to express themselves, but not his?

[EOTE]

23. I understand your feelings with regard to this.

The thought of tax-payers, no matter how indirectly, supporting assholes like this sickens me as well. But you have to put the shoe on the other foot to see why it's so important that we make sure that moran's like this are entitled to the same constitutional protections the rest of us are.

If he is prevented from his "protest" by effectively levying fines on him, what is to prevent similar things from happening to protesters against wars? After all, one could say that their an increased security risk as there are a lot of people who want to do harm to war protesters. Should local PDs have the ability to do something like that to war protesters?

[sabrina 1]

28. I see your point. But I think this is a unique

case where now three members of the U.S. government, including the President, have warned that this pastor's actions could cause violence. I don't think the Federal Government should send him a bill but it is not fair to ask local authorities who are often underfunded as it is, to pay for an event that has attracted so much negative attention and which three members of the Government, including the president, have warned may cause violence. He has been asked by almost everyone not to go ahead with this. So in that sense, this is his decision that has little support. Does he want to risk violence around the globe and/or in that community and elsewhere as a result of his actions?

In the case of war demonstrations, people may not like them, but I don't remember any member of the government warning that they might be dangerous.

However I could see someone arguing that if he was billed for this, so should war demonstrators.

As Rumsfeld said 'democracy is messy' :-)

[EOTE]

29. But war demonstrations ARE dangerous.

That's why there is so much security at them. As much as it seems that security present at rallies is an imposing force, for the most part, they're there to protect us. I would certainly be less likely to attend one if I knew that some lone freeper was able to think that he could be likely to get away with pegging off a few random liberals. And I certainly don't want my freedom of speech to hinge upon how much support it has. That's the whole point of freedom of speech, it's most important when it's defending speech that is NOT popular.

[mjane]

30. Exactly

As a thought experiment, pretend that he is engaging in controversial speech that you fully endorse.

In that case, would you support his being billed for security?

If so, then you are intellectually consistent.

If not, you are letting your distaste for WHAT he is saying, to cloud your judgment.

[drm604]

36. Sending a bill is not "freedom of expression". It's an attempt to squash freedom of expression.

Here's my take on this. This is a federal right that's being protected. If there really is a real danger then use federal money to provide protection (probably by paying the cost of local police protection). We could consider this to be one of the costs of protecting our first amendment rights but we wouldn't be putting an undue burden on just the taxpayers of a small city, we'd all be paying for it equally, and we also wouldn't be making people pay for their right to speak.

[realisticphish]

14. yeah

I know there's a lot of animosity towards this guy. Hell, I hate his fucking guts. But he has the right to free speech, and the right to be protected while doing so.

Doesn't make him any less of a hateful, bigoted moron who apparently does "hate the troops," but there it is.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Great point

This tactic has been used by the RW in the past in an attempt to stop demonstrations they did not want. Its bogus

[mjane]

33. It's no different than a poll tax

and it won't stand constitutional scrutiny.

It's a scare tactic and an attempt at prior restraint.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Jones has a right to his free speech, the city has a right to recoup their loses.

The fact that it's after the fact would not mean it's particularly onerous.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Not clear if that would hold up or not, even the city administrator says as much

There are probably no assets either. The church could declare bankruptcy and then reappear the next day under a different name.

[drm604]

35. No, it wouldn't. But the fact that it's tens of thousands of dollars does. n/t

[gulliver]

21. I agree. This has to be unconstitutional.

This freak gets to say what he wants to say. You can't charge him for the security needed to protect his right to free speech. Otherwise there would be no end to it. We would see abortion providers billed to keep back the yahoos that threaten them.

The free speech right means that any kook can say anything they want. America can't allow itself to be held accountable for the free speech acts of its citizens either. If an American wants to burn a Koran or draw a picture of Mohammed, they can, and America is obligated to protect them, imo.

[petronius]

25. I agree, I'm concerned at the notion of providing such a simple tool

to squash demonstrations and activist groups. If someone is behaving lawfully, no matter how offensively, then the cost of security should be borne by the people who react violently rather than by the original protesters. However, it's sort of a fine line - a action that is deliberately intended to provoke a reaction should put the responsibility back on the person who did the inciting. I'm not sure I trust government agencies to correctly make that judgment in all cases.

In this particular situation, I suspect that the most violent actors will be on the side of the burners, and not the people who object to their bigotry...

[LostinVA]

26. He was also refused a burn permit

So, he's breaking the law.

[mjane]

32. And he will likely be cited for that

Whether it's a civil infraction, a misdemeanor or what, I have no idea.

That's tangential to the issue here.

For example, in Seattle, Critical Mass breaks the law by blocking intersections (briefly). They still get police protection.

The cops here fwiw do not enforce the laws against blocking intersections, by agreement with the city council even.

[rocktivity]

10. Since they don't have a fire permit

They should send a bill from the fire department, too.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Turborama]

15. GOOD!

Thanks for posting, Scurrilous. :thumbsup:

Recommended!

[EFerrari]

20. There are under 100 congregants at that church.

How can they possibly afford this.

[Turborama]

24. What's the penalty if they can't pay?

Genuine question.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

27. Well, they could be sued for their assets or a lien could be placed

against their property.

This guy sounds so nutty, I wonder if he actually owns anything.

[Codeine]

34. It won't stand.

The Supreme Court weighed in on this in 1977.

[JoeyT]

37. Looks like an attack on their 1st amendment rights.

And I look forward to the lawsuit in which the city loses their ass.

Seriously, this is *not* something we want to be cheering. Anti-war, environmentalist, and gay rights protesters will be the next target if this works.

"Yeah, you can have your little 'protest'. Oh, and here's your $200,000 bill for security and such. Have fun waving your signs." won't be far off.

[4_TN_TITANS]

38. Hey...Free Speech isn't Free.

Beautiful - sock it to 'em.