Dearborn jury: Terry Jones rally would breach the peace

[Bozita]

Source: Detroit Free Press

Dearborn jury: Terry Jones rally would breach the peace

A Dearborn jury just sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

The development comes after the jury deliberated for several hours. Watch Freep.com for the verdict.

In closing arguments, Wayne County assistant prosecutor Robert Moran said
the pastors would disturb the peace if they were allowed to protest today at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

Jones and Sapp argued their right is protected under the First Amendment.
"That's what made America great," said Sapp. "We're entitled to our opinion."

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20110422/NEWS02/110422014/Dearborn-jury-Terry-Jones-rally-would-breach-peace?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|FRONTPAGE

[ZombieHorde]

1. What does this mean? nt

[notadmblnd]

2. it means he can't have his protest in Dearborn

[ZombieHorde]

4. Creepy. I am very uncomfortable with the US government telling people they can't protest.

The right to protest is very important to me.

[notadmblnd]

8. The guy has come into town armed

yes, he has his Fla permits, but he is carrying and loaded. He wants to incite violence, and that is against the law. If some crackhead was in the area wondering around armed, making threats and being loud, you can bet your butt the authorities would put a stop to it. I see no difference here. The guy might not be high on drugs, but being high on god can be so much worse.

[ZombieHorde]

10. I live in Montana, I don't own guns, but I am surrounded by them.

I am not frightened by people carrying firearms.

[notadmblnd]

11. Well then come to Detroit

and venture off the main roads and go into some of the inner city neighborhoods. Then come back and tell me you are not frightened by people carrying firearms.

[ZombieHorde]

56. Violent people existed before the invention of firearms.

The firearms are not what is scary, the violent people attacking you are what is scary.

[66 dmhlt]

32. Fred Phelps + Barney Fife = Terry Jones

Koran-burning Terry Jones "accidentally" fired his gun while in his car in the parking lot after giving an interview at a local Faux News studio, apparently fatally wounding his floorboard. So it's pretty clear that ...

Fred Phelps + Barney Fife = Terry Jones

[jberryhill]

15. Wrong on two counts

First, this has nothing to do with the US government.

Second, he is not being told he can't protest.

If you are going to have a rally of X people on public property, you can do so in accordance with relevant permit procedures and a promise to clean up and be responsible for any damage or expenses incident to your protest, as well as compensation for security services to PROTECT your right to speak.

If you are not Mr Moneybags and there is reason to believe you will cause substantial expense, you can be required to post a bond.

He is objecting to the bond.

I have no problem with anyone's right to speak, but if they are asking me to subsidize it, that's another issue entirely.

[ZombieHorde]

57. When I use the phrase, "US government," I am referring to the three levels of government;

e.g., local, state, and federal.

If you are going to have a rally of X people on public property, you can do so in accordance with relevant permit procedures and a promise to clean up and be responsible for any damage or expenses incident to your protest, as well as compensation for security services to PROTECT your right to speak.

The security has already been paid for by taxes. I don't like the idea of people needing to pay for extra police protection.

The right to free protest is far more important to me than some litter.

[Psephos]

66. Agreed. n/t

[Bragi]

67. You're okay with riotous mobs setting limits on free speech? /nt

[SkyDaddy7]

22. There are very good reasons why they...

refused to allow him the permit to protest. I too thought this was BS at first until I saw why...The area where he legally be able to hold the protest, public property, is very small. Plus, he claimed there would be 5-7 people with him protesting but then he posted on the internet telling where the protest would be & inviting anyone who wants to join come on out. Not to mention this area is in front of a Mosque & 5 Churches with one way in & out on Good Friday! There would be no where for protesters to park their cars as well. Once the officials saw that he applied for 5-7 people then posted an invite to all on the internet they had to put their foot down & bring it before the court.

The correct decision was made.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgLBIEdjYo

[ZombieHorde]

58. Those are all legitimate concerns, but they not even close to one's right to free protest.

I would choose no government over a government that restricted free protest.

[SkyDaddy7]

60. He alone would have had the right to protest...

Instead he chose to not only lie about how many people would be there but he wanted to create a violent incident for publicity.

I would much rather live in a civil society where there is a reasonable government that takes the safety of its citizens into account over an outsider looking to to get people hurt!

Nobody's right to free speech was infringed upon.

[ZombieHorde]

61. Do you have evidence he is trying to create a violent incident?

Seems to me the government is the one making the threats here.

Who is an outsider?

Nobody's right to free speech was infringed upon.

Is he not being told he can not have a free protest on public land?

[SkyDaddy7]

64. You act as if there are no limits to reasonable protest...

You completely ignored the reasons I gave for why he was denied the right to protest...I said as an after thought his main purpose is to generate a violent response. And YES I have the evidence Terry Jones has said it many times that he wants to show how violent Islam is.

Terry Jones is not from Dearborn...He is an OUTSIDER!

It is not as if Terry Jones is protesting for civil rights...He traveled to Dearborn to start trouble & you know this. Say you don't all you want but we both know the deal. If he simply wanted to exercise his free speech rights he could do that in Florida. After all he managed to get 20 people killed from exercising his free speech rights inside his church so why travel to Dearborn? To start shit is why!

[ZombieHorde]

65. Define "completely ignored." I believe I addressed your concerns.

Will you please show me your evidence? The Terry Jones quotes I read stated he was protesting against violence. If you have additional information, I would like to see it.

Terry Jones is not from Dearborn...He is an OUTSIDER!

I wouldn't use this wording if I were you. Seems xenophobic.

[SkyDaddy7]

72. "Xenophobic"

:rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

74. I understand the outsider comment pails in comparison to Terry Jones' behavior,

but the comment still stands out.

[Bragi]

68. The imagined mob ruled the day

You think mobs should set the limits for free speech?

Marin Luther King wasn't told the racists were so angry that he couldn't speak without a bond.

This appalling ruling will eventually be ignored, but it's hard to ignore all the support here for allowing mobs to set the lmits on free speech.

[Yo_Mama]

38. He will almost certainly be able to get this overturned on appeal

Pretty authoritative precedent!! Also the local authorities just made it worse by jailing Jones and Sapp.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-538.ZS.html

Forsyth County, GA v Nationalist Movement, 1992:

The Forsyth County ordinance requiring a permit and a fee before authorizing public speaking, parades, or assemblies in "the archetype of a traditional public forum," Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480 (1988), is a prior restraint on speech. See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150-151 (1969); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 271 (1951). Although there is a "heavy presumption" against the validity of a prior restraint, Bantam Books, Inc v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963), the Court has recognized that government, in order to regulate competing uses of public forums, may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally. See Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574-576 (1941). Such a scheme, however, must meet certain constitutional requirements. It may not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official. See Freedman v. Maryland, supra. Further, any permit scheme controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternatives for communication. See United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983).
...
The costs to which petitioner refers are those associated with the public's reaction to the speech. Listeners' reaction to speech is not a content neutral basis for regulation. See Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S., at 321 (opinion of O'Connor, J.); id., at 334 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55-56 (1988); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 116 (1943); cf. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 162 (1939) (fact that city is financially burdened when listeners throw leaflets on the street does not justify restriction on distribution of leaflets). Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob. See Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).

This Court has held time and again: "Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the FirstAmendment." Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 648-649 (1984); Simon & Schuster, Inc., 502 U. S., at ___ (slip op. 9); Arkansas Writers' Project, 481 U. S., at 230. The county offers only one justification for this ordinance: raising revenue for police services. While this undoubtedly is an important government responsibility, it does not justify a content based permit fee. See Arkansas Writers' Project, 481 U. S., at 229-231.

[jberryhill]

43. Inapposite

That case is readily distinguishable. A bond is not a fee.

Also, he was not "jailed by authorities". He is being held in contempt of court.

[Yo_Mama]

45. Prior restraint of speech

is about the worst violation of the First Amendment.

They took him to court under a statute that is designed to prevent a crime. They claimed that he was trying to start a riot. The fact that the judge eventually imposed a $1 bond does not matter; it is that the bond also included the prohibition of going near the mosque.

My human sympathies are with the judge and jury, but if this were allowed to stand as law, I can imagine such statutes and prohibitions popping up all over.

Want to hold a protest against your local bank president for bad foreclosures? Peace bond, not convenient, it's in a private neighborhood. Want to hold a protest outside the office building of Koch Bros corporation? Oh, no, that's so inconvenient.

In fact, all anyone who wanted to squelch such a protest would have to do would be to hire a couple of thugs to start something.

This will be overturned. I hadn't realized that they actually hauled him to court until I found the MI ACLU brief.

The police are now entitled to arrest Jones if he goes anywhere near the mosque for three years. Believe me, that's not going to stand.

[jberryhill]

52. Time, place and manner

A bond is not a fee. He was not restrained from speaking.

Even permit and parade fees are more than $1 in most places.

Additionally, there is evidence that he had misrepresented the anticipated number of attendees, and he demonstrated the need for security by discharging a firearm while in Dearborn.

The case you cited is not on point.

[Bragi]

70. Agreed

The ruling is crap. What's worisome is the number or posters here prepared to let mobs set the lmits of free speech.

[jberryhill]

13. No. It means he must post a bond to cover anticipated expenses

Or, he can hire security directly.

His right to speak is not being denied. His desire to speak at a particular time, place and manner is being encumbered for a legitimate reason.

[notadmblnd]

17. and I read that he refused to post bond.

Now he's in jail. It means that he doesn't get to have his protest.

[jberryhill]

27. Yeah, so?

If I don't pay the entrance fee to a federal park, I get kicked out.

There is nothing new or unusual about requiring a bond to conduct an assembly on public property in order to guarantee that expenses will be covered. It is not an infringement of free speech. This guy is getting gobs of microphones and cameras through which to conduct his speech. I have no interest in anything the man has to say, but he's been thrust before me on the news three times today already. His first amendment rights are not being violated

[notadmblnd]

36. didn't say there was. I said- it means he's not having his protest

which is what I said that caused you to reply to my post to begin with.

[Bragi]

69. BS. His 1st amendment rights have been trashed by fear of mobs /nt

[Faygo Kid]

3. Please update when available. I'm torn on this one.

I'm somewhat a First Amendment absolutist. Is it indeed equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or is it more like the disgusting Westboro "Church" types whose repugnant signs and speech nevertheless pose no clear and present danger to cause physical harm in and of themselves?

This isn't easy. I'm inclined to disagree with this decision.

[Bozita]

5. peace bond now - live streaming ...

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/generic/news/live_stream_1

[Bozita]

7. ONE dollar each

[Bozita]

9. They refuse to post it. Off to jail they go.

That was fast.

[onehandle]

6. We know that the hate monger carries a gun.

And like most people, doesn't know one end from the other.

That's reason enough to keep him away from decent society.

[WatsonT]

12. We have let neo-nazis march in areas predominately settled by holocaust survivors

and the ACLU supported it.

That is free speech.

That is what we should support.

The right, not the message.

/yes he's a prick, yes he's doing this to get attention and likely stir up trouble. Doesn't mean he should be denied his rights.

[izquierdista]

16. A right to incite a riot?

He's already incited one riot halfway around the planet. I guess that wasn't good enough for him, he wants to be close enough to smell the blood that will be spilled. Speech isn't "free" when there is a cost to be measured in lives.

[WatsonT]

20. If they riot due to his speech then they are to blame

Idiot spouting nonsense: no one is harmed.

Person responding to idiot spouting nonsense through violence: someone will be harmed.

Blame: person responding to the idiot.

[SkyDaddy7]

23. It had a lot more to do than just potential rioting...

There was very good reasons why they refused to allow him the permit to protest. I too thought this was BS at first until I saw why...The area where he legally be able to hold the protest, public property, is very small. Plus, he claimed there would be 5-7 people with him protesting but then he posted on the internet telling where the protest would be & inviting anyone who wants to join come on out. Not to mention this area is in front of a Mosque & 5 Churches with one way in & out on Good Friday! There would be no where for protesters to park their cars as well. Once the officials saw that he applied for 5-7 people then posted an invite to all on the internet they had to put their foot down & bring it before the court.

The correct decision was made.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgLBIEdjYo

[izquierdista]

25. In his defense.....

Whenever he invites "anyone who wants to join to come on out", he usually only gets 5-7 people. :rofl:

[pipoman]

42. If my Marine son

was protested by the Phelps bunch, I would likely interfere with their protest with a baseball bat. They would be the ones to blame right?

[jberryhill]

19. Yes. And the KKK and the Nazis post bonds when required

This case is not about whether he can speak, it is about the bond requirement made in view of anticipated expenses.

[WatsonT]

21. Charging people for the right to speak in public strikes me as un-american

Don't you see how this can and will be abused?

[jberryhill]

29. That's why we have courts

The question is not "can this be abused?". The question is "has this been abused?". On the facts of this situation, where he was dishonest in his permit application and demonstrated his manifest irresponsibility by discharging a firearm in public, no it hasn't.

Lots of things can be abused. That's why we have courts and procedures to address abuse.

When Dearborn abuses this process, give me a shout. He took this to court and did not prevail. He got due process here.

[WatsonT]

54. So if you have a day in court that means justice has prevailed?

Good to know.

[jberryhill]

63. If you are looking for justice, I regret to inform you...

...that you have landed on the wrong planet.

What our system provides is due process. If you didn't like your day in court, then you can have another one by appealing.

Still, the matter will be determined by reference to applicable state and/or US law, and not by an infallible provider of cosmic justice.

[Bragi]

62. Agreed. Violent mobs don't get to set limits on free speech /nt

[Purveyor]

14. Judge Jails Pastor Terry Jones For Refusing To Pay $1 Bond

A judge late today sent two Florida pastors to jail for refusing to post a $1 bond.

The stunning development came after a Dearborn jury sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

Prosecutors asked Judge Mark Somers for $45,000 bond. Somers then set
bond at $1 each for the two pastors.

They refused to pay. And Somers ordered them remanded to jail.

MORE...

http://www.freep.com/article/20110422/NEWS02/110422014/Judge-jails-Pastor-Terry-Jones-refusing-pay-1-bond?odyssey=nav|head

[Bozita]

18. They indicated they would still go to the mosque - ON THE RECORD

That's the reasoning behind the jailing. Contempt of court.

[jberryhill]

30. Correct, that is clear contempt

[AsahinaKimi]

24. Didn't he want them to protest with Weapons on hand?

Imagine his weapon ACCIDENTALLY discharging again, there would be bullets flying everywhere.

[alp227]

26. The prosecutor's last name is missing an extra O.

Under his logic, ANY event that might "disturb the peace" should be banned or post bonds. Such as gangsta rap concerts; in Colorado a couple years ago a rap concert got canceled under pressure from the city mayor and district attorney. Maybe sporting events between rival teams should be banned, such as between the Giants and Dodgers baseball teams, because a Giants fan got beat up and is now in a coma for wearing team apparel at the rival's stadium. Oh, any Michigan sports fans remember the basketball game fight from 2004?

The question is when it comes to controversial speech, whose fault is it whenever speech results in violence? That of the speaker or the offended audience?

On the other hand, I'm reading this article, and I think that the owners of the mosque, a private place of worship, has the right to ban anyone from their property. While Pastor Jones has every First Amendment right to express his disdain from Islam in any channel of his initiative, if private property owners want him to keep out he should keep out.

[Yo_Mama]

41. He was going to be on the sidewalk

They very definitely do have the right to keep him off their property!!!

[Bozita]

46. There are no public sidewalks along Altar Street.

Except for the street, all of the property along there is private.

Take a look:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=dearborn+mi&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Dearborn,+MI&gl=us&ei=4BeyTd2zD-GS0QHu_vSXCQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ8gEwAA

[Yo_Mama]

49. I don't know the MI law

But usually a public road has an associated right of way, doesn't it?

I finally found it, thanks for the link. I can see why it's "Altar" road. I got the sidewalk thing from a newspaper article I read. There certainly isn't a sidewalk. Somehow I was thinking of a much more urban setting.

There is no question that the mosque can keep him off its property. Who owns the median between Ford and Altar?

[Bozita]

50. The grassy space on the north side of Ford Road is govt owned.

Dearborn, I believe.

The problem with that is Ford Road is a limited access 50mph 6 lane road where nobody follows the speed limit. It's not the kind of place I would pick for a demonstration of any kind.

[hardcover]

28. My question is, if the courts can stop Jones from prosting mosques,

why can't the courts stop Fred Phelps from protesting funerals?
Should Islam get special treatment?

Both Jones and Phelps are dead wrong in the same way and yet the courts don't treat them the same.

[jberryhill]

31. Because Phelps complies with all relevant permit regulations

That's why

[Bozita]

33. MSNBC reporting bond has been paid. They're out of jail.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42723011/ns/us_news-life/

Controversial pastor out of jail after paying $1 bond for mosque protest
Terry Jones, associate initially refused to pay after Mich. jury decided they were responsible for demonstration's security and policing costs
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 17 minutes ago


DEARBORN, Mich. — A controversial Florida pastor was briefly jailed and released on Friday after a Michigan court determined that his planned protest outside a mosque was likely to provoke violence and ordered him to stay away.

Terry Jones, 59, was sent to county jail after he declined to pay a $1 bond as ordered by Judge Mark Somers, who also ordered him to stay away from the Islamic Center of America for three years.

But about an hour later, police said Jones and a supporter, Wayne Sapp, were released from custody after the token $1 bond was paid.

Both Jones and Sapp were had initially refusing to meet the terms of a "peace bond" set by Somers in protest.

more...

[roamer65]

34. ...as much as I hate this bastard.

He does have the right to PEACEABLY protest in Dearborn.

The Nazis that wanted to protest in Skokie, IL in the 1970's eventually won that right in court.

I hate this bastard Jones and I hate Illinois nazis, but the 1st amendment is the law.

Muslims of Dearborn also have the right to counter-protest and burn Bibles.

[totodeinhere]

35. Agreed. n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

37. The place he wanted to protest was inconvenient

A road with a bunch of churches (appropriately called Altar Road), with the traffic disruption of the so-called "pastor" and his band, plus the swarm of media trucks and all their people and equipment, it would have been a mess.

The mayor offered the plaza at city hall to hold the protest, but the good reverend declined. It just wasn't near enough to the big mosque to cause the kind of turmoil he's looking for.

[Yo_Mama]

44. Yes, but

Jones was taken to court on a statute that is designed to prevent a crime and the prosecutor argued that he was planning to start a riot.

Read the ACLU Michigan brief:
http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/TerryJonesACLUAmicus.pdf

This is extremely unconstitutional.

[Bragi]

71. Yes, it is extremely unconstitutional

Wha is worisome is not that a lower court could make a stupid rulng,it is that there are so many people here at DU either uninformed about their 1st amendment rights,or who don't actually support those rights.

If people can't see the danger in letting an imagined possble mob be the reason for limiting someone's free speech rights, then these rights are in serious jeopardy.

[Yo_Mama]

40. They do, but...

"Muslims of Dearborn also have the right to counter-protest and burn Bibles."

They are probably too civilized to do it. This is extremely obnoxious behavior.

B regretfully I agree with you, and more importantly there is solid SC precedent.

If we let the government decide who should be able to protest what shortly we'd all find ourselves gagged unless we feel like marching in support of whatever the current group is doing.

[glinda]

47. I don't think it is any coincidence that he is in MI. Seriously, someone should look into who funded

his trip there and what contacts he had prior to going there.
He, like Palin, Bachman and Trump, are being paid and used to stir the pot.

[roamer65]

48. That would be very interesting information to know.

[Yo_Mama]

39. Michigan ACLU is supporting Jones

For obvious reasons.

I do sort of wish that the earth would open up and swallow this guy, but it is not worth sacrificing basic constitutional rights for this one jerk.

This isn't going to stand, and now Pastor Wonder Dummy has himself a case and really solid grounds, so he gets what he wants, apparently.

Btw, the NJ Transit employee who burned a Koran at the mosque protest last year got his job back:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/22/2011-04-22_derek_fenton_koranburning_transit_worker_fired_from_his_job_after_ground_zero_pr.html

Update: Here is the link to the Michigan ACLU's amicus brief:
http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/TerryJonesACLUAmicus.pdf

[rapmanej]

51. why is this a bad thing?

I am a Marxist and I believe in a stateless and classless society, however like Marx, I do believe we need a strong state in order to get there. Therefore, we need to disallow individuals (such as Phelps and Jones) the opportunity to attempt to harm the health of the state.

[Turborama]

53. Freep.com & Robert Moran?

What's the mathematical probability of those two being in the same news article and not meaning what they normally mean on DU?

[Vinnie From Indy]

55. As abhorrent as this POS is, I am against government prior restraint and censorship

It is Pandora's Box to be sure!

[angstlessk]

59. I think this is equalivent to burning a cross on somebodies yard...to

express disdain for the Koran across from a Mosque is equal, as far as I am concerned...and burning the cross it NOT LEGALLY PROTECTED SPEECH....

[annabanana]

73. Finally the standard of "yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre" has been

brought to bear.