City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church

[FourScore]

City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church
September 17, 2010 7:16 PM
The Associated Press

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Authorities say security for last weekend's canceled Quran burning at a central Florida church cost around $200,000. City officials say they expect the church to pay.

Police Maj. Rick Hanna said more than 200 officers were on duty last weekend patrolling the church, the University of Florida football game and "soft targets" like the mall. Another 160 sheriff's deputies were also working because of the planned protest at Dove World Outreach Center...

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/quran-32985-city-security.html

[Canuckistanian]

1. So, they're right. Freedom ISN'T free after all

Time to pony up, freedom fighter.

[merqz]

2. It's unconstitutional

and will never get paid.

[Canuckistanian]

6. This was a PR stunt

He could have chosen other ways to express his 1st Amendment rights. But he persisted, knowing there would be trouble.

The stunt cost the city of Gainesville $1/5 million. They're within their rights to recover costs.

This is one of those "yelling fire in a crowded theater" events. People could have been hurt.

[merqz]

7. Case law disagrees

and we don't counter bad speech by govt. fines.

I already posted some of the case law in the last thread. I can do it again. Simply put,... it's unconstitutional.

The Schenck reference (which is FALSELY crying fire in a crowded theatre) is outdated case law. It's also not applicable for a # of reasons, besides the fact that Schenck was superseded by Brandenburg.

It also doesn't fall under the true threats exception. It's been hashed out already. The city manager admitted he did no legal research before agreeing to the fine, and it will NEVER GET PAID mark my words. It's prima facie unreasonable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. This ain't a fine

and authorities are known to recover costs...

[merqz]

20. not of this manner. see the relevant case law such as

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992).

They could no more recover costs from Jones et al than they could recover costs from civil rights marchers for their use of police dogs and fire hoses.

Read the case. Fwiw, legal scholars are about as unanimous as could be on this. The fine is unconstitutional and won't be paid. Read the legal blogs.

[Yupster]

22. That's the first thing I thought of

Fine Martin Luther King for the security for his marches because he knew there's be trouble.

This can't be right.

[merqz]

23. You are right, and what is sad is how many people here don't get this

The same speech rights that helped the civil rights movement are now being thrown under the bus (IRONY NOTED) by those who think that it's ok to deny rights to those they disagree with. And yes, as the SCOTUS case law says, sending people a bill for the police resources used by authorities in response to somebody's speech, is a denial of their free speech rights. It's not prior restraint, of course. The exact opposite.

There are a fair # of places in the US where a public flag burning or threatening thereof would also require police security. Nobody here would support fining those people , but because the quran burner is SO offensive, free speech rights take a back seat (pun intended) to any way possible to "get back" at him. The counter to bad speech is good speech. It is not using GOVERNMENT to punish the person speaking, and that is what the fine is a functional equivalent of.

Only controversial speech requires such govt. protection, thus only controversial speech would be so billed, thus controversial speech would be suppressed by govt. As long as people remember that the 1st was DESIGNED to protect the most odious kind of speech, they will be on ths side of freedom.

[petronius]

3. I really don't approve of this. As wrong as the church's actions were,

they didn't commit any sort of crime or do anything other than exercise their right of (reprehensible) free speech and political protest. Billing anyone whose opinion might cause others to misbehave is a very dark road...

[blogslut]

8. Ah, but they failed to actually exercise that right

They didn't burn the Qu'ran. Instead, perhaps what Terry Jones did could be equated with yelling "fire" in that proverbially crowded theater.

[merqz]

10. Keerist, no it can't

Not even close. There is no difference between this and a threatened flag burning.

[blogslut]

12. Ok

If you say so.

[merqz]

14. Actually, the SCOTUS says so... it's that pesky 1st amendment

I find both flag burning and Quran burning to be incredibly offensive. I (and the SCOTUS) recognize that it's constitutionally protected. I cited some case law on it in the last thread of this ilk.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Black v Virginia, 2003

it seems to apply here.

And that is a USSC decision too.

[merqz]

18. I referenced that one already...

Black involves "true threats'. Here's why it's distinguishable.

The case involved a law that made it illegal to burn a cross WITH THE INTENT TO INTIMIDATE. In the case, it was told to the jury (im quoting from memory here) that an assumption could be made (and inference) regarding intent to intimidate when a cross was burned. That presumption was invalidated. What the SCOTUS said was that the intent to intimidate had to be an element of the crime (you couldn't criminalize cross burning... and crosses are still burned to this day in the US, perfectly legally) and thus proven.

The reason why it was an exception to 1st amendment protection was that it COULD be (in some cases... where there was an intent to intimidate) construed as a "true threat" because there was a SPECIFIC DOCUMENTED history of people burning crosses and then IMMEDIATELY thereafter going out and committing violence against blacks.

There is no such documented history in the case of either flag burners or Quran burners, thus burning a Quran is not a true threat, nor is burning a flag.


THe case that is on point in the illegality of the fine is:Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992).

[petronius]

11. Saying they were planning to, saying that it should be, all of their actions were

free speech and protest. I don't see it as a the 'fire' analogy at all: there is the element of choice for the people who were expected to respond violently, and it's not reasonable to me to argue that a person can't protest because someone else might misbehave. In the fire/theater situation, there is really only one logical response (escape), and in that circumstance it's reasonable to blame the person who falsely raise the alarm for any injury during the escape attempt...

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Police Departments are known to do this regularly

See LAPD for example, who are infamous for this.

It has nothing to do with what right or not was exercised.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. They should start doing the same thing to the Phelps Klan as well.

Each time they want to protest at a funeral or something, just charge them a couple of hundred thousand for security.

[merqz]

9. Neither fine will hold up

Any more than fining war protesters for security would

[Crazy Dave]

5. Dupe delete

[elocs]

13. I read about that here last Friday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4544223

[applegrove]

19. I'm with those who fear it will stifle free speech and demonstrations and such.

I hope someone stops them from doing this.

[merqz]

21. It's a media ploy by the city. It will never get paid. It's unconstitutional

and if they had done ANY research (the city manager actually admits or claims he didn't) they would know that.

It's grandstanding by the city...

[RagAss]

24. HAHAHAHAHAAA....add another $5,000 for being a Dick !

[BlueCheese]

25. This cannot possibly be right.

You can't have to pony up the cost of security just because you're going to say something controversial. If other people react badly to you exercising your constitutional rights, then that's on them.

For the record, the proposed Quran-burning was odious and repugnant. But free speech means free for everyone.

[librechik]

26. hmm. Maybe that's why he's leaving town...

good luck collecting that, Gainesville--and watch out, Tampa, your turn is next!