The argument is being made that the Reverend Terry Jones’s plan to burn Muslim holy books (because apparently the Reverend thinks that the spirit of Christianity is best served by adopting tactics favored by the Third Reich) presents a danger to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since it will infuriate Muslims, driving even moderate individuals straight into the willing embrace of the extremist factions and send them coming after our guys.
I wonder if the government can actually intervene, using the “clear and present danger” language put forward by O.W. Holmes in Schenck vs. the United States . It was, to my mind, an absurd decision at the time since in my opinion, the facts of Schenck present no danger at all, clear and present or otherwise. Nevertheless, it sure seems to me that that is now the argument being put forward by army brass, and it would be an interesting test if a court order came down forbidding it.
PAD
• 
Any judge who would approve such an order should be drummed out at the earliest opportunity. It would mean we essentially have no first amendment rights, that what rights we have are entirely contingent on how foreign religious loons will react.
.
It occurs to me that here is a new tact for those who oppose gays serving in the military–claim that it will put the lives of soldiers in danger, that gay-hating Islamic fundamentalists will use it as an opportunity to brand all soldiers as unclean in the eyes of Allah, etc etc. Or has someone already tried that line of “reasoning”?
.
Some have expressed nervousness at Patraeus’ stated opposition to the act but it has been made clear that nobody thinks it is illegal or should be banned, just that these whack jobs, like the Fred Phelps losers who picket funerals, should be regarded by all decent people as little more than glory seeking scumbags.
I don’t think that *exact* tact has been used, Bill. But a similar one is the notion that gays will ruin a unit’s morale, which could in turn put them in danger when in the field, and so on.
.
In the end, nobody will weep if this guy trips and falls in a particular direction during this little stunt.
First Amendment rights don’t enter into it. He can be arrested on burning without a permit.
would that be legit if it were an American flag? I doubt that they arrest everyone who sets up a barbecue grill. Unless he is actually making a fire so large as to be dangerous, arresting him on that would still be a suppression of first amendment rights, in my opinion.
Depends on where he burns it, how many he burns at one time and how big the fire gets.
.
It also wouldn’t be a suppression of first amendment rights to arrest him for such an offense if it can be showed that other arrests have been made in the city for a similar sized blaze. It would simply be, fairly and equally, enforcing the fire codes.
.
Now if they uniquely interpret the codes just for him it’s a whole different matter.
Banning outdoor barbecuing in drought conditions is not unusual.
.
And most jurisdictions require some sort of permit for large outdoor fires; i think he’s said he wants to burn a thousand copies, which would, i think, qualify as “large”.
I’m sure you’re not the only person considering a court injunction against this, Peter. But it shouldn’t happen. Reverend Jones has every right to burn as many Korans as he wants to. It makes him and his congregation look like idiots, but it is, nonetheless, their right. Period. The problem as I see it is the furor that the news media have whipped up about the event. Had they simply reported it as the bone-headed ploy for attention that it is, sort of like the typical reporting on Klan rallys in recent years, it would have slipped from the public consciousness weeks ago.
The slant that is being given to the event in every story I’ve seen on it makes it sound like it’s a big important deal, when in fact it’s just a bunch of know-nothing hicks getting together and being stupid.
Based on the recent progression of Republican Presidents’ opinion of little things like civil rights – would you really like to set that precedent for (worst possible case horrific scenario) President Palin to abuse?
Let’s make clear: I’m not interested in setting precedents or considering a court injunction. I’m just wondering if the army will approach the courts using the “clear and present danger” reasoning of the Supreme Court and endeavor to apply it in this case.
.
PAD
I doubt it will happen and I hope that majorities on the right and left would be against it.
Okay – sorry; i didn’t mean that you, personally were in favour of the idea.
.
I was so scared by the implications for the future that i typed slightly faster than i thought.
.
Apologies.
But is it really any worse than the Army burning Bibles in Afghanistan?
.
Short answer: Yes.
.
Long answer:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/burned-bibles/
Read your link, and I still don’t see how it’s worse. The Army could have just as easily mailed them back to the organization that sent them.
.
I did read the link and the cited source materials. Now, if you can’t see the difference in confiscating books that were to be used by solders in a way that violates federal policies, military codes of conduct and the local law of the land they’re in VS some group of bigoted nuts burning books with the intent of creating (at the very least) anger and dissension then there isn’t much anyone can do for you on the topic.
.
“The Army could have just as easily mailed them back to the organization that sent them.”
.
Really? It’s just that easy? The army was going to collect them all, neatly pack them, label the boxes and pay to ship them back? Large waste of manpower, time and money. Besides, from everything I’ve read the group could have made arrangements to get them back and didn’t. You can’t just mail something to someone COD and make them accept the package and the military shouldn’t be on the financial hook for that group’s stupidity.
I agree with you Jerry, but there is an issue to ponder here–had there been much recent precedent for Christians rioting and killing when they perceive of insults to their holy book you can bet that the army would not have trashed them. One must admit that the threat of violence from radical Islamic groups has been very very effective in getting people to treat them with a level of consideration not given, say, Quakers. That’s a bad lesson for others.
Thank you, Bill. That was actually the point I was trying to hint at and failing.
One must admit that the threat of violence from radical Islamic groups has been very very effective in getting people to treat them with a level of consideration not given, say, Quakers. That’s a bad lesson for others.
.
You think if if the head of a Mosque somewhere announced that he was going to be burning a thousand bibles, there wouldn’t be threats of violence against Muslims?
.
PAD
Not particularly. Bibles are routinely confiscated in Saudi Arabia, Jews and Christians routinely denied religious rights in some Muslim countries, etc etc. It has come to be expected. yes, there may be treats but I would be amazed to see riots in the streets or any of the other acts of violence routinely displayed at insults, real or perceived, against Islam.
.
keeping in mind that even with all the supposed Islamophobia out there the number of religious motivated attacks on Jews still outnumbers those against Muslims by about 10 to 1 I see little reason for most Muslims to worry about backlash from the actions of the violent minority. It exists but it is of no great consequence.
.
Malcolm: “Thank you, Bill. That was actually the point I was trying to hint at and failing.”
.
Well, don’t hint at it next time, dude. Or at the very least don’t hint at it with a debunked story popularized by a chain email and used by a number of the talkers on the Right to be yet another anti-Obama story. The point you were aiming for sorta got lost in all of that.
I hope no one makes this argument, and if they do I hope that it fails. While I find what Reverend Jones is utterly reprehensible, there’s a world of difference between possibly inciting radicals overseas and using that potential outcome as reasoning to suspend first amendment rights. This would be a very dangerous precedent for possible extremist reaction being used as a way to limit/ban anything. (Heck, Comedy Central gave in to it with SOUTH PARK a while back.) What if the terrorists are incited by Victoria’s Secret commercials, gay pride parades, gospel music performers, or anything else? It’s a very slippery slope that could restrict the first amendment (currently being used to support the right for the mosque/religious center in NYC) for anything we find offensive. And PAD’s already spoken out for the need to support the first amendment, even for what we personally find reprehensible.
“I wonder if the government can actually, using the “clear and present danger” language put forward by O.W. Holmes in Schenck vs. the United States .”
.
Looks like there was supposed to be more to that sentence. Can actually… what?
Thanks, Sean. I thought I was the only one missing the object of that sentence.
*sigh* First “Palin,” now “Terry Jones”…Is the right-wing faction in the US going to co-opt EVERY Monty Python name?
here are some facts about this whackadoo:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/koran-burner-creepier-you-think
.
Totally a cult and a minor, loser cult at that. But now they have international recognition and infamy. A lesson I fear others will learn from.
Yah and if you read some of the comments it looks like there are a lot of people ready to help him out… Scary!
The best thing to do would be top stage a huge bi-partisan, interfaith demonstration against the idiot who is planning to burn the Koran. Not protesting his right to do it, but opposing it completely.
I don’t know if it’ll be huge, Micha, but I do believe such an interfaith demonstration is being planned.
Is anyone from any side of the political spectrum actually supporting this as a rational thing that rational people do?
Maybe I’m just being too optimistic, but the positive thing about this idiocy is that many more people who have some feelings of fear and doubt about Islamism (but are not crazy) may have a wake-up call by watching this lunacy, and see the ugly places Islamophobia can lead to.
.
Sometimes we need an incident like this one to shame the rest of us out of complacency. I admit that I’ve had my doubts about Islamism myself, but I don’t ever want to end up like those book-burning freaks.
A question just popped in to my mind – Where is the Rev getting the thousand Korans he intends on publishing?
I would assume that he and his followers would have to buy them from somewhere. While I don’t know for certain, I would guess that some editions are published by small press publishers owned by businessmen who happen to be Muslim.
Now since Jones believes that all Muslims are terrorists, or some such claptrap, by his own thinking isn’t he supporting terrorism by buying a copy of the Koran to burn?
😉
This reminds me of an old DORK TOWER cartoon where POKEMON protesters were showing their hatred of the POKEMON card game by burning cards — leaving the game store owner wondering how they would stop the game by buying the cards from him to burn. I think at the end the store owner asked, “So they’re going to put us out of business by making us rich?”
So I suppose this means Reverend Jones is providing financial support to the terrorists. I look forward to Fox News reporting on his ties to terrorism and his being investigated by the government.
Perhaps the “terrorist” selling Korans to the good Reverend could have the last laugh – by selling him 1,000 bibles, in Koran covers. Certainly Rev. J wouldn’t open them to check, as his eyes might burn.
Interesting question, PAD. I’m no lawyer, but my gut says no.
.
The “clear and present danger” argument, like most other legal arguments, has to pass the “reasonability” test. No reasonable person could argue that a rational response to some minister in Florida committing minor arson (if he actually broke any laws, and he’s probably got himself covered so he stays within the letter of the law) is to kill American service members halfway around the world.
.
I think a good example would be when Newsweek published the utterly bogus “Koran flushed down the toilet at Gitmo” story that resulted in riots around the Muslim world, with quite a few deaths. Was Newsweek guilty of publishing a BS story that was laughably false? Absolutely — there’s no toilet in the world that could “pass” a Koran — they’re just too dámņëd big.
.
But was Newsweek responsible, in any legal or moral way, for the deaths of those killed in the riots? Absolutely not.
.
Or, if you prefer, the riots and killings following the publication of the Mohammed cartoons. Was it the cartoonists’ fault that westerners, especially Danes, were the target of Muslim rage over the cartoons? Again, absolutely not.
.
J.
Personally, I think that the “clear and present danger” approach, in this case, would be a steaming pile of hypocrisy coming from someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
.
Also I support his right to burn as many Koran’s as he dámņ well pleases. It’s always good when people who are bat šhìŧ crazy are willing to identify themselves so that rational people can avoid them.
.
This Reverend and people like him are much like trolls on all the internets: Give them the attention they crave (I’m looking at YOU, News Media) and they’ll just stick around and make more of their noise. We can’t in reality disemvowel them but we can sure as Hëll shroud them! Which we should. It’ll be fun. I think of it as the Pursuit of Happiness.
It was in the original case, too.
If they did try to use the ‘clear and present danger’ argument against this, there’s a good chance the Supreme court might eventually end up overturning the Shenck ruling, or at least limit it somewhat. But I would be too afraid to take that chance. There’s a possibility they might end up extending the Shenck precedent even further.
Well, when you click on the link Mike Weber provided and then do some further research, you come upon more recent case law having to do with imminent danger, specifically:
.
These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
.
It’s the kind of legal thinking that was used to prosecute people inciting others to riot. So here you’ve got army brass stating that this particular display is going to “produce imminent lawless action,” namely assaults on troops. You’ve also got prominent Muslims declaring it will cause assaults on Americans everywhere. So it will be interesting if someone in the government tries to head it off on that basis.
.
PAD
ist nicht logisch