The Quran and the Constitution

[lolabird]

Link please?

Don't be so lazy.

 

[Visbek]

Long story short: You can burn a cross, unless it is your intention to intimidate someone. E.g. Madonna lighting a cross for a video is legal. Lighting a cross for a private KKK meeting is legal. Burning it on the lawn of a black person who just moved into town is not.

It's not the "speech" aspect that determines legality, it's the intent to harass and/or intimidate.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/us...ing-ban-sends-law-back-state-court-refinement


I also haven't heard of anyone who is making a serious effort to outlaw Koran-burning.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Don't be so lazy.

As Visbek shows you were the one that needed to do the home work.

Long story short: You can burn a cross, unless it is your intention to intimidate someone. E.g. Madonna lighting a cross for a video is legal. Lighting a cross for a private KKK meeting is legal. Burning it on the lawn of a black person who just moved into town is not.

It's not the "speech" aspect that determines legality, it's the intent to harass and/or intimidate.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/us...ing-ban-sends-law-back-state-court-refinement


I also haven't heard of anyone who is making a serious effort to outlaw Koran-burning.

 

[rathi]

If this is true then i'd say they are just charging him just to charge him with something. If a person spills kerosene in the back of their pickup are they violating the law?

The law only applies to quantities over 8 gallons. If Jones was merely burning one Koran he would just be an asshole, but burning 3000 makes him a safety hazard. Given that he publicly advertised how many Korans he was going to burn, the police had very legitimate reasons for investigating the situation.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Burning Qurans is little different than burning a cross on someones front lawn.

Actually it is because there is a long standing contextual history behind cross burning that makes clear it's use to convey a threat.


Secondly, you're comparing a situation of general Quran burning to cross burning targeted at a victim, and where the state is still required to prove there was intent to convey a threat

PS we also don't have hate speech laws in the US

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I was arguing the freedom of speech clause and really haven't given the establishment clause much thought since it mostly applies to the government.

Hate speech that incites violence is illegal. Cross burning is also illegal so why wouldn't burning the Quran be illegal, too?

No, cross burning is very much legal. It becomes illegal when there is clear intent to convey a threat with it. Review black vs Virginia

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Terry Jones wasn't arrested for "hate speech". He was arrested because 3000 kerosene soaked books violated Florida law for unlawful conveyance of fuel. It is required that large quantities of fuel be stored in proper tanks and containers during transportation for obvious safety reasons.

I haven't seen much written on why he was denied a permit, but given the political nature of the issue I would likely shy away from assuming that it was done for purely legitimate zoning and public safety reasons

 

[Jerry]

With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.

I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What do you think?



​

It should be illegal to openly burn anything without a burn permit.

It's arson, not speech.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Try it in the state of Virginia.

Ahh, in Virginia vs Black the Supreme Court clearly recognized the legality of cross burning. Interesting enough, the guy who pleaded black's case was an african american

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Do your research because the Supreme Court upheld VA's ban on cross burning.

No it didn't. What it did was recognize that in some instances cross burning could be used to convey a threat and that the state was able to pursue such cases, but what it could not do was make a blanket ban on cross burning or assume that any instance of cross burning equated to a threat

 

[lolabird]

No it didn't. What it did was recognize that in some instances cross burning could be used to convey a threat and that the state was able to pursue such cases, but what it could not do was make a blanket ban on cross burning or assume that any instance of cross burning equated to a threat

Why would someone burn a cross in another's yard? Can you find the positive message?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Why would someone burn a cross in another's yard? Can you find the positive message?

your above reply doesn't make sense.

 

[lolabird]

your above reply doesn't make sense.

Why would anyone burn a cross on someone else's property? What would be the positive statement?
Try burning a cross on someone's property in Virginia.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Why would anyone burn a cross on someone else's property? What would be the positive statement?
Try burning a cross on someone's property in Virginia.

Again, try to make sense. How does this address what I wrote above, or your obvious misinterpretation of "Virginia vs Black

 

[rathi]

I haven't seen much written on why he was denied a permit, but given the political nature of the issue I would likely shy away from assuming that it was done for purely legitimate zoning and public safety reasons

You can read the document denying the permit in full.
Polk County Denial of Terry Jones' Permit Request

Frankly, I see no reason to assume Jones was being unfairly persecuted. He filed his permit 6 days in advance, which doesn't meet the 2 week deadline required. The Westboro folks are even more hated, but they are a bunch of lawyers who follow procedure to the letter and thus avoid legal trouble. Mr Jones is no different from the millions of other Americans who get permits denied because they weren't sticklers about following policy.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Frankly, I see no reason to assume Jones was being unfairly persecuted.

Not making the assumption that it was fair in nature and only concerned zoning and safety legitimate safety concerns =/= Assuming Jones was persecuted

He filed his permit 6 days in advance, which doesn't meet the 2 week deadline required. The Westboro folks are even more hated, but they are a bunch of lawyers who follow procedure to the letter and thus avoid legal trouble. Mr Jones is no different from the millions of other Americans who get permits denied because they weren't sticklers about following policy.

1) people have abused permitting procedures in the past to deny various groups their constitutional rights

2) This is likely why the WB folks are so keen on this

3) The offices handing out such permits are often not sticklers about following all the requirements. Which is why such denials can often be found challenged in court based on the idea that such "sticklering" was introduced off the cuff to get around constitutional requirements.

Mr Jones is no different from the millions of other Americans who get permits denied because they weren't sticklers about following policy.

Why do you keep assuming that in such a highly charged political situation? The fact is YOU DO NOT KNOW and there is a very clear possibility that YOU MAY BE WRONG.

 

[rathi]

Not making the assumption that it was fair in nature and only concerned zoning and safety legitimate safety concerns =/= Assuming Jones was persecuted

I'm not making any assumptions. I am following the evidence, which currently doesn't show any hint of unfair treatment.

1) people have abused permitting procedures in the past to deny various groups their constitutional rights

2) This is likely why the WB folks are so keen on this

3) The offices handing out such permits are often not sticklers about following all the requirements. Which is why such denials can often be found challenged in court based on the idea that such "sticklering" was introduced off the cuff to get around constitutional requirements.

Requiring that people file permits two weeks in advance is an entirely objective standard which can be met by anyone willing to do a little planning in advance. The only way it could be discriminatory is if other individuals were commonly given burn permits in parks with only 6 days notice.

Why do you keep assuming that in such a highly charged political situation? The fact is YOU DO NOT KNOW and there is a very clear possibility that YOU MAY BE WRONG.

That is true. However, the preponderance evidence demonstrates it is significantly more likely that the city council did act in accordance with the law. Don't confuse the lack of absolute certainty with fact that one claim is significant stronger than the other.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I'm not making any assumptions. I am following the evidence, which currently doesn't show any hint of unfair treatment.

I highly doubt you have enough information to competently make such an assessment, which would require things like knowledge of how past permitting procedures were handled ....

Requiring that people file permits two weeks in advance is an entirely objective standard

It certainly can be if it was a standard that was not rigidly applied in the past and simply "dusted off" for this case

That is true. However, the preponderance evidence demonstrates it is significantly more likely that the city council did act in accordance with the law. Don't confuse the lack of absolute certainty with fact that one claim is significant stronger than the other.

I never argued that it was likely, or that it was more likely than the permitting process being handled in a fair manner. What I did was point out that denying a permit was not the same as denying a permit on legitimate grounds. You clearly assumed it was

 

[Surtr]

With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.

I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What do you think?



​

It would violate every clause of the First Amendment.