That's Terry Jones' problem. If people who oppose his views wish to persuade society that they are repugnant, they should expose them. Cockroaches don't like sunlight.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110421/N ... RONTPAGE|p

The article lists places other than the mosque for Jones to hold his protest. AFAIK, Westboro protesters are careful about permits and such. Getting a permit for 3 unarmed people is a lot diffferent than what Jones was proposing.

Jones and Sapp posted their $1 bonds about a hour after refusing to do so.

What were they proposing that was different than what Westboro proposed? Besides, the government is not allowed to care what the content of the protesters' message is before deciding how to proceed. This isn't China!

Debbie Schlussel is mildly upset with Terry Jones. "Dearbornistan Jury Requires Terry Jones to Pay “Peace Bond” to Hold Protest; Bond is $1; Jones Refuses to Pay, Arrested!"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... st=Twitter


How nice. How tolerant. How Christian.

If I had a holy book, and someone wanted to burn it, I'd sell them as many copies as they wanted, and make sure that I was turning a healthy profit on the deal.

It's hard to tell for sure, but this report says that they changed their minds and decided not to post the $1 peace bond/bail.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110422 ... d%E2%80%99

It's far from over. It's just getting started for Jones and company.

That's cuz you don't have any reverence toward the book. Easy for you to say. I think religious people do.

Gawd, Loh. You sound like a Capitalist.

War may be war, but bidness is bidness

I'm largely in favor of Jones' right to protest in this case, but there are a couple of areas that give me pause.

As I understand the case - and please let me know if I'm wrong - Jones basically wants permission from the city to stand outside the Islamic Center and insult the occupants. Jones is not a resident of the city, and the Islamic Center is not a government entity.

If the Islamic Center was a government entity, I'd have zero doubts about Jones right to protest. If he was a resident of the area where the protest was taking place, I'd have very nearly zero doubts. But in this particular case, the city is being asked to bear the financial burden associated with a non-resident non-taxpayer's protest against a private entity that happens to occupy space within the city limits.

I'm not remotely certain that the "peace bond" is a reasonable approach, but I'm not positive it's entirely unreasonable either. I'd definitely be totally uncomfortable with the "peace bond" idea if this was a protest that involved petitioning the government for redress of grievances, or if Jones was being barred from saying what he wanted anywhere within the city limits. When it comes to the right to protest against a private entity in a specific location of his choosing, I just don't know.

Halliburton is a private entity. If you want to protest its activities, do you want to be charged $100,000 for the privilege of doing so first? How about Fox News? Walmart? How about Pastor Jones' own church?

The peace bond issue has already been decided by the courts. It cannot be used as an end run to censor free speech.

Part of the solution to this is demanding that the media ignore asshats like Jones. It would put a damper on his attention-whoring, fame seeking behavior.

Actually, I try to avoid hypocrisy, so I did consider the issue from the perspective of me protesting against something that I clearly know is wrong. I still wound up uncertain. Yes, I should have the right to protest against anyone I want to, and to hold the protest in a public location. I'm just not sure that I should be entitled to the public location of my choosing, at the time of my choosing, and at no cost to me - particularly if that location will create additional costs to the local taxpayers.

Of course, if the courts have spoken, they've spoken. IANL, and this is an area where I'm perfectly content to discover that I'm wrong.

There are locations where you can reasonably be prohibited from protesting. For instance, you can't stake out a busy traffic intersection near Jones's own cult compound. However, without good cause, you can't be prohibited from protesting in a reasonable location near his disgusting headquarters, just because his thugs threaten violence if you're allowed to protest.

OK, I'm wrong on this one.

The local papers and national news organizations are mostly converging on the following news: Controversial pastor out of jail after paying $1 bond for mosque protest. The teeth in the bond are the three-year prohibitions from being on the property of the mosque or adjacent property. The Detroit News article still has the confusing material about the prosecutors announcing that Jones and Sapp had paid the bond, then seven minutes later announcing that they had refused to do so. Its title is now Pastor released from jail after being held on $1 'peace bond', and it can still be read as saying that they did not pay the bond themselves.

If this matter goes to a higher court, I think the geography of the place where the protest was planned will be salient. There is no public property except (perhaps) for the grass on the other side of Altar Road and (probably) Altar Road itself. The peace bond statute of 1846 was upheld in the state Court of Appeals in 1999 in a matter involving feuding neighbors. It seems the statute has rarely been used and then most often for feuding neighbors.

Interestingly, Jones was a Usurper in a protest that had already been planned. The Order of the Dragon, an anti-Shari'a group of perhaps 15 members from Port Huron, had planned a protest for Good Friday but withdrew after consultation with Dearborn religious and civic leaders when Jones announced that he would be there too. Their main aim is legislative: a law to ban the use of Shari'a in Michigan courts.

Curiously, Jones says that he did not realize that the planned protest was to be held on Good Friday. This has a certain credibility to it, although it may not apply to Jones' Dove World Outreach Center: some fundamentalist churches consider Easter to be a pagan holiday with no basis in Biblical text.

Not understanding the issue here. He can protest on the other side of Altar Road. From video I've seen this is what Westboro did.



Irrelevant. In re Gosnell, 594 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) did not involve a 1st Amendment issue, so it was only ruled as "constitutional" in the face of the non-1st Amendment challenges brought by a feuding neighbor. More importantly, the state court of appeals is inferior, literally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The very article you link to also states:

Westboro reportedly had three protesters, who obtained a permit and could easily and safely have protested on the grassland on the other side of Altar Road. There was a counter-protest of about 25-30 people.

It is quite possible that Jones would have had only two protesters and could also have fitted into the grassland. He was talking of a much larger protest, but he has a big mouth. The danger would come from Ford Road if the crowd had been large. A counter-protest would only have worsened the situation. Again, Jones could have protested in other areas of the city.

Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to step onto my doorstep and yell imprecations at me. It does give you the right to protest, with a permit, on the Town Green. That has been going on for three centuries.

We appear to be going in circles. You cannot use the threats of a counterprotest to muzzle a protestor. The courts have ruled on this. Explicitly. And, I have seen no evidence of Jones asking for a permit for a "much larger protest," but even if he did, the police are obligated to adjust their plans accordingly.



Are you stating the law or are you stating what you wish it actually said? Definitely not the former. Only reasonable and narrowly-tailored restrictions to avoid violence and property damage may be undertaken to manage a protest like this. That is the law.

Knowing the emotional charge the issue of Jones burning the Quran has, especially in Michigan with its fairly large Muslim population, the idea Dearborn might ask for a peace bond seems entirely reasonable to me.

Anyone who has followed this story knows that Jones is a Jezebel* when it comes to attention; whether negative or positive he careth not. He's not there for a simple, peaceful protest. He wants confrontation. His white cracker self can't believe he's not treated as some kind of messenger of doG already, when he's shown his willingness to slay the infidel right there in South Florida, home to many a blazing fundamentalist cracker. He should be being prepared for sainthood, not thrown in the "Dearbornistan" (WTF?) jail. He wont be satisfied until he ignites a religious war.

So his "free speech" rights are being violated? Seems to me he be yelling fire in a crowded theatre.


Malkin lost me at Dearbornistan, just sayin'. I really despise her. When she says something I agree with, it makes me really think about my position.




*. No offense, Jez.

NPR had a report last weekend saying that the US media did just that which is why no one in the US heard about the Koran burning in Florida until the riots in Afghanistan broke out. The problem was that one AF stringer did NOT get the message and it was reported overseas...where it spread like wildfire...but not here. I know I was shocked when I heard about the Dove Church burning because I pay attention to that kind of stuff. I was also quite surprised at the almost perfect non-coverage.

As for demanding non-coverage, who has the power/clout/authority to demand the media not cover anything? Only the public not consuming it will stop them. It's like junk food in a lot of ways.

Of course no has that authority, but in the Dove case the media voluntarily acted out of its own sense of journalistic ethics. I was very impressed. I think the same could have happened here but the idiots at the State rocketed the story into the headlines with their illegal court proceeding for which they will be sued later, successfully. (Again. I understand Dearborn has violated 1st Amendment standards in the past and been hit with a civil lawsuit for that also.)

Of course, the City of Dearborn can be sued later, but that does not strike me as Jones' style. He does not have the legal experience and expertise that Westboro has. It was noted in the report that he did not invoke certain rights after the jury decision came in when prompted by the judge. He has vowed to come back and do the same thing next week. The situation will be different since it will not be Good Friday and all the nearby churches will not be having services. Will Jones go the legal route or the in- the -streets route? Will he defy the judges order to stay away from the mosque or will he go to court?

I think he'll sue. The ACLU has undoubtedly been in touch with him. It actually filed an amicus brief in his support in the trial yesterday.