"Free Speech Zone" Follies

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On April 25, 2011 

In a case that tests the limits of the First Amendment, controversial pastor
Terry Jones, who runs the Dove World Outreach Center
<http://www.doveworld.org/about-us>  in Gainesville, Florida, and fellow
pastor Wayne Sapp, were arrested and jailed last Friday by Dearborn,
Michigan police after refusing to post a one dollar "peace bond" ordered by
District Judge Mark Somers
<http://www.cityofdearborn.org/government/courts/175-judge-somers> . The
judge's order came after a six-person jury ruled that both men would "breach
the peace" if they held a protest outside the Islamic Center of America.
<http://www.icofa.com/>  Jones vowed to file a lawsuit against prosecutors
and promised to return for a rally in Dearborn next Friday at 5 p.m.

After three hours of deliberation, the jury sided with prosecutors who had
sought a $25,000 bond from the preacher and his associate, claiming their
protest outside the mosque would likely start a riot. Prosecutors also told
both men they could be jailed for up to three years if they declined to pay
the $1 peace bond in protest. "I strongly voice my disagreement with the
ruling," said Sapp, when asked by Somers if he had any comment. "The peace
bond is to prohibit free speech." Both men subsequently paid the bond and
were released.

But Sapp has a point. The "peace bond
<http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cngnp345ykrdwf45epol2w45))/documents/mcl/p
df/mcl-175-1927-XII.pdf> " is the result of a law enacted in 1927 which "may
require a person to give security to keep the peace." Yet this particular
application of it appears to be somewhat novel, as the law has been used
primarily in domestic violence cases to protect spouses from violent
partners. Charlie Langton, lawyer and WJBK Fox 2 legal analyst, was taken
aback by the ruling. "Nobody expected this," he said. "It is prior
restraint,
<http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/prior-restraint.htm>  but the
judge followed the letter of the law. It's purely legal because it's never
been challenged. That is not right. It's an old law that I don't think
applies to this case. I think they'll have to appeal it."

Yet this was not the most controversial part of Judge Somers' ruling. In a
move that reportedly roiled the courtroom, he also ordered both men to stay
away from the Dearborn mosque property - and the area surrounding it - for
three years. In a bizarre addendum, Somers said the order would remain in
effect, unless mosque leaders asked him to rescind it in the future.

The American Civil Liberties Union <http://www.aclu.org/>  (ACLU) had
unsuccessfully petitioned the state of Michigan to throw the case out,
contending that Dearborn officials had violated Jones's free speech
protections, even as ACLU spokeswoman Rana Elmir was upset that the trial
had given unwarranted publicity to a "divisive and fringe figure" by banning
his demonstration. "We vehemently disagree with Mr. Jones and his cohorts.
However, this is a complete abuse of the court process and all those
involved should be ashamed," she said. "I believe that Rev. Jones came to
Dearborn for his 15 minutes of fame and the judge and prosecutors have now
effectively given him hours of that.In a free society no one should be
thrown in jail for speech, even as distasteful and offensive as Mr. Jones
is," she added.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy disagreed: "These proceedings were solely
about public safety," she said in a statement.

"This was never about prohibiting free speech or fearing rioting, but about
a situation that could potentially place the public in danger in Dearborn."

The case arose from a request by Terry Jones for a permit to demonstrate on
public property across the street from the Islamic Center on Good Friday.
Dearborn police denied the request claiming that that particular area, where
four churches and the mosque are located, would be crowded with thousands of
worshippers on that day, and that protecting Jones and his followers from
violence would cost $46,000. Dearborn Mayor John "Jack" O'Reilly Jr.
contended that Jones's demonstration would create traffic problems, and in
an open letter
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/dearborn_mayor_to_terry_j
ones_if_we_were_under_sha.php>  to Jones published last Wednesday, ridiculed
Jones's contention that Sharia Law had any influence in Dearborn, and urged
the preacher to stage his protest in one of the city's "free speech zones."

Free speech zones
<http://www.detnews.com/article/20110423/METRO/104230350/1409/City%E2%80%99s
-%E2%80%98free-speech-zones%E2%80%99-at-issue>  are the result of a 1989
Dearborn ordinance requiring permits for demonstrations to be secured 30
days in advance. In 2003, the ACLU sued the city with regard to that
limitation, when a protest against Israel was held in response to their
soldiers entering the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin. In 2005, the
federal Court of Appeals sided with the ACLU, and in 2008 the law was
changed leading to the free speech zones. Former Macomb County Prosecutor
Carl Marlinga contends that the law may give the city some leeway, but that
it "cannot pigeonhole someone into a free speech zone if they have a valid
reason for wanting to conduct speech in a different public place." The Mayor
stood by the law. "Nothing is static and the Constitution is not static
either-it's evolved," he said.

This is not the first time protests against Islam have been thwarted by
Dearborn police. In June 2010, four Christian missionaries
<http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%2520Jul10/Art_Jul10_01.h
tml>  were arrested on public property outside an Arabic festival, and
charged with disorderly conduct for attempting to pass out pamphlets
promoting Christianity. Mayor O'Reilly wrote a letter
<http://www.cityofdearborn.org/images/stories/PDF/Government/Mayor/mayorlett
er07-09-2010.pdf>  defending the arrests. The following September, a jury
acquitted <http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19>  the quartet.

There is speculation that Terry Jones was motivated by that incident, and
that is why he had sought to hold his protest specifically outside the
mosque. Throughout the trial, Jones said as much, that his intention was to
protest both jihad and Sharia law, and that he had no plans to repeat his
previously controversial action of burning a Koran, nor would he make any
attempt to defile images of the prophet Muhammad. "We are not criminals,"
said Jones, acting as his own lawyer. "All we want to do is exercise our
First Amendment rights."

During closing arguments, assistant prosecutor Robert Moran claimed that
"[J]ust because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you can say
anything or do anything at any time," calling the planned protest a "recipe
for disaster." Jones countered that free speech zones were unconstitutional
and that protesting at the court house (the free speech zone he was offered)
was not proper, because he and Sapp were not protesting American laws, but
Sharia, which made the mosque the "right venue" for his demonstration. He
added denying him a permit based on what might happen is nothing more than a
surrender to "intimidation and fear."

In a separate closing argument, co-defendant Wayne Sapp made a better point.
He explained that while the prosecution was arguing that their actions were
intended to breach the peace, "all of the evidence prosecutors have
presented is about the actions of others." Mr. Sapp's argument was
unintentionally buttressed by Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad, who
testified that, while he had received at least four serious threats made
against Jones, and that counter-protests might bring as many as 10,000
people into the area, his impression of Jones after they met was that he was
"cordial and did not appear to be violent in nature."

It is hard to see this case as anything but a shambles, best explained by
Hot Air's Allahpundit
<http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/22/detroit-jury-finds-terry-jones-guilty
-of-breach-of-peace-for-attempted-protest-outside-islamic-center/> :

[Jones] wanted to protest outside the Islamic center in Dearborn but the
city refused him a permit, fearful that some local Muslim might go nuts as a
result. So they put him on trial, with the jury asked to determine what they
thought his intent would be in holding the protest. If they thought his aim
was peaceful, he'd be found not guilty; if they thought he meant to incite
violence, then guilty as charged. Verdict: Guilty. Which means not only was
this guy convicted of a speech crime he hadn't yet committed (a.k.a. prior
restraint), but it was only a crime in the first place because of the
expected reaction from his opponents.

There is no question that Terry Jones is a rabble-rouser, and that his
previous stunt of burning a Koran demonstrates a level of bigotry and
disrespect that should trouble reasonable people. Yet there is something
even more troubling about Muslims who used the previous incident as
justification for murder and mayhem
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/asia/02afghanistan.html>  half a
world away in Afghanistan, where 12 U.N. workers were killed in retaliation.
In this particular case, it is particularly telling that the judge, who
ordered payment of peace bond and issued a three-year ban; the prosecutors,
who brought the case to trial; and the jurors, who convicted the two
defendants, are apparently blind to their own prejudices:  all three
entities assumed that any demonstration by Jones, et al., no matter how
peaceful, would result in violence-by Muslims. It was a prejudice so
compelling that Jones and Sapp were convicted before the fact.

In context, it is worth remembering that just under two months ago, in a
lopsided 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right
<http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/03/nation/la-na-court-protests-2011030
3%20>  of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church protesters to picket
the funerals of American soldiers. And last Thursday, a New Jersey transit
worker who burned pages of the Koran on 9/11
<http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/nj_transit_employee_fired_for.html
>  was re-hired, given back pay and awarded $25,000 for pain and suffering,
after the state settled a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

Jones says he's headed back to Dearborn next week and plans to hold his
protest.  Whether the judge, the prosecutors and the police will reconsider
their ill-advised decisions is anyone's guess.  No one has to like the man
or his intentions, but as Jones himself reminded the court during his trial,
the First Amendment "is only valid if it allows us to say what other people
do not like."

Arnold Ahlert is a contributing columnist to the conservative website
JewishWorldReview.com.

  _____  

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/25/free-speech-zone-follies/

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to