Just wondering.

If burning of these texts can be shown to pose an "eminent "threat" to our troops and possibly national security...does the government have a loophole under the constitution to stop this protest?

The government has no problem making the Constitution fit its needs just about anytime it wishes...why not in this case...1st amendment or not?

I personally say NO in this situation...but...What if we are in a "declared war"? Would that not change the situation?

Discuss.

Almost certainly not. If they were doing it on the steps of the local police station, that might be different.

(09-08-2010 11:01 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Almost certainly not. If they were doing it on the steps of the local police station, that might be different.

Why would it matter where it was done in America.. if it was shown that the act caused an eminent threat to national security? Does the WPA not allow for such latitude? We certainly have given the WPA lot of rope to hang itself on already.

I don't think that the threat could rise to the level of actually endangering national security, but this is an interesting question, as First Amendment protections are not absolute. For example, you don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (if there is no fire) and you don't have a right to incite violence. I think a weak case could be made under either of these exceptions.

In the fire counterexample, the speech isn't protected because it is knowingly false and it's putting other people's lives in jepordy. The argument that burning the Korans is putting other people's lives in jepordy has already been made. I'm not sure how much danger actually has to be involved to invoke this exception or if this case would meet that threshold, but the first part of the rule would seem to be the bigger problem. The church is expressing their opinion of something (I haven't paid enough attention to know exactly what). How can that opinion be false? Sure it can be wrong, but I don't think it can be wrong in the same way as the fire example.

As for inciting violence, I believe the threshold is relatively high and there has to be an element of intent (I'm really not sure about this part) before an expression loses its protection. Otherwise you could drown out dissenting voices simply by threatening violence. The church isn't calling for the Muslims to overreact & kill Americans, it's just one possible outcome, so I doubt this one would hold up either.

They could also stop it by banning (the legality of the ban would have to be worked out by the court system) it then simply waiting as it works its way through the court system. The government would probably lose in the end, but it doesn't seem like it's a very quick process. Of course, they can already steal our houses on a whim, tap our phones without a warrant, and execute us without a trial, so what's a little banning of book burning in the grannd scheme of things?

(09-08-2010 11:37 PM)jh Wrote:  I don't think that the threat could rise to the level of actually endangering national security, but this is an interesting question, as First Amendment protections are not absolute. For example, you don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (if there is no fire) and you don't have a right to incite violence. I think a weak case could be made under either of these exceptions.

Unless you're a Black Panther and buddies with the current President.

(09-08-2010 11:37 PM)jh Wrote:  I don't think that the threat could rise to the level of actually endangering national security, but this is an interesting question, as First Amendment protections are not absolute. For example, you don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (if there is no fire) and you don't have a right to incite violence. I think a weak case could be made under either of these exceptions.

In the fire counterexample, the speech isn't protected because it is knowingly false and it's putting other people's lives in jepordy. The argument that burning the Korans is putting other people's lives in jepordy has already been made. I'm not sure how much danger actually has to be involved to invoke this exception or if this case would meet that threshold, but the first part of the rule would seem to be the bigger problem. The church is expressing their opinion of something (I haven't paid enough attention to know exactly what). How can that opinion be false? Sure it can be wrong, but I don't think it can be wrong in the same way as the fire example.

As for inciting violence, I believe the threshold is relatively high and there has to be an element of intent (I'm really not sure about this part) before an expression loses its protection. Otherwise you could drown out dissenting voices simply by threatening violence. The church isn't calling for the Muslims to overreact & kill Americans, it's just one possible outcome, so I doubt this one would hold up either.

They could also stop it by banning (the legality of the ban would have to be worked out by the court system) it then simply waiting as it works its way through the court system. The government would probably lose in the end, but it doesn't seem like it's a very quick process. Of course, they can already steal our houses on a whim, tap our phones without a warrant, and execute us without a trial, so what's a little banning of book burning in the grannd scheme of things?

Yes...The government has no problem making the Constitution fit its needs at any time(not that I think it is right). This has been shown over and over again throughout our history. The ink was barely dry on it when it started. If this is such a big issue...why not now? Possibly that the 1st amendment and "religion" is at the heart of the issue. Politicians are terrified to touch this.

I believe that Homeland Security has the power NOW(not that I like it) to stop this if it so chooses.

The power of the Federal Gov't (Homeland Security or any other law enforcement for that matter) to preempt this is limited.

(09-09-2010 08:13 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The power of the Federal Gov't (Homeland Security or any other law enforcement for that matter) to preempt this is limited.

Just who is going to stop them if they decide otherwise?

(09-09-2010 08:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 08:13 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The power of the Federal Gov't (Homeland Security or any other law enforcement for that matter) to preempt this is limited.

Just who is going to stop them if they decide otherwise?

you just don't get it, or you are just being a knucklehead. Preempt. You have a fire, you have a stack of Korans. Has any law been broken, No. Your contention in this thread is that the Fed. should stop it. How? I'm telling you that would be preemptive , and they cannot and will not. Quit being a knucklehead.

The pastor didn't get a permit to burn the books which might cause him some minor civil problems. But I don't think a person needs a permit to piss on them.

Technically, any constitutional right could be suspended or done away with if there is a compelling governmental interest and no less restrictive means available. As long as they gov't can convince the supremes of that, then they can do anything really. It's sad.

The "fire" example is one where by your actions... people acting in a reasonable manner might cause harm to others. It is NOT something where you could blame someone for the illegal actions of another. You yelling fire in a building does not give me the right to shoot people exiting the building... or put the blame for that action on you rather than me. If it were so, I could say... If you beat Rice in football this year, I will kill one of your grads... and thus the government tells you to cancel your season. Wouldn't you expect that the government would instead arrest me?? That the Rice Board would denounce me? That they would take steps to identify and stop me, and barring that, understand why you prosecuted me, and if I fought you... you killed me?? Would you REALLY expect the Rice board to say hey... you guys better forfiet!!

(09-09-2010 11:40 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 08:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 08:13 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The power of the Federal Gov't (Homeland Security or any other law enforcement for that matter) to preempt this is limited.

Just who is going to stop them if they decide otherwise?

you just don't get it, or you are just being a knucklehead. Preempt. You have a fire, you have a stack of Korans. Has any law been broken, No. Your contention in this thread is that the Fed. should stop it. How? I'm telling you that would be preemptive , and they cannot and will not. Quit being a knucklehead.

No..I do not content that the Fed should stop this...I contend that if they did...very little could or would be done to stop them. You seem to have the impression that we have control over what the hell those in power can and can not do....You are mistaken.

(09-09-2010 05:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The "fire" example is one where by your actions... people acting in a reasonable manner might cause harm to others. It is NOT something where you could blame someone for the illegal actions of another. You yelling fire in a building does not give me the right to shoot people exiting the building... or put the blame for that action on you rather than me. If it were so, I could say... If you beat Rice in football this year, I will kill one of your grads... and thus the government tells you to cancel your season. Wouldn't you expect that the government would instead arrest me?? That the Rice Board would denounce me? That they would take steps to identify and stop me, and barring that, understand why you prosecuted me, and if I fought you... you killed me?? Would you REALLY expect the Rice board to say hey... you guys better forfiet!!

Your example is a little over the top.

But I don't think the "yelling fire" argument is valid.

I think you'd have to walk into a Muslim condominium, and start screaming at the residents while you burned the Korans, to make a case for inciting a riot.

dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(09-09-2010 07:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

This Bozo "Pastor" could announce on Saturday morning, that the Koran burning did take place-- on the day before (Friday afternoon ) He will say he did it with just a few people present, in a trash can behind his church. No Media record.

The Muslims would still go nuts, and the Feds wouldn't have cause to do anything.

(09-09-2010 07:23 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

I actually think what we're disagreeing on is a big part of my point...

You have no idea how committed I am to my Owls

I'd agree with you if our laws gave any deference to "a holy book" as being anything other than a stack of paper. Beating my Owls is AT LEAST equal to burning a stack of paper. The fact that YOU (or more correctly "one") views this paper as Holy doesn't make it so legally. Now, if it were the actual manuscript... you'd have a point... but as something that can be identically replaced for a paltry sum of money?? It's a stack of paper, and no different under the law than a newspaper...

As I said... but maybe not in this thread... If one is going to expect/demand that I accept their unreasonable rules... they must expect that they will be expected to accept MY unreasonable rules. The Qu'ran is NOT a protected document under US law.

(09-09-2010 07:23 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

All reasonable people agree....The problem is we are not dealing with reasonable people. I firmly believe the government has as much grounds to stop this pastor as they thought they did in stopping Saddam. Why are this pastors actions not creating an eminent threat to national security and the security of our men and women engaged in combat? If you are going to use the "eminent threat" excuse for going to war...then why is it not valid in the situation?

My whole reason for starting this thread was not to advocate that force be used to stop the burning of cellulose material. Anyone that has read very many of my posts has to know better.... I started it to show the the the arbitrary manner in which the those in power choose to interpret the Constitution and apply it to things that they like or dislike. In this case because it deals with a religious subject...they choose to stand down. Application of the WPA and Constitutional mandates are not consistent. This is just another example..IMO.

(09-09-2010 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:23 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

All reasonable people agree....The problem is we are not dealing with reasonable people. I firmly believe the government has as much grounds to stop this pastor as they thought they did in stopping Saddam. Why are this pastors actions not creating an eminent threat to national security and the security of our men and women engaged in combat? If you are going to use the "eminent threat" excuse for going to war...then why is it not valid in the situation?

My whole reason for starting this thread was not to advocate that force be used to stop the burning of cellulose material. Anyone that has read very many of my posts has to know better.... I started it to show the the the arbitrary manner in which the those in power choose to interpret the Constitution and apply it to things that they like or dislike. In this case because it deals with a religious subject...they choose to stand down. Application of the WPA and Constitutional mandates are not consistent. This is just another example..IMO.

WMD's and burning a Koran, Good comparison. Prevent a fanatical, tyrannical, murderer from acquiring, using WMD's, or prevent a witless pastor (his belief that Islam is Evil) from burning a Koran. Better you leave this thread before you lose your last shred of dignity.