Michigan jury jails Pastor Terry Jones

[Molyneux]

Fuck you, Michigan, fuck you all to hell and back for giving me no choice but to support that fuckwit Terry Jones.

Terry Jones goes free on $1 bond after jailing; judge bars him from mosque for 3 years

A judge late Friday sent two Florida pastors to jail for refusing to post a $1 bond and barred them from visiting a Dearborn mosque or its adjacent property for three years unless the mosque’s leadership says otherwise. After a short time in jail they left on $1 bond each.

The stunning developments came after a Dearborn jury sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Critics slammed the decision to jail them, the court proceedings, and Wayne County prosecutors, saying they violated the men’s Constitutional rights.

Prosecutors asked Judge Mark Somers for $45,000 bond. Somers then set bond at $1 each for the two pastors. They refused to pay. And Somers ordered them remanded to jail.

Chaos broke out outside court as opposing factions yelled at each other. Jones and Sapp were led out of court by Dearborn police. That left Jones' supporters stunned, given that he hadn't even attempted to go to the mosque yet.

Late Friday the two pastors posted their $1 bond and left jail, according to Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly Jr.

"I'm relieved that no one got hurt," said O'Reilly. "I was concerned about Terry Jones' safety as much as anyone else's."

But civil rights experts and advocates said that Wayne County prosecutors and Dearborn authorities acted improperly.

Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State, said the trial was “bizarre.”

“The judge should have thrown out the case,” Sedler said. The ACLU of Michigan also strongly criticized the case.

“This is a complete abuse of the court process, and all those involved should be ashamed,” said Rana Elmir of the ACLU Michigan office. “The prosecutor’s office and the Dearborn court turned the First Amendment on its head. What happened today should never have happened.”

Elmir, Sedler and even Muslim leaders said the prosecutor’s actions had played right into the hands of Jones by giving a him a platform and his supporters a reason to bash Dearborn, whose sizable Muslim community drew Jones here.

“This is a true miscarriage of justice,” Elmir said. “Rev. Jones has committed no crime. He should never have been facing jailed time for his protected speech.”

Sedler said “the whole thing is unconstitutional,” citing U.S. Supreme Court cases that would back up Jones’ right to protest.

Jury deliberates several hours

Earlier, in closing arguments, Wayne County assistant prosecutor Robert Moran said
the pastors would disturb the peace if they were allowed to protest today at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

Jones and Sapp argued their right is protected under the First Amendment.
"That's what made America great," said Sapp. "We're entitled to our opinion."

'We'll do it today at 5 or we'll come back next week'

Earlier, after an intense debate in court this morning over free speech and religion, Pastor Terry Jones said that he's not backing down from his plans to protest at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad testified today that there have been at least four serious threats made against Jones from metro Detroiters, arguing that his protest could lead to violence if allowed.

But Jones told the Free Press during his lunch break: "We'll do it today at 5 or we'll come back next week."

Speaking at a McDonald's restaurant down the street from the courthouse, Jones -- who's defending himself -- said he thought the proceedings are going well. And he said the government's case was weak.

As he spoke, someone drove down Michigan Avenue yelling "Get out of Dearborn, you terrorist!"

Jones is facing a jury trial today on whether he should be allowed to protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

The opening statements of Wayne County Prosecutor Robert Moran and Pastor Terry Jones offered clashing visions as both wrestled with issues of religion and freedom of speech. The court drew both supporters and opponents, Christians and Muslims. The ACLU of Michigan was also there to monitor the case because the group has concerns that Jones' free speech rights are being violated by Wayne County and Dearborn Police.

Jones was in court along with Pastor Wayne Sapp, who is known for burning a copy of the Quran on Jones' orders.

In his opening statement, Jones repeated negative comments about Islam that he made last month when he oversaw the burning of the Quran in Florida. He said in court today that the Quran "promotes terrorist activities around the world."

He also strongly defended the U.S. Constitution.

"The one thing that makes the Constitution great is the First Amendment," Jones said to the jury.

Except for the Bible, the Constitution is the greatest document in history, Jones said.

"The 1st Amendment does us no good if it confines us to saying what is popular," he added.

Moran said in his opening statement this was an issue of security and breaching the peace.

If the jury sides with prosecutors, the judge, Mark Somers, will set a bond and its rules. If Jones decides not to meet the bond requirements, he could be jailed, said a court official.

Contact Niraj Warikoo: nwarikoo@freepress.com or 313-223-4792.

There is no possible legal justification for their pulling this bullshit. None.

[Anguirus]

Ugh. I hate it when Fox gets to crow for a week for some injustice put upon a white Christian conservative, and they're right. Get the ACLU up in there.

[Dalton]

Let it be shown that the ACLU is not just some looney leftist liberal organization. They support free speech rights regardless of political affiliation.

[Serafina]

Let it be shown that the ACLU is not just some looney leftist liberal organization. They support free speech rights regardless of political affiliation.

They've already defended right-wingers, including fundamentalist christians. FauxNews never mentions those.
If the ACLU makes the defense case here, Faux will probably not even mention that "he is defended by the ACLU" and just ignore that inconvenient truth.

[Dalton]

Let it be shown that the ACLU is not just some looney leftist liberal organization. They support free speech rights regardless of political affiliation.

They've already defended right-wingers, including fundamentalist christians. FauxNews never mentions those.
If the ACLU makes the defense case here, Faux will probably not even mention that "he is defended by the ACLU" and just ignore that inconvenient truth.

Many ACLU positions run counter to Conservative principles. This is why they are particularly reviled by right-wingers, because the ACLU supports separation of Church and State, LGBT rights and access to contraception and abortion. However, I will not simply accept that Fox News will fail to mention their affiliation with Terry Jones since it is an integral part of the story.

[Alphawolf55]

Let it be shown that the ACLU is not just some looney leftist liberal organization. They support free speech rights regardless of political affiliation.

Most conservatives don't deny that the ACLU supports some constitutional rights entirely, what they have a lot of them have problem with is they feel the ACLU picks and choose which amendments to protect (free speech) and which to not (the right to bear arms) and protect rights they feel aren't even in the Constitution (the right to choose)

[Questor]

Let it be shown that the ACLU is not just some looney leftist liberal organization. They support free speech rights regardless of political affiliation.

Most conservatives don't deny that the ACLU supports some constitutional rights entirely, what they have a lot of them have problem with is they feel the ACLU picks and choose which amendments to protect (free speech) and which to not (the right to bear arms) and protect rights they feel aren't even in the Constitution (the right to choose)

And if the ACLU were the "American Constitutional Law Union" that might be a valid point, but unless you accept the idea that all civil liberties are defined in the US Constitution, the "it's not in the constitution" argument is baseless. As much as I dislike the ACLU's apparent lack of vision, consistancy, good timing, sense of proportion, and regard for unintended consequences in other cases, I've never thought that their arguments weren't about civil liberties and on topic.

[Simon_Jester]

Many ACLU positions run counter to Conservative principles. This is why they are particularly reviled by right-wingers, because the ACLU supports separation of Church and State, LGBT rights and access to contraception and abortion. However, I will not simply accept that Fox News will fail to mention their affiliation with Terry Jones since it is an integral part of the story.

I hope you're right; I just don't know if I expect you to be right.

[Serafina]

Let it be shown that the ACLU is not just some looney leftist liberal organization. They support free speech rights regardless of political affiliation.

They've already defended right-wingers, including fundamentalist christians. FauxNews never mentions those.
If the ACLU makes the defense case here, Faux will probably not even mention that "he is defended by the ACLU" and just ignore that inconvenient truth.

Many ACLU positions run counter to Conservative principles. This is why they are particularly reviled by right-wingers, because the ACLU supports separation of Church and State, LGBT rights and access to contraception and abortion. However, I will not simply accept that Fox News will fail to mention their affiliation with Terry Jones since it is an integral part of the story.

Their current track record in this case:
-they are well-known to omit things contrary to their ideology
-they do not report when the ACLU defends the free speech of conservatives
-they have repeatedly painted the ACLU as a purely left-wing organization, even tough they uniformly defend civil liberties such as free speech.

Therefore, there is a good possibility that they will simply omit the affiliation of Terry Jones defense lawyer (if he will indeed be a member of the ACLU). I'd be very surprised and pleased if i am wrong, but that's what i am currently expecting from FauxNews.

[Ritterin Sophia]

However, I will not simply accept that Fox News will fail to mention their affiliation with Terry Jones since it is an integral part of the story.

You assume Fox has integrity. Why?

[Sarevok]

So Terry Jones is winning. First he incites great hatred in muslim countries. Now portraying himself a persecuted martyr he can do the same amongst Christians. If there is ever another war between islam and christianity this guys name would be in the history books.

[Dalton]

However, I will not simply accept that Fox News will fail to mention their affiliation with Terry Jones since it is an integral part of the story.

You assume Fox has integrity. Why?

Because then it just becomes another "Fox Sux" echo chamber.

[Molyneux]

So Terry Jones is winning. First he incites great hatred in muslim countries. Now portraying himself a persecuted martyr he can do the same amongst Christians. If there is ever another war between islam and christianity this guys name would be in the history books.

The saddest thing is that he is being fucking persecuted...Dearborn needs to figure out that "We don't like him!" isn't sufficient reason to curtail someone else's rights.

[Highlord Laan]

So Terry Jones is winning. First he incites great hatred in muslim countries. Now portraying himself a persecuted martyr he can do the same amongst Christians. If there is ever another war between islam and christianity this guys name would be in the history books.

The saddest thing is that he is being fucking persecuted...Dearborn needs to figure out that "We don't like him!" isn't sufficient reason to curtail someone else's rights.

I'm going to leave myself wide open for attack here and simply say that sometimes, outright persecution is justified. It's never pretty, but life is a bitch like that. The religious right and it's hangers on are reaching the point where the only way they can be handled is to force them into silence.

Besides, even I can think up several ways his protests could endanger public safety along the same line as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

[Tanasinn]

So Terry Jones is winning. First he incites great hatred in muslim countries. Now portraying himself a persecuted martyr he can do the same amongst Christians. If there is ever another war between islam and christianity this guys name would be in the history books.

The saddest thing is that he is being fucking persecuted...Dearborn needs to figure out that "We don't like him!" isn't sufficient reason to curtail someone else's rights.

It has more to do with footing the bill. Dearborn wasn't keen on the cost of sending out cops so Jones could have his little trollfest (which is why he was turned down for his event permit to begin with, more likely than not). You might remember Michigan was bad when the rest of the country was riding high. That doesn't change the fact that the first amendment is being treated roughly here, however.

[Tiriol]

So Terry Jones is winning. First he incites great hatred in muslim countries. Now portraying himself a persecuted martyr he can do the same amongst Christians. If there is ever another war between islam and christianity this guys name would be in the history books.

The saddest thing is that he is being fucking persecuted...Dearborn needs to figure out that "We don't like him!" isn't sufficient reason to curtail someone else's rights.

I'm going to leave myself wide open for attack here and simply say that sometimes, outright persecution is justified. It's never pretty, but life is a bitch like that. The religious right and it's hangers on are reaching the point where the only way they can be handled is to force them into silence.

Besides, even I can think up several ways his protests could endanger public safety along the same line as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

And who decides who should be silenced? There are many in the US who would gladly silence liberals, terrorist suspects, Muslims etc.

Besides, I can think several ways left-wing/liberal antics could endanger public safety along the same line as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Like, for example, defending the terrorist incarcerated in Guantanamo which only shows to the radical fundamentalist Islamists and other terrorists how weak the west truly is. You see how easy it is to turn the tables?

Free speech is not something that should be thrown away so rashly. It is a liberty which once lost is hard to get back.

[Serafina]

There are only two reasons someones right to free speech should be limited:
-The manner in which the speech is performed disturbs the public peace too much. Put simply, i don't have a right to exercise free speech by shouting in front of your window at night. In such cases, the content might be presented in another manner.
-The content of the speech is actively trying to incite violence.

Just disliking the content of someones speech, not matter how much you dislike it, should never be a reason to silence him. Unless you can show that Terry Jones actively tried to incite violence against someone or a group of people, his free speech should not be limited.

[Molyneux]

So Terry Jones is winning. First he incites great hatred in muslim countries. Now portraying himself a persecuted martyr he can do the same amongst Christians. If there is ever another war between islam and christianity this guys name would be in the history books.

The saddest thing is that he is being fucking persecuted...Dearborn needs to figure out that "We don't like him!" isn't sufficient reason to curtail someone else's rights.

It has more to do with footing the bill. Dearborn wasn't keen on the cost of sending out cops so Jones could have his little trollfest (which is why he was turned down for his event permit to begin with, more likely than not). You might remember Michigan was bad when the rest of the country was riding high. That doesn't change the fact that the first amendment is being treated roughly here, however.

If people react violently to Jones' speech, then as much of an idiot as Jones is, that's their fault, not his...and I sincerely doubt that there would have been violent reactions to his protest, anyhow, especially given the number of leading Muslims in and near Dearborn who have released messages of support for the protest, regardless of their personal opinions of its content. It remains the responsibility of the police to protect protesters, same as any other citizen...and there have been attempts before to stifle political speech by way of billing people, ahead of time, for police protection.

[SVPD]

I'm going to leave myself wide open for attack here and simply say that sometimes, outright persecution is justified. It's never pretty, but life is a bitch like that. The religious right and it's hangers on are reaching the point where the only way they can be handled is to force them into silence.

Besides, even I can think up several ways his protests could endanger public safety along the same line as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

And who decides who should be silenced? There are many in the US who would gladly silence liberals, terrorist suspects, Muslims etc.

Besides, I can think several ways left-wing/liberal antics could endanger public safety along the same line as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Like, for example, defending the terrorist incarcerated in Guantanamo which only shows to the radical fundamentalist Islamists and other terrorists how weak the west truly is. You see how easy it is to turn the tables?

Free speech is not something that should be thrown away so rashly. It is a liberty which once lost is hard to get back.

Indeed. It's very disturbing how, in the last 8 months to a year we've seen arguments like this no less than 3 times that I recall - Once claiming elections ought to be rigged in certain circumstances and one claiming trials ought to be rigged against people who "undermine the justice system."

It's pretty easy to show how any idea you don't agree with could indirectly lead to violence by way of the choices of another person or group. There's a reason why that's not enough - it just lets whoever happens to have political power or control of the courts at the time suppress any ideas they don't like. You need a direct attempt to cause harm - shouting fire in a theater leads directly to panic and injury or death, or saying "we should all go down and drag that man into the street and hang him" directly incites people to commit violence.

If, in fact, people like Terry Jones are so far out there, and their ideas are so obviously inferior in quality (which they are) then opposing ideas ought to be able to stand up to them just fine without needing to compromise freedom of speech in order to "handle" them. If the only way to "handle" opposing viewpoints, especially viewpoints as weak as Jones's, is to legally silence them, then perhaps those holding the opposing viewpoints need to spend less time confirming their own outrage at his position and more time attacking it logically.

More importantly than that, even if one side of the political spectrum clearly has advantages over the other, that does not mean the other side's ideas need to be suppressed or eliminated, even the fringe ones. Not only do both sides have a fringe, but the need to defend one's ideas keeps one sharp. The left is not immune from becoming arrogant, lazy, or prone to excess of its own if it has no opposition to force it to defend its ideas. An echo chamber does no one any good.

[Kanastrous]

Several of us flew back to Los Angeles a few weeks back on hiatus; at the boarding gate in Atlanta there was this *really* familiar-looking guy boarding with us...I'm thinking,oh, it's just some poor slob with the dreadful misfortune to look like Terry Jones...

At the LAX baggage claim the set decorator nudges me, and asks, do you know that guy from somewhere? he looks familiar... and sure enough four of the fattest, most out-of-shape cops I've ever seen meet him at the carousel (presumably for his own protection), and everyone there is shooting him dirty looks, and eventually a grand total of two cameras (one what I think was a church-group consumer camcorder, and *of course* one camera from the local Fox affiliate) were in his face.

I've never seen that big a crowd uniformly glare at and cold-shoulder one person, before. You could *feel* the distaste and hostility. It was heartening, to see.

[Samuel]

Indeed. It's very disturbing how, in the last 8 months to a year we've seen arguments like this no less than 3 times that I recall - Once claiming elections ought to be rigged in certain circumstances and one claiming trials ought to be rigged against people who "undermine the justice system."

Wait, what? Could you provide the links?

I can understand cases where rigging elections might be justified, but they are pretty rare- in the countries that it might make sense, the opposition would notice and respond... possibly with bombs. In the countries where you can get away with it, generally it is a poor idea because most leaders aren't dangerous enough that you need to subvert the democratic process to keep them out of office.

It would have made sense for someone to rig the 1970 election and keep Allende from office. It certainly beats a military coup.

However, I can't see when rigging trials would ever be worth it. If someone is inherently dangerous, just have internal security keep them under survelliance.

[Duckie]

Indeed. It's very disturbing how, in the last 8 months to a year we've seen arguments like this no less than 3 times that I recall - Once claiming elections ought to be rigged in certain circumstances and one claiming trials ought to be rigged against people who "undermine the justice system."

It would have made sense for someone to rig the 1970 election and keep Allende from office. It certainly beats a military coup.

Pfft. It's good to rig an election to keep Allende from office so that America won't murder him and then install Pinochet? I think you're blaming the wrong guy. You might as well say it's a good idea to rig the election to prevent Clinton from being elected to prevent the Oklahoma City Bombing.

[Samuel]

Indeed. It's very disturbing how, in the last 8 months to a year we've seen arguments like this no less than 3 times that I recall - Once claiming elections ought to be rigged in certain circumstances and one claiming trials ought to be rigged against people who "undermine the justice system."

It would have made sense for someone to rig the 1970 election and keep Allende from office. It certainly beats a military coup.

Pfft. It's good to rig an election to keep Allende from office so that America won't murder him and then install Pinochet? I think you're blaming the wrong guy. You might as well say it's a good idea to rig the election to prevent Clinton from being elected to prevent the Oklahoma City Bombing.

What is the level at which it is acceptable? Would it be worth rigging elections so that your neighbor doesn't invade you because you picked the "wrong" canidate (or your leader decides to attack Russia with the mightly Georgian army)?

Remember, not rigging elections isn't inviolatible. It is just a rule because violating it destroys trust which is very hard to regain and the chances of the benefit being high enough to justify that is remote.

As for the Chilean coup, I don't think we were responsible. The CIA's previous attempts appeared to have fucked up badly and made people back Allende more. Is there any evidence aside from Latin American resentment and the CIAs urge to make itself look like master manipulators?

[Duckie]

It would have made sense for someone to rig the 1970 election and keep Allende from office. It certainly beats a military coup.

Pfft. It's good to rig an election to keep Allende from office so that America won't murder him and then install Pinochet? I think you're blaming the wrong guy. You might as well say it's a good idea to rig the election to prevent Clinton from being elected to prevent the Oklahoma City Bombing.

What is the level at which it is acceptable? Would it be worth rigging elections so that your neighbor doesn't invade you because you picked the "wrong" canidate (or your leader decides to attack Russia with the mightly Georgian army)?

Remember, not rigging elections isn't inviolatible. It is just a rule because violating it destroys trust which is very hard to regain and the chances of the benefit being high enough to justify that is remote.

As for the Chilean coup, I don't think we were responsible. The CIA's previous attempts appeared to have fucked up badly and made people back Allende more. Is there any evidence aside from Latin American resentment and the CIAs urge to make itself look like master manipulators?

In 2000, the CIA declassified that the ITT Corporation had funded right wing coup elements. Also, in 1998 documents were declassified detailing CIA support for the regime, coup, and manufacturing the conditions that led to the coup, as well as trying to influence the election away from Allende anyhow. Go check out Project FUBELT.

Any thinking person would have known this in 1973 because when hasn't the US overthrown latin american governments that work against US business or foreign policy interests, but it's confirmed as of over 20 years ago, so there's no excuse claiming the US wasn't involved.

[Molyneux]

I can understand cases where rigging elections might be justified, but they are pretty rare- in the countries that it might make sense, the opposition would notice and respond... possibly with bombs. In the countries where you can get away with it, generally it is a poor idea because most leaders aren't dangerous enough that you need to subvert the democratic process to keep them out of office.

"They elected the guy I don't like!" or "They elected someone who's not friendly towards our country!" are not valid justifications for rigging an election. Period.

If it were a case where the immediate survival of the United States were in peril - say, a nuclear-equipped nation somehow electing a literal madman - a case for pragmatism might be made, but nowhere outside of that.