this will never stands, city sends 200k bill to would-be quran burners

[Quantum Windbag]

The hell it won't. This jack ass has a right to free speech, but it's more than reasonable to expect him to pay the bill for the security when he creates an international incident.

Just like you get charged for an ambulance ride.

Well, first, the church never did burn the Koran. And second, no, it is not like an ambulance ride. IMO, you cannot chill free speech in this way, Geauxtohell. If it were, mebbe we could finally rid ourselves of those asswipes from the Westborto Baptist Church...but the POV you are taking would limit freedom to speech to those who could pay.

I cannot find a Supreme Court decision on-point (there may be one; I feel lazy) but I'll fall down in a faint if this is found to be constitutional.

This was a deliberately inciteful act by this "minister" that endangered the whole community.

I think it will be interested to see if it sticks, but I hope it does.

Lucky for the rest of the country, and you, it is already dead.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is off topic, but in my opinion the pastor's threat to burn the Qur'an had nothing to do with 'free speech'; it was an effort by a small town hustler to gain attention.
What if he were any other snake oil salesman, and in the process of selling his snake oil a few dangerous snakes escaped. Would anyone object if the Sheriff, Animal Control and the local county hospital all sued to recover their expenses in responding to the threat? Or should the tax payer pay the cost?

 

[Middleman]

City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church | quran, city, security - News - Northwest Florida Daily News

what the church was planning on doing was legal and its the cities responsibility to protect. what a bunch of bullshit, they are trying to silence people by threatening them with large bills!

They're just doing this as a PR move.

 

[Charles_Main]

The "international Incident" was caused more by the amount of Coverage it got, and the over reaction of people in the Muslim word.

I do not see how you can make him pay for this crap. Sound like a political stunt to me.

 

[Madeline]

This is off topic, but in my opinion the pastor's threat to burn the Qur'an had nothing to do with 'free speech'; it was an effort by a small town hustler to gain attention.
What if he were any other snake oil salesman, and in the process of selling his snake oil a few dangerous snakes escaped. Would anyone object if the Sheriff, Animal Control and the local county hospital all sued to recover their expenses in responding to the threat? Or should the tax payer pay the cost?

"Free speech" doesn't just refer to the spoken or written word, Wry Catcher. Odd as it may seem, the clause has been used to protect acts without speech that are content-rich, like burning a flag.

I dunno what to tell ya about releasing dangerous snakes. I'm pretty confident that municipal ordinances about dangerous animals are constitutional, but those religious sects that handle rattlers get to do so without government interference....though I think that's a "freedom of religion" line of decisions.

Either way, I'd say if the conduct is protected, the state cannot impose financial burdens on the citizen to chill it.

 

[Charles_Main]

This is off topic, but in my opinion the pastor's threat to burn the Qur'an had nothing to do with 'free speech'; it was an effort by a small town hustler to gain attention.
What if he were any other snake oil salesman, and in the process of selling his snake oil a few dangerous snakes escaped. Would anyone object if the Sheriff, Animal Control and the local county hospital all sued to recover their expenses in responding to the threat? Or should the tax payer pay the cost?

"Free speech" doesn't just refer to the spoken or written word, Wry Catcher. Odd as it may seem, the clause has been used to protect acts without speech that are content-rich, like burning a flag.

yep it is called freedom of Expression.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is off topic, but in my opinion the pastor's threat to burn the Qur'an had nothing to do with 'free speech'; it was an effort by a small town hustler to gain attention.
What if he were any other snake oil salesman, and in the process of selling his snake oil a few dangerous snakes escaped. Would anyone object if the Sheriff, Animal Control and the local county hospital all sued to recover their expenses in responding to the threat? Or should the tax payer pay the cost?

"Free speech" doesn't just refer to the spoken or written word, Wry Catcher. Odd as it may seem, the clause has been used to protect acts without speech that are content-rich, like burning a flag.

I dunno what to tell ya about releasing dangerous snakes. I'm pretty confident that municipal ordinances about dangerous animals are constitutional, but those religious sects that handle rattlers get to do so without government interference....though I think that's a "freedom of religion" line of decisions.

Either way, I'd say if the conduct is protected, the state cannot impose financial burdens on the citizen to chill it.

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?



.






Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

 

[ConHog]

This is off topic, but in my opinion the pastor's threat to burn the Qur'an had nothing to do with 'free speech'; it was an effort by a small town hustler to gain attention.
What if he were any other snake oil salesman, and in the process of selling his snake oil a few dangerous snakes escaped. Would anyone object if the Sheriff, Animal Control and the local county hospital all sued to recover their expenses in responding to the threat? Or should the tax payer pay the cost?

"Free speech" doesn't just refer to the spoken or written word, Wry Catcher. Odd as it may seem, the clause has been used to protect acts without speech that are content-rich, like burning a flag.

I dunno what to tell ya about releasing dangerous snakes. I'm pretty confident that municipal ordinances about dangerous animals are constitutional, but those religious sects that handle rattlers get to do so without government interference....though I think that's a "freedom of religion" line of decisions.

Either way, I'd say if the conduct is protected, the state cannot impose financial burdens on the citizen to chill it.

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?



.






Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Free speech means free speech. It doesn't have to serve a noble purpose or even have any socially redeeming quality, in fact the most vile, disgusting speech is the speech we must protect the most.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is off topic, but in my opinion the pastor's threat to burn the Qur'an had nothing to do with 'free speech'; it was an effort by a small town hustler to gain attention.
What if he were any other snake oil salesman, and in the process of selling his snake oil a few dangerous snakes escaped. Would anyone object if the Sheriff, Animal Control and the local county hospital all sued to recover their expenses in responding to the threat? Or should the tax payer pay the cost?

I agree with you that this was essentially a publicity stunt. After that you went off into left field though. Is a pet owner responsible for the cost if his pet gets loose? Of course, but do you charge him on the off chance that it might get loose, or for the hypothetical costs of recovery if it does? Do you charge him if the pet gets loose and he recovers it?

 

[Meister]

This is off topic, but in my opinion the pastor's threat to burn the Qur'an had nothing to do with 'free speech'; it was an effort by a small town hustler to gain attention.
What if he were any other snake oil salesman, and in the process of selling his snake oil a few dangerous snakes escaped. Would anyone object if the Sheriff, Animal Control and the local county hospital all sued to recover their expenses in responding to the threat? Or should the tax payer pay the cost?

"Free speech" doesn't just refer to the spoken or written word, Wry Catcher. Odd as it may seem, the clause has been used to protect acts without speech that are content-rich, like burning a flag.

I dunno what to tell ya about releasing dangerous snakes. I'm pretty confident that municipal ordinances about dangerous animals are constitutional, but those religious sects that handle rattlers get to do so without government interference....though I think that's a "freedom of religion" line of decisions.

Either way, I'd say if the conduct is protected, the state cannot impose financial burdens on the citizen to chill it.

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?



.






Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Oh brother.......this guy is an incredible moron. Wry, you never fail to amaze me.

Of course, the mosque that would be built near ground zero is protected under the First Amendment, but even though I wouldn't agree with the burning.....that too would be protected under the First Amendment, no matter what your sorry ass thinks.
You are quite the spin machine for the leftwing nuts, wry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Let me get this straight.

Free speech only applies if the speech is not self serving in any way. Is that the position you are trying to argue?

Morse v Frederick would not apply because it is written so narrowly that it only applies to students who advocate illegal drug use. I already cited the pertinent case to this situation, and the court ruled that charging people based on the content of their speech is unconstitutional.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Free speech" doesn't just refer to the spoken or written word, Wry Catcher. Odd as it may seem, the clause has been used to protect acts without speech that are content-rich, like burning a flag.

I dunno what to tell ya about releasing dangerous snakes. I'm pretty confident that municipal ordinances about dangerous animals are constitutional, but those religious sects that handle rattlers get to do so without government interference....though I think that's a "freedom of religion" line of decisions.

Either way, I'd say if the conduct is protected, the state cannot impose financial burdens on the citizen to chill it.

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?



.






Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Free speech means free speech. It doesn't have to serve a noble purpose or even have any socially redeeming quality, in fact the most vile, disgusting speech is the speech we must protect the most.

I'm not sure which surprises me the most Hog, your ignorance or your arrogance. Don't infer this is an attack on you personally, it is not. All of us are ignorant for none of us are all knowing.
If, as you argue "Free speech means free speech", how can one be prosecuted for threatening an elected officials, or fined and imprisoned for defamation (slander/libel) or suspended from school for offering in jest, "Bong hits 4 Jesus"?

 

[ConHog]

"Free speech" doesn't just refer to the spoken or written word, Wry Catcher. Odd as it may seem, the clause has been used to protect acts without speech that are content-rich, like burning a flag.

I dunno what to tell ya about releasing dangerous snakes. I'm pretty confident that municipal ordinances about dangerous animals are constitutional, but those religious sects that handle rattlers get to do so without government interference....though I think that's a "freedom of religion" line of decisions.

Either way, I'd say if the conduct is protected, the state cannot impose financial burdens on the citizen to chill it.

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?



.






Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Oh brother.......this guy is an incredible moron. Wry, you never fail to amaze me.

Of course, the mosque that would be built near ground zero is protected under the First Amendment, but even though I wouldn't agree with the burning.....that too would be protected under the First Amendment, no matter what your sorry ass thinks.
You are quite the spin machine for the leftwing nuts, wry.

Silly Meister, you are under the impression that the left wants the COTUS to apply to Christians, get over yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Let me get this straight.

Free speech only applies if the speech is not self serving in any way. Is that the position you are trying to argue?

Morse v Frederick would not apply because it is written so narrowly that it only applies to students who advocate illegal drug use. I already cited the pertinent case to this situation, and the court ruled that charging people based on the content of their speech is unconstitutional.

Read what I wrote, then get your panties tied in a knot. See the words "Off topic"? Does that imply to you I was sugggesting something more?

 

[Madeline]

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Free speech means free speech. It doesn't have to serve a noble purpose or even have any socially redeeming quality, in fact the most vile, disgusting speech is the speech we must protect the most.

I'm not sure which surprises me the most Hog, your ignorance or your arrogance. Don't infer this is an attack on you personally, it is not. All of us are ignorant for none of us are all knowing.
If, as you argue "Free speech means free speech", how can one be prosecuted for threatening an elected officials, or fined and imprisoned for defamation (slander/libel) or suspended from school for offering in jest, "Bong hits 4 Jesus"?

You're right, Wry Catcher. Not all speech is protected. Commercial speech (e.g., a list of ingredients on the side of a box of cereal) is heavily restricted, and some speech is criminalized (e.g., offering a bribe, hiring a hit man, etc.). But outside these areas, the purely political speech is extremely well-protected. There are some exceptions, like that old chestnut yelling fire in a crowded theater, but not many and none that could conceivably apply to the Gainesville church.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?



.






Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Oh brother.......this guy is an incredible moron. Wry, you never fail to amaze me.

Of course, the mosque that would be built near ground zero is protected under the First Amendment, but even though I wouldn't agree with the burning.....that too would be protected under the First Amendment, no matter what your sorry ass thinks.
You are quite the spin machine for the leftwing nuts, wry.

Silly Meister, you are under the impression that the left wants the COTUS to apply to Christians, get over yourself.

I'm glad I never fail to amaze you meister. Though I suppose given a small piece of tap attached to one of your fingers might amaze you and occupy you for hours, so I'm not swelling with pride on my ability to amaze you.

As for the building of a mosque (or community center) the hysteria is nothing more than one more canard in a whole host of canards from the new right. What amazes me is how many of you cluster on this MB, and how many of your post are personal attacks in response to any idea or opinon which challenges your own.

 

[Meister]

Oh brother.......this guy is an incredible moron. Wry, you never fail to amaze me.

Of course, the mosque that would be built near ground zero is protected under the First Amendment, but even though I wouldn't agree with the burning.....that too would be protected under the First Amendment, no matter what your sorry ass thinks.
You are quite the spin machine for the leftwing nuts, wry.

Silly Meister, you are under the impression that the left wants the COTUS to apply to Christians, get over yourself.

I'm glad I never fail to amaze you meister. Though I suppose given a small piece of tap attached to one of your fingers might amaze you and occupy you for hours, so I'm not swelling with pride on my ability to amaze you.

As for the building of a mosque (or community center) the hysteria is nothing more than one more canard in a whole host of canards from the new right. What amazes me is how many of you cluster on this MB, and how many of your post are personal attacks in response to any idea or opinon which challenges your own.

I see....

Actually, education and intelligence is never amazing to me, wry....it's the stupidity of how a mind can work at your age that is really amazing. Don't get the two confused.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Free speech means free speech. It doesn't have to serve a noble purpose or even have any socially redeeming quality, in fact the most vile, disgusting speech is the speech we must protect the most.

I'm not sure which surprises me the most Hog, your ignorance or your arrogance. Don't infer this is an attack on you personally, it is not. All of us are ignorant for none of us are all knowing.
If, as you argue "Free speech means free speech", how can one be prosecuted for threatening an elected officials, or fined and imprisoned for defamation (slander/libel) or suspended from school for offering in jest, "Bong hits 4 Jesus"?

You're right, Wry Catcher. Not all speech is protected. Commercial speech (e.g., a list of ingredients on the side of a box of cereal) is heavily restricted, and some speech is criminalized (e.g., offering a bribe, hiring a hit man, etc.). But outside these areas, the purely political speech is extremely well-protected. There are some exceptions, like that old chestnut yelling fire in a crowded theater, but not many and none that could conceivably apply to the Gainesville church.

I conceived of a reason it might apply, and provided an example which was completely misconstrued.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Silly Meister, you are under the impression that the left wants the COTUS to apply to Christians, get over yourself.

I'm glad I never fail to amaze you meister. Though I suppose given a small piece of tap attached to one of your fingers might amaze you and occupy you for hours, so I'm not swelling with pride on my ability to amaze you.

As for the building of a mosque (or community center) the hysteria is nothing more than one more canard in a whole host of canards from the new right. What amazes me is how many of you cluster on this MB, and how many of your post are personal attacks in response to any idea or opinon which challenges your own.

I see....

Actually, education and intelligence is never amazing to me, wry....it's the stupidity of how a mind can work at your age that is really amazing. Don't get the two confused.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand fully the distincton you've made. You and I simply see the actions of the pastor differently. I do not see an exercise of free speech or expression, I see an individual acting without a noble purpose, acting only in self interest.
More off topic stuff:
Given the USSC decision [(Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)] one might suggest the pastor's motive to cause harm were much greater than Frederick's motivation to promote the use of drugs. The fact is - as it always has been - the politics of the court impact decisions, not necessarily a concern for justice. I might argue the pastor's attempt to bring on Armageddon motivated him to create the hysteria assoiciated with his threat; in doing so he was acting with negligence and any actual harm the result of his actions, or threat to act, might make him culpable. I agree, the government had no authority to restrain him prior to his actions, but in doing so legally can he avoid being held accountable?

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393

Let me get this straight.

Free speech only applies if the speech is not self serving in any way. Is that the position you are trying to argue?

Morse v Frederick would not apply because it is written so narrowly that it only applies to students who advocate illegal drug use. I already cited the pertinent case to this situation, and the court ruled that charging people based on the content of their speech is unconstitutional.

Read what I wrote, then get your panties tied in a knot. See the words "Off topic"? Does that imply to you I was sugggesting something more?

I responded to your off topic post, and explained in my reply why your reasoning was wrong in that reply. The fact that you are continuing to take that wrong reasoning to ridiculous heights does not justify you dismissing the points I make here. I am not the one with the twisted panties.