The article I found is about a
Florida pastor bashing Islam. Pastor Terry Jones stood in front of the biggest
mosque in Michigan protesting. He claimed that the growing population of
Muslims in the United States would lead to the oppression of everyone who is
not a Muslim. Jones made statements such as, “Muslims, no matter where they go
around the world… they push their agenda on the society. We must take back
American.” Michigan police department placed the mosque in lockdown to prevent
any harm from occurring. Jones’s previous visits had resulted in arrest and
street clashes, which is why the mosque was on lockdown.
Jones
was also worried about the free speech rights of Americans. This past year
Jones was arrested in front of the mosque and a Dearborn City Judge ordered him
to stay away from the mosque for three years. A Detroit Judge later overturned
this decision. Last month Jones was asked to sign a legal argument before
protesting in front of the mosque. Once again Jones filled a lawsuit, and a
Detroit federal judge ruled in his favor. Many supporters of Jones made
statements such as, “sharia law is the most dangerous thing. We can’t have it
in this country.” Jones, who was a pastor in Germany, also makes claims that
Islamic Laws are taking over the world.
The
Jones case is similar to a Supreme Court case from 1940. In the case Cantwell v. Connecticut, Newton Cantwell
and his two sons were arrested for proselytizing in a heavily Roman Catholic
neighborhood. They were going door to door with books and pamphlets; they also
had a portable phonograph with them. They were charged with not obtaining a
certificate before soliciting funds from the public and inciting a breach of
peace. The Cantwells believed that obtaining a certificate from the city was a
violating their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and speech. The
court ruled in favor of Cantwell. They said Cantwell’s actions were protected
by both the first and fourteenth amendments.
This
case is significant to the current case because Jones was expressing his first
amendment rights. Prior to Cantwell v.
Connecticut the Supreme Court had not legally clarified the extent of the
First Amendment. The Detroit judge who overturned the Jones case ruling may
have had Cantwell case in mind. Another similarity between the two is the city
asked Jones to sign a legal agreement before protesting. When Jones filed a
lawsuit, a federal judge ruled in his favor. In Cantwell v. Connecticut the Justice Roberts stated that one does
not need to obtain a license for proselytizing.
This
case shows how important it is for the Supreme Court to clarify laws, and Amendments.
Since Cantwell v. Connecticut clarified
the first amendment the two lower level judges in the Jones case were able to
make a quick ruling. Jones was within his rights to make the claims he did, and
he was protected by the first amendment. What I am confused about is, why Jones
is worried that the free speech amendment is going to be violated. In his case,
he was protected by free speech, so why does he believe Americans are going to
have their free speech revoked?
10 comments:
I like the way you connected this case with one the most well-known cases,Cantwell v. Connecticut.If one considers this case just like the Cantwell case, then the conclusion you arrive at is true.But the fact is that this is a stickier situation than it seems. I don't think Jones had a right to exercise his free speech and religious freedom the way he did. He was in clear violation of the rule which regulates all freedoms enjoyed by civilians. Everyone can only exercise any of their freedoms as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. Clearly, Jones was infringing on Muslims' religious rights by protesting against their progress. The judge definitely needs to consider this fact.The outcome of the case may be different if the judge considers this fact.
As long as he was on public property I believe that his free speech rights should protect what he is saying regardless of how misguided or wrong it is. That being said, I am not sure that they do anymore. I have been reading the Westboro Baptist case where their freedom of speech rights were upheld, but the language makes me nervous. The problem is that the decision at the very least implies that if the court had not considered what they were saying to be “matters of public concern” they may have ruled that it was not protected under freedom of speech.
As Angela stated, if the pastor is preforming these acts on public property then his free speech rights should protect him from legal action, no matter how offensive the speech. If the state is able to make a compelling argument that his speech violates the fighting words doctrine, then there could be a chance that his speech could be regulated. The only power the state obtains is to regulate the time, place, and manner of his speech.
While this case does share many things in common with Cantwell v. Conecticut, there are some important differences. Chiefly, that in the aforementioned case, when asked to leave, Cantwell and his sons did so in a peaceful way. While in that instance, the Supreme Court reversed the state’s decision regarding the charge of Breach of Peace, it left the door open that such a charge could, with sufficient evidence, be permissible.
“Having these considerations in mind, we note that Jesse Cantwell, on April 26, 1938, was upon a public street, where he had a right to be, and where he had a right peacefully to impart his views to others. There is no showing that his deportment was noisy, truculent, overbearing or offensive. He requested of two pedestrians permission to play to them a phonograph record. The permission was granted. It is not claimed that he intended to insult or affront the hearers by playing the record. It is plain that he wished only to interest them in his propaganda. The sound of the phonograph is not shown to have disturbed residents of the street, to have drawn a crowd, or to have impeded traffic. Thus far he had invaded no right or interest of the public or of the men accosted.”
This statement by Justice Roberts clearly indicates that the reason this decision was overturned was because the law was improperly applied, not because the law was unconstitutional. In Jones’ case, there is clearly a breach of peace. After the confrontations that broke out the first time he protested, he clearly new that such talk could lead to a riot. The fact that the police found it necessary to lock the mosque down indicates that they expected trouble. In this case, Jones was overbearing, truculent, noisy, drawing a crowd, and impeding traffic. This seems to me to be the kind of behavior Justice Roberts had in mind regarding the appropriate application of the Breach of Peace statute.
I love hoe Jones says Muslims want to oppress every non-Muslim, yet he is the one oppressing and tryung to prevent Muslims from practicing. I do not think his free speech right should be protected when Muslims going to worship have to go through him and any others insulting them on their way to the Mosque. I think that Jones' speech has already been proven to incite riots, so they should bar him from the mosque where church goers could be harmed by ignorant people choosing to follow Jones.
The problem with baring people from saying things that we disagree with is that it's a slippery slope. I generally hate slippery slope arguments, but if we can ban people that we disagree with, they can ban people that we agree with.
(previous post deleted to fix a typo)
This was a very interesting article mainly because it highlights the continual assault on segments of the population within the minority. It has been a disturbing trend since the founding of the United States and their crimes against God and humanity via of slavery. This notion that one day the descendants of the White Angelo, murders, rapist-criminals will reap the rewards of their sin against their fellow man and God.
Pastor Terry Jones claims, “Muslims, no matter where they go around the world… they push their agenda on the society. We must take back American.” I would like to ask him the same question but in the contexts of Christians. Have they not mass murdered and oppressed those with religious beliefs who did not coincide with their own? Religious justification for actions should not exclude entire religious groups. Obviously we have studied and realized group exclusion on many occasions. However, we have not seen a case where someone justly and accurately analyzes their practice in the context of another (without being subjective).
Preston L.
why do people always think their own religion is superior than others? is it just human nature or a religious nature?. I think Jones will infuriate Muslims , and then they will attack again in the name of "Jihad". Why don't we give Islam their space and respect that they want, rather than arguing about who's going to dominate this world.
Post a Comment