Now, I could go into a lengthy explanation about how the left has so inverted the idea of “tolerance” that it is now more weapon than ideal (and besides, what good is prior restraint if it refuses to punish would-be haters?); or I could explain, yet again, how consensus ideas of interpretation necessarily end with power plays that lead to the inevitable indictment of the individual by the interpretive community he stands at odds against — that, in effect, the structural assumptions that animate the left’s linguistic paradigm will always move toward mob rule and, in the end, totalitarianism, and thus are anathema to the principles set forth by our founders and framers, particularly inasmuch as they are anathema to individual autonomy. I could point out that such paradigms are preconditioned by the indoctrination and (largely unofficial) enforcement of politically correct speech codes, so that when they do find cultural ascendancy — that is, when they transition into legally-determined “hate speech” — they are presented not as the violation of a fundamental right to free speech (which is what they are, and inasmuch run counter to the idea of tolerance actually implied by our First Amendment), but rather as moral protection against Hate©, which provides the molesters of liberty with ethical and self-righteous cover for their own crimes of squelching (currently) unpopular expression.
I could go into all these things. But it occurs to me I’ve done so a thousand times before, and what it’s gotten me is animus from the champions of such paradigms on both the left and the right — and ultimately, is at least partially responsible for my marginalization.
So this time, I’m not going to say a thing.
Shhhh.
(thanks to Dave O’C)
Free speech has to be protected or we are completely fucked.
The trouble is, you simply will keep using multi-syllabic words.
I do not want to villify juries over this, the jury system is probably the last hope in this country (at least as far as the judicial system goes). But juries can fuck up, especially when things are framed in a fucked up way to them. The judge should have dismissed the case, it should not have gone to the jury.
Where is the crack ACLU team to defend Pastor Jones? Where are the lefty legal giants falling over each other to argue this case. Because if you are not defending the first amendment, don’t pretend anymore than you defending civil liberties.
Jones needs to start waving swaztikas instead of crosses.
actually, Joe, in the broken clocks category we DO have the ACLU supporting Jones.
From another article.
This seems likely to head to higher courts.
There is a “Moran” involved, now it makes sense.
As I slowly type Darleen quickly comments.
To quote the dearly departed Sam Kinneson:
SAY IT!, SAAAAAY IT!
carry on…
These two headlines and their auxiliary train took up 75% of available newsspace on pages one and two of yesterday’s Chicago Sun-Times:
GUN OWNERS
COMPARED TO
HOLOCAUST
VICTIMS
‘JUST TO SEE THAT
IMAGE IS SCARY’
Jeff, a caller to local radio brought this up yesterday – http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/09/muslims-in-dearborn-burn-effigy-of.html
He watched as the police protected the protesters as they burned an effigy of Terry Jones on the streets of Dearnborn.
For free, I imagine.
No peace bond.
Darleen, I am actually glad to hear the ACLU got it. Good for them for doing the right thing here.
I’m inclined to argue that it’s Detroit that is dead as a boot. But we knew that.
Could someone tell me how this case got in front of a jury in what seems like 15 minutes?
What the fuck is that and who is the jury? And how did they become empowered to jail Jones? I’m deeply confused.
OK, watching the HA video, WTF is up with Jones and an “accidental discharge” of a weapon?
Dude. Really? It would help if you weren’t a moron.
As long as the ACLU continues not to support the 2nd, they can fuck themselves with a McCulloch MC 93 hotsaw. That is all.
Who benefits?
Smells of a trap that Dearborn fell right on into, the idiots.
Interesting commment thread, Geoff. Apparently the only reason flag burning and anti-war protests are legal is because no one is beating the shit out of the protesters.
There really is no limit to stupidity.
If the first appellate review of this absurd piece of legal nonsense doesn’t llok like Godzilla stepping on a Fabrege egg, then I will agree we are screwed… One can always find an asshat at the lowest levels of courst – they just need to be slapped down in a completely humiliating reversal to sink in the lesson that, yes, the US Constitution really does mean what it says, all parts of it.
Sorry John, have to fix this.
“the US Constitution really does mean what it says,
all parts of itwhen a wise Latina agrees with it, other wise it means just what it should mean to any right-thinking, reasonable person.” You know, like the dictionary.