"Dr." Terry Jones (Koran burner) has an interesting past.

[hgc]

His Quran burning is protected under free speech, but he is not necessarily protected from the consequences of his actions.

What consequences?

 

[Emet]

Why do you put "Dr" in quotes?

Are you implying that he does not have a legitimate degree that warrants the title?

The husband and father who says he is a doctor, but the California Graduate School of Theology said Jones never went to a class at its school. Instead, he received an honorary doctor of divinity degree in 1993 from the school, which said it denounces what Jones is preaching.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=166235

He can, of course, use the title.

 

[pgwenthold]

Thanks.

I couldn't rule anything out. I found the following

COORDINATION OF SERVICES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CENTER
by JONES, TERRY, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 1974; AAT 0291413

and couldn't be sure it wasn't him.

(that's a PhD dissertation title btw)

 

[Emet]

Hmm... his web site is down:

Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)

Internet gurus: What causes that message?

 

[Xephyr]

... everybody wants to be a Fred Phelps these days

 

[Skeptical Greg]

1st Amendment rights include the right to say it and not be punished physically for it. The US (we-as in all of us) is required to protect him from fahtwahs issued because of his speech.
A man stands on the corner and states that drink is evil, and drunks are going to hell. Someone punches him in the face. Who goes to jail?

I trust that anyone who is apprehended after/while harming him, will prosecuted to the extent the law provides ..

Who is suggesting they wouldn't be ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hmm... his web site is down:


Internet gurus: What causes that message?

His host has yanked his account.
Probably destroying their bandwidth ...

 

[Newtons Bit]

His host has yanked his account.
Probably destroying their bandwidth ...

It was shut down for violating the vague "Acceptable Use" policy in the EULA.

 

[rwguinn]

I trust that anyone who is apprehended after/while harming him, will prosecuted to the extent the law provides ..

Who is suggesting they wouldn't be ?

How about this?

Personally i think the guy is trying to get his fifteen minutes, and possibly increase his congregation (read donations).

I wonder if he realises that he is endagering his congregation? Some wingnut extremist is bound to attempt to fullfill the inevitable fahtwah that is going to be issued.

His Quran burning is protected under free speech, but he is not necessarily protected from the consequences of his actions.

Just because you can do a thing does not necessarily mean that you should do that thing.

Same can be said for many things, including building a Mosque where it reminds people of an event perpetrated by professed muslims...

Oddly, and embarrasingly, I find myself defending someone and something I personally find abhorrent
(excuse the spelling-computer won't let me correct it...)

 

[johnny karate]

1st Amendment rights include the right to say it and not be punished physically for it. The US (we-as in all of us) is required to protect him from fahtwahs issued because of his speech.

I'm no Constitutional law scholar, but I'm fairly certain that is not at all how the First Amendment works.

 

[dudalb]

reduced to Ad Hominims, I see...

Reduced to blindly supporting anybody on the Political Right to get at Obama, I see.

 

[dudalb]

1st Amendment rights include the right to say it and not be punished physically for it. The US (we-as in all of us) is required to protect him from fahtwahs issued because of his speech.
A man stands on the corner and states that drink is evil, and drunks are going to hell. Someone punches him in the face. Who goes to jail?

So you support the guy in what he is doing? Will you support anything that someone on the political right does?

 

[johnny karate]

Same can be said for many things, including building a Mosque where it reminds people of an event perpetrated by professed muslims...

Yeah, you're back to equating Muslims building a community center with bigots engaging in purposeful antagonization through an expression of hatred.

It didn't fly before, and it's not flying now.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How about this?

The 1st amendment does not include protection from the actions of someone you piss off..

However, there are laws to punish people who harm you. They have to do it first, though ...

 

[rwguinn]

The 1st amendment does not include protection from the actions of someone you piss off..

However, there are laws to punish people who harm you. They have to do it first, though ...

Nope.
They have to try to do it. Publicly announcing your intention to do damage falls under that category, and would not constitute prior restraint, IMO.

 

[uruk]

1st Amendment rights include the right to say it and not be punished physically for it. The US (we-as in all of us) is required to protect him from fahtwahs issued because of his speech.

U.S. law only applies in the U.S. That does not stop other people from other countries want to do harm to the person. Of course the U.S. has to protect him from harm. But that is beside the point.

Our actions all have consequences. He has a legal right and is protected under law, but that still does not stop those consequences. It is an action/reaction sort of thing. In this case human reaction.
It's also a matter of accepting that there will be consequence for those actions. If I call a person "stupid" then that person is probably going to get mad. If that person decides he wants to harm me (that is a human reaction). He cannot do so by law but he may chose to do so anyways regardless of the consequences to himself. Right or wrong I still have to consider those aspects before I call him "stupid".

A man stands on the corner and states that drink is evil, and drunks are going to hell. Someone punches him in the face. Who goes to jail?

Obviousely the assailent. But what was there to physically stop him from doing it?

 

[uruk]

What consequences?

The ineviable fahtwah that some iman is going to put out on him. They have done it for less.

Legaly the U.S. has to protect him. But that does not mean that the fahtwah will not be successfuly carried out. No guarantees in life.

Wasn't there a movie director who was killed by someone carrying out fahtwah on his life?

 

[cambion]

The ineviable fahtwah that some iman is going to put out on him. They have done it for less.

Legaly the U.S. has to protect him. But that does not mean that the fahtwah will not be successfuly carried out. No guarantees in life.

Wasn't there a movie director who was killed by someone carrying out fahtwah on his life?

Yeah, Theo an Gogh. And the writer of the movie, Aayan Hirsi Ali, still needs hired protection, even in the US.

 

[hgc]

The ineviable fahtwah that some iman is going to put out on him. They have done it for less.

Legaly the U.S. has to protect him. But that does not mean that the fahtwah will not be successfuly carried out. No guarantees in life.

Wasn't there a movie director who was killed by someone carrying out fahtwah on his life?

I'm a strong believer that such consequences should not be a legitimate factor in deciding to exercise free speech. This is how the Islamic violent-suppression-of-criticism-establishment have been so effective. All people who cherish free thought should vehemently oppose factoring in threats of violence in these endeavors. I feel that just as strongly for Dr. (pretend) Mustache as I do for Theo van Gogh or Danish cartoonists. Of course, the people who may be targeted will rightly take this threat into consideration, but I would never say anything like, "you'll be sorry."

 

[Checkmite]

Yeah, okay, we don't like what this guy is about to do so let's go see what we can find out about his past...?

I can't really find any reason to care about where "Doctor" Whatsit's degree is real or just 'honorary'. It doesn't seem to be relevant to...well, anything really.