Hate speech is protected here. This ain’t Canada. I don’t think that dude should have grabbed that Koran. It’s not the end of the world, and he isn’t the government, but if some idiot wants to burn his own book, he has a right to do it…
Incidentally, Bricker’s comparison to the Guardsman is a little off-point since anyone in a military uniform would be operating under the color of law and would potentially be subject to federal civil rights charges that a civilian would not be.
The thing is, you’ve distinguished between protected political speech and unprotected hate speech–but it’s an incorrect distinction. Speech is protected, whether it’s political speech or hate speech. And yes, I’d be mightily irritated if it were made illegal to burn the Koran, and I’d sincerely hope the ACLU would take up the case.
There are specific categories of speech that are not protected: slander, threats, obscenity, etc. Hate speech is not one of the exceptions carved out under US law.
If someone built a synagogue, and then painted swastikas all over it, I’d defend their right to do so, unless said swastikas exceeded their town’s sign size ordinances or something.
I guess I think that the Koran-grabber ought to be prosecuted, and also that he’s awesome. Sometimes there are people who just need punching, even though the punch should be illegal; and sometimes there are people who really need to have their Koran stolen from them.
Bricker, I don’t think you were clear. You didn’t say anything about stopping a Klan rally as a matter of public safety being an illegitimate use of government power. You simply described it as something that is occasionally done. And it seems to me that the legal definition of the “heckler’s veto” is in fact a description of an explicitly illegal act. It is the layman’s definition of the term that is more… ambiguous.
I do appreciate the fact that my thread served as a partial inspiration for yours. 
I think the discussion would be better restricted to spoken words. A discussion of acts such as burning this or that might be halted for reasons other than speech, and even in cases where it seems clear to most parties that the act intended as speech, it just muddies the waters.
I wanted to discuss another of Richard Parker’s comments:
This is a novel idea to me. I understood that the government has a certain obligation to step in and protect people who engage in unpopular speech, but I imagined that as protecting their persons, not protecting their actual words. Many years ago I witnessed a Klan march in Washington, DC. The police essentially put the marchers within a moving box of mounted police to protect them from the angry onlookers, but they did nothing at all to quiet some of the organized groups shouting at them. I believe the Klan was to rally some time later in a park, but I didn’t witness what happened there. Could it be that their speech was not protected during the march, but would be later at the rally? I suppose it’s arguable that the march was in itself a form of speech.
But back to the idea of protection – is there a legal distinction between protecting the person while they exercise their right to say what they want on the one hand, and protect the actual words being said by enforcing some kind of silence regimen on those within range of hearing it?
How far can such a thing go? There may be one or more hecklers trying their damndest to prevent anyone from hearing the words, but there might also be small groups of people engaged in their own discussion but nevertheless interfering with the ability of people in their immediate vicinity to hear the offensive speaker.
I lived in DC for 12 years, and attended plenty of large rallies, and I never once saw any police authorities going around shushing the crowd.
Your intuition that things turn on the level of disruption is correct. Courts generally distinguish between merely distracting counter-speech, like holding up signs and distributing literature, and truly disruptive speech, like shouting down the speaker. Only the latter kind of speech can be suppressed in the interest of the permitted speaker.
I answered your question, “ya know.”
I understand the fear that burning the Koran might lead insane motherfuckers in the Mideast into renewing attacks on Americans. And I can’t say that fear is entirely irrational.
I wonder, though, whether the best response to committed Koran-burners would be for counterprotestors to burn copies of the Bible and the Torah, and American flags, and pictures of their own moms, as close to the Koran-burners as they can. Send the message: “Yeah, there are some jerks over here who will burn the Koran. What of it? We’ll burn anything over here, we honestly don’t think it’s that big of a deal.”
I tend to this this will result in a different flavor of American fanatic showing up to beat the crap out of bible burners.
Though it might work as a threat against Koran burners – “You put a match to that Koran, and I’ll light up this Bible.”
I wonder that we don’t hear about people in the Middle East threatening to retaliate against the bible. I guess they’re just not that crazy. 
Why burn a bible when you can burn a Christian.
Muslims believe it is also sacriligious to desecrate a Bible. They think it contains error, but the also think it deserves respect.
You pointedly evaded it, instead attempting to substitute your own question. :rolleyes:
There’s no real need to at this point, though. Here’s a copy of the home edition as a parting gift. Our next contestant is …
This is hilarious. He did answer the question, while there are a few pending to you. So you may want to hold on to that parting gift for yourself.
The police and sheriff’s offices involved with the original Koran burning in Florida say their costs for the event (even though it didn’t actually happen) were about $200,000.
And the police, at least – and perhaps the sheriff as well – plan to bill the church for those costs.
That seems like it would be a horrible precedent to set. As has been said in threads about the Second Amendment, letting the government jack up the price of exercising a right eventually becomes indistinguishable from an outright ban.
I sympathize with Isom’s sentiment, but I disagree with his act. He shouldn’t have interfered with the idiot’s free expression. Bad speech should be met with good speech, not with suppression, whether private or not.
I disagree. I would be in support of court-martialing or whatever disciplinary action is applicable to guardsmen. People who are trusted with governmental authority and, especially, the discretion to use physical force or threat of force, should be held to the highest standard, with little if any tolerance for violation of a private citizen’s constitutional rights. People entrusted with the power to kill – whether soldiers or cops or guardsmen – should be given no wiggle room when it comes to respecting the First Amendment rights of private citizens.
I couldn’t agree more. In essence, say something we don’t mind and your speech (and body) will be protected. Say something we don’t like and your either on your own or you have to pay for protection. There’s no way this can fly. I hope.
Absolutely. Well said.
They aren’t talking about charging for exercising a right, but for the securiry they had to provode.
two questions:
I think I refined the hypo a little bit to make clear he was not in uniform or on duty at the time… an ex-Guardsman.
So why make him a Guardsman at all?