Did the church have any say in the decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security? You can’t just do your own thing and rack up expenses, then claim after the fact, “We were doing this for you, so pay up!”
That’s what we pay taxes for, isn’t it? So that they’ll protect our rights?
If you want to recoup the cost of preventing a crime, I’d suggest taking your pound of flesh from the criminal rather than the victim. Obviously this isn’t an option here, so perhaps the police should look on this as a learning experience.
Do you think they would have called the cops if there was any trouble or violence?
A learning experience. What do you imagine they learned, exactly?
By the way, criminals typically don’t have money, so that’s not a realstic option in general. Basically, you’re saying that the taxpayers should have to pay for the security of trolls. You should also be aware that Sheriff’s Departments have budgets, and every penny they have to spend protecting idiots like this is money taken away from other protections.
In any case, my point is that Law Enforcement in this case was not imposing some kind of tariff for speech, but was trying to recoup expenses that it normally isn’t budgeted for.
It sounds like in this case Law Enforcement has a limited legal basis to require payment. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. I wonder if the media that created the hype could be held accountable as well.
In the case of this preacher, he appeared to be calling for a public gathering. Since that seems to be something the state can regulate, shouldn’t he be required to pay the security costs associated with that gathering?
I am of the opinion that this was actually commercial speech, where this ‘church’ was intending to enrich itself through it’s actions. If that were the case, do you think it would make a difference? Could a party be held responsible for the costs of security if it announces a free give-away that attracts an unruly crowd?
It wasn’t after the fact. The Alachua County Sheriff’s Office warned the church long enough ago for it to have been in the first couple pages of the original Koran-burning thread that it would charge the church for the cost of security for the event.
Obviously, if they are attempting to charge the church for the cost of guarding the whole city of Gainesville that’s a bit much, but $200,000 seems like a rather small sum if that’s what they’re doing.
How would calling people to listen to your speech differ from a parade or rally which requires a permit? I’m guessing that the terms for obtaining a permit would be content neutral to allow this. Which leads me to wonder if past experiences would allow the terms of a permit to be varied based on the costs of previous events.
I find the alternative to be utterly repellent. Trolls are assholes, sure, but they’re assholes in a manner guaranteed by the first amendment, and they’re entitled to equal protection of the law by the fourteenth amendment.
I almost wrote that “as such” they’re entitled to equal protection, but even that’s not true. Taxpayers have to pay for the security of thieves, drug dealers, and rapists; of COURSE we have to pay for the security of trolls. What kind of fucked-up society would try to remove the protection of the law from those whose expression violates societal norms?
I still like my previous idea: whenever someone burns a Koran, get someone to burn a flag, someone to burn the Constitution, and someone to burn the Bible in solidarity with the Koran burner. “Hey,” you’d say: “They’re just plant fibers. And this is the United States, where you can make any asshole fucked-up political statement you want. Go go Team America!” You could even make it something like a burnathon: get people to pledge to burn one Bible/Flag/Constitution for every Koran that’s burned at the event.
Alternate idea that would’ve been truly beautiful: the skaterpunk gave the Koran to the local Imam, right? I wonder what would have happened if the Imam had returned the Koran politely to the asshole Christian, saying something like, “I believe this is yours, and I believe the relevant scripture is Matthew 5:39.”
I know some protesters who have encountered a sneaky version of this. Police, frequently hired by the shopping center as part-time security guards (I am implying a possible conflict of interest), get called to the shopping center when protesters appear to protest a business there.
One police officer calls over the person (or several persons) leading/organizing the protest and talks about rights, where they can stand, the weather, the protest topic, and anything and everything else, until it becomes clear that the police purpose is to occupy the protester(s) during the entire scheduled protest time and keep them from getting their own message across. Of course refusing to talk to the police or ending the interview is risky and angers the police.
This is like the heckler’s veto in that the cop is talking (quietly, though) solely to make it difficult or impossible for the protester(s) to continue with their mission. Pretty sneaky and possibly even legal! I guess they showed us who’s free.
