Can anything be done to that "preacher" Terry Jones?

[Archae]

At the very least, take away his tax exemption?

[graham4anything]

1. God takes care of imposters in the end, doesn't God?

one way ticket to Hell in the future.
same with followers of false Gods

[Archae]

3. I'm not going to wait for some mythological place of eternal punishment.

I mean NOW.

[Kindly Refrain]

4. Guess I'm going to "Hell"

I don't believe in any of that nonsense.

[slackmaster]

2. Someone could make a film about him

That has potential.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Right. Because the First Amendment is great, until someone says something you don't like,

in which case we should try to find a way to punish that person anyway.

[lapislzi]

9. Is inflammatory speech protected speech?

How inflammatory do you have to be before your speech is no longer protected? We KNOW some forms of speech are not protected. You cannot slander people. You cannot threaten people with physical harm. You cannot make threats against the President. In Game of Thrones-speak, "this is known."

I would like some legal minds to weigh in on exactly what types of inflammatory speech are and are not protected. Is there legal precedent?

[Nye Bevan]

11. "Imminent lawless action" is the standard established by the Supreme Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

An example: standing on a streetcorner making a speech to passersby in which you say "Let's kill all the lawyers" would be protected speech generally. There's not much chance someone hearing you is actually going to try to kill all the lawyers "imminently." On the other hand, if you were standing outside the courthouse when OJ Simpson got found not guilty, and you shouted to the angry crowd "There's OJ's attorney, let's get him" you could be arrested for that (the charge would likely be inciting a riot). The difference in the second example is you are likely to inflame someone in the crowd to actually act "imminently."

http://askville.amazon.com/imminent-lawless-action-clear-present-danger/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=18158455

[4th law of robotics]

13. He didn't do any of those things.

[dairydog91]

15. Yup, it is very often protected speech.

The Supreme Court overruled blasphemy laws as violations of free speech. It ruled fairly recently that torching an American flag while shouting anti-American epithets is protected speech, even when it occurs at a public rally (And Texas tried to argue that it was merely preventing a riot. The majority didn't buy it). Going back to the 60s, the court ruled that even advocating violence against groups is protected speech (With a limited exception in which the gov't can still punish speech). You can still try the "prevention of riots"/"fighting words" arguments, but if anything the gov't's ability to regulate speech on that ground is weak and has been getting weaker.

[lapislzi]

17. I'm fine with that...

I just wanted to know if and where the legal line was drawn.

On the other hand, I think that in addition to being a complete and total (need a word that's worse than idiot, moron, and asshole rolled into one bag of crazy)...I would also call him a stochastic terrorist. He's using proxies to incite a proxy war.

Whatever he is, he is no fool, and he knows the power of his words to incite the impulse-control-challenged religious nuts of other persuasions.

Knowing that your words and behavior are going to reach a target audience and rile them up, possibly even causing violence, is at the very least irresponsible, and at worst, incitement. But he's put just the right amount of distance between the cause and the effect.

[UTUSN]

23. R#5 & K for, seems like he's doing: the Crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater thing n/t

[avebury]

6. If you can't go after him in criminal court, perhaps the victims families

can go after him in civil court. He acted in a manner that a prudent person would have known could have resulted in the death of Americans. Actions must have consequences. He has stirred up the proverbial hornets nest and they attacked resulting in human death. (Which also sounds like negligent homicide to me).

[The Second Stone]

7. Ignore him, not mention his name

he's just a troll.

[littlewolf]

16. That is the best way ... No O2 .... no story ....

fire can not burn without oxygen so
if everyone ignores him .... no press ...
he dries up and goes away .....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Yes. People Of Good Will Of All Faiths Should Let Him Know He Is Not One Of Them

.

[Initech]

14. This. If we can't arrest him, we should at least denounce him.

[4th law of robotics]

12. Yes. We can stand up for his right to say whatever comes in to his head

same as we would for anyone else.

[lapislzi]

19. Sue, we can stand up for it. And I do.

While at the same time saying, "hey, Terry, you might want to tone it down a little bit there...people are gonna take this shit way seriously."

He is not a stupid man. He knows speech and actions have consequences. He knows what he started and I daresay he's a bit glad about it.

[littlewolf]

18. generally you can say pretty much

what you want ... you however DO NOT have a right to be heard ...
no one can FORCE you to listen to anyone ....
there is the difference ... people ignore him ... do not listen to him ...
no press .... he goes away ....

[lapislzi]

21. All completely irrelevant in the face of religious nuttery.

The religious nuts hear, and obey.

Note: Despite my personal anti-religion views, I am not attempting to diss people of faith. I am speaking strictly about the fringes and the fanatics.

[annabanana]

20. All expenses paid trip to the middle east?

just sayin'

He's so all up in their grill he ought to have the cojones to do it in person...

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. Offer him an all expenses paid vacation to Bangkok's red light district

After he jumps at the chance, have the flight divert its course over Libya, hand him a parachute, and shove him out.