City plans to bill pastor for security around planned Quran burning

[sinkingfeeling]

Source: CNN.com

Orlando, Florida (CNN) -- The city of Gainesville, Florida, plans to send a bill estimated at more than $180,000 to Pastor Terry Jones for security costs surrounding his controversial threat to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the September, 11, 2001, attacks, a police spokeswoman said Friday.

The Gainesville Police Department said it spent more than $100,000 while the Alachua County Sheriff's Office spent an estimated $80,000 during the weekend of the planned demonstration.

"We have 286 sworn officers and almost everyone was working either at the Dove Center or at other soft targets," Senn said. "Unless you were sick or injured you were working" the day the burning was to take place.


Jones said Friday that the church was "not aware that we would be billed for security."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/17/florida.quran.pastor/index.html?hpt=T2

---

Any bets on whether or not they'll pay it?

[RKP5637]

1. Good, bill them! n/t

[saigon68]

140. They can't collect a dime from him

He broke no Law

The city on the other hand will spend a couple of Million fighting the ACLU and the first amendment

[RKP5637]

142. Good points! Thx! n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. He won't pay it.

The dude fled German to avoid having to pay damages.

[louis-t]

3. Uh, they announced this a week before the event was

supposed to take place. Tough shit, moron.

He's got financial troubles anyway. That's why he did the Koran burn thing. Wanted to bilk the rubes so he could pay the money he owes.

[Politicalboi]

4. I guess God forgot to tell him

That they were going to charge him for this circus. Otherwise he probably would have gotten his moneys worth. The fine should be bigger.

[Lucky Luciano]

5. He is clearly a piece if shit, but I wonder if the city can do this legally? nt

[thecrow]

6. Priceless!

Instant Karma :)

[kpete]

7. City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church

Source: Associated Press

City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church
September 17, 2010 7:16 PM
The Associated Press

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Authorities say security for last weekend's canceled Quran burning at a central Florida church cost around $200,000. City officials say they expect the church to pay.

Police Maj. Rick Hanna said more than 200 officers were on duty last weekend patrolling the church, the University of Florida football game and "soft targets" like the mall. Another 160 sheriff's deputies were also working because of the planned protest at Dove World Outreach Center.

Gainesville City Manager Russ Blackburn said he doesn't know if the city has legal authority to compel the church to pay.

Pastor Terry Jones canceled the event after international pressure.




Read more: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/quran-32985-city-security.html

[dkf]

8. Paying for security at a football game?

Kind of makes you wonder what the financial liabilities are of any religion. All the wars, all the death. Can we send them bills too?

[awoke_in_2003]

9. the real cost of religion...

is an unenlightened and ignorant country.

[molly77]

32. If they are into politics, they should pay taxes

There was a concerted effort in ME against the gay marriage referendum. FOIA had to be used to find out who placed all the TV spots to vote no. It was the Catholic Church largely. Since churches have gone so political, they should not be exempt.

[sasquuatch55]

35. molly77

Agreed!

[awoke_in_2003]

38. I agree. nt

[glinda]

57. I agree also.

[truedelphi]

48. Here in California it is the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church but also

The hackable voting machinery.

Prop Hate passed in California precisely because no one can monitor all the elections. People monitering elections inside Los Angeles saw anywhere from an eight percent to a nineteen percent discrepancy in the voting tallies.

Thank you for the info regarding Me.

[merqz]

103. Except the tax exempt law

refers to Partisan Politics, etc. This has nothing to do with partisan politics, campaigning for a candidate or party, etc. It has to do with assholish Quran burning. If you research the civil rights movement, you will see that many churches supported (verbally, and otherwise) the civil rights movement and did not jeapardize their tax exempt status for doing so.

[Plucketeer]

82. Amen to that!!!

"God's will!" Right. :sarcasm:

[Divine Discontent]

133. blanketing people together by over simplifying the similarity is not positive

these idiots in northern florida are not good hearted people, they're bigots who think starting aggression/war with people of different thoughts is a positive action. All people who believe in a higher power are not to be lumped into the same category just because some people being led by a person as their "spiritual" leader do some horribly nasty things. It's no different than listening to the bigots on youtube who say all black men only survive by being criminals, or all gay people are promiscuous, etc...

There's been plenty of enlightened people of faith throughout history, I could list hundreds, many living and dead. Some are highly beloved here, and many are great artists, musicians, world leaders, scientists, explorers, etc...

It's not a fair argument to blanket paint religion as a singular item and say it's ramifications are ignorance and an unenlightened populace.

[stopbush]

11. Sounds like a plan to me.

[Dookiestix]

13. Are you kidding?

We'd bankrupt all of religion with that whopping bill. Better to just remove their tax exempt status since these far rightwing Christians have no qualms getting directly involved in rightwing political campaigns.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. And what would be the downside of THAT?

Some are good-intending and blissfully confused, but the rest are cynical hucksters selling a product they never have to deliver to the scared. Holding them accountable for their actions seems like the socially-responsible thing to do...

[merqz]

104. except it's unconstiutional

see, for example: Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

Fwiw, this same thing could have been used against various churches who were behind the civil rights movement. It would have been bad then, and it is bad now.

[truedelphi]

49. _ 1. n/t

[trumad]

70. Uh---football generates millions of dollars for the city...

Rev. Terry does not.

[madmax]

72. I don't think even the Vatican

has enough money to pay for the crimes they committed. But, it's a great idea.

[ngant17]

94. $200k is a lowball estimate

I personally know some other costs that were related to the Gainesville non-incident. At the local university here in Central Florida, I heard from supervisors that extra preparations related to the weekend's gameday in Orlando had to be taken, prior to the football between NC state and UCF. These changes were not optional, they absolutely had to be implemented because they were directly ordered from Dept. of Homeland Security for that specific day. Mostly involving extra labor costs and last-minute additions to security.

Extra precautions like that don't normally happen on 9-11 dates here. So you could easily tack on at least ten thousand dollars more of expense coming from an adjacent city in Central Florida, directly due to Rev. Jones' Christian ignorance and bellicose stupidity. Probably more that than.

[femrap]

10. Thank you for some

good news. I needed it.

[old mark]

12. I wonder how many such bills could be sent to Fox "News"....nt

[lib2DaBone]

14. Wonderful.. way to go! Send another bill to Fox News while you are at it...

[Lil Missy]

15. If the chirch wants to get into politics and put the security of troops in danger, they can pay.

[Dr.Phool]

16. Now he wants to skeedadle and move his trailer,er church down to St. Pete.

I guess he figures there's more easy marks down there.

[Dappleganger]

27. Fine by me.

The farther away he is from here, the better.

Oops, sorry Dr. Phool! Maybe he should run away to Arizona or Alaska with the other nutjobs.

[Brother Buzz]

17. I believe that Podunk church is going to just disappear down a rabbit hole

International Burn a Koran Day

Dove World Outreach Center needs your support!

City of Gainesville denies burn permit – BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS

RBC Bank calls in mortgage – BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS

Cottons All-Lines cancels insurance – BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS

We will proceed with the Koran Burning Event, Saturday 9/11, 6-9pm, as planned.

RBC Bank called in our mortgage with a limited time to pay it off. Now Cottons All-lines Insurance has also cancelled our commercial insurance on our property putting our mortgage in immediate default. We need to raise the $140,000 to pay off the RBC loan immediately.

We need your help! Please send as generous a donation as possible.

Make checks payable to Dove World Outreach Center, 5805 NW 37th Street, Gainesville, FL 32653 or use our Paypal donation link on the main page of our http://www.doveworld.org/ website here.. If you would like to mail us a Koran we will add it to the fire. We invite you to sign up for our newsletter at http://www.doveworld.org/ top of the main home page.

Thank you for your prayers and support.

Call or send us an email at [e-mail] with your thoughts and questions. Stay in touch!

Sincerely,

Dr. Terry Jones – Senior Pastor

Dove World Outreach Center

[Frank Cannon]

121. Churches like this are always pleading poverty and imminent financial doom

It's how they con the Social Security checks away from sweet little old ladies.

[SourFlower]

19. Now send a bill to the Westboro Baptist crazies.

Defund them, and put a crimp in their ability to harrass people.

[seattleblue]

20. This is a violation of the first amendment and the church does not have to pay.

It is unconstitutional to bill someone for expressing their first amendment rights. If they could do it here then they could bill anti-war protests and anything else that is controversial.

[hughee99]

22. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[KansDem]

23. What happened to their "armed militia?"

Pastor says armed militia to protect church during Quran-burning event

Dove World Outreach Center Pastor Terry Jones has accepted the support of Right Wing Extreme, which he said offered to come to the church with between 500 and 2,000 men on September 11. He described the organization as an armed civilian militia group.

:shrug:

[Dappleganger]

29. Where is it stated as such?

Why should the taxpayers of Gainesville be forced to shoulder the burden of a nutjob's notoriety?

[Eric J in MN]

31. Paying for police is a normal function of being a taxpayer.

If I say that George W. Bush was a terrible president, and the local police chief decides that terrorists will be emboldened by my words and may attack someplace nearby, I shouldn't be billed.

[truedelphi]

61. But you pay taxes. So in a sense, you are paying for whatever

Disruption and unrest the local police chief thinks your words are causing.

These people are n't paying taxes. And their silly little stunt is something that could bring a terrorist to their community and wreak a great amount of destruction.

[seattleblue]

62. So only people that pay taxes can express first amendment rights?

[truedelphi]

91. I admit your thinking about this is better than mine.

My anger against the Fundies can let me put logic and good judgment aside.

Thank you for calling me out on that.

[quakerboy]

69. Churches don't pay taxes

They are not tax payers nor citizens. Far closer to corporations.

[Turborama]

33. I think some people don't even know what the 1st Amendment says

All they seem to know is it says "free" and "speech" in it somewhere.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

I can't see anything "unconstitutional" about charging that so called "church" for the extra security costs its actions incurred.

I would be seriously pissed off if I lived in Gainesville and had to pay for it.

[Hoopla Phil]

34. You're right. I wonder what the bill will be for the next anti-war rally will be.

Hell, maybe we can back date and bill the MLK estate for all the security costs for his rallies was (adjusted for inflation of course). Let us not forget the recent EISU rallies that needed extra security either.

If this stands it will set a VERY dangerous president.

[Turborama]

41. I am right. However, the policing of rallies is something different from what we're discussing

This is about the cost of extra security to ensure the safety of local citizens because someone planned an event which, until the very last minute, they went ahead with knowing it would have consequences & it was an event they didn't even have a legal permit for.

Apples and almonds (not oranges, just in case some genius comes back with, "Well, they're both fruit!" again)

[seattleblue]

63. Courts have ruled that first amendment rights are not just for the rich.

Cities can't charge fees for expressing views. This church did not request any security from the city. To unilaterally charge them for it is a violation and no court would enforce it. Anyone who has taken a constitutional law course would know this. Some people can't see beyond their key board.

[Turborama]

78. The church's illegal publicity stunt resulted in the need for extra security.

Whether they asked for it or not is irrelevant.

"To unilaterally charge them for it is a violation", of what exactly?

[seattleblue]

79. The first amendment.

Any court would consider a 200k charge to have a chilling effect on first amendment expression. No court would enforce it. When you try and take away constitutional rights from others you take them away from yourself as well.

[Bragi]

138. ++++

[Hoopla Phil]

95. Illegal? What was illegal? I did not see any illegal activity taking place.

please cite what law was violated.

[Turborama]

117. They did not have a fire permit. It was denied twice.

Hence, it was an illegal publicity stunt.

[Hoopla Phil]

124. He didn't burn anything. Have you read the first amendment lately?

I ask because you seem to think it is OK to charge people for using it. What would you be saying had shrub pulled this on the anti-war protesters?

[Turborama]

126. *FACEPALM* His publicity stunt was illegal. Yes, I posted the 1st Amendment in post #26

Just for people like you who think that the OP has anything to do with it.

I'll repeat it here verbatim for your convenience...

I think some people don't even know what the 1st Amendment says

All they seem to know is it says "free" and "speech" in it somewhere.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01

I can't see anything "unconstitutional" about charging that so called "church" for the extra security costs its actions incurred.

I would be seriously pissed off if I lived in Gainesville and had to pay for it.

You want to be an apologist for "pastor" Jones and keep on defending bigotry & hate speech/actions? Knock yourself out and keep kicking this thread.

[Hoopla Phil]

127. If what he did was illegal where are the charges?

And now you say I'm an "apologist for "pastor" Jones" that is "defending bigotry & hate speech/actions". That is laughable as I have done no such thing. While I may not agree with what he said, I will defend his right to say it. Too bad so many want to only defend free speech when it is speech they agree with. How very sad.

Perhaps you should "google" Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

[Turborama]

132. Perhaps you need to actually read the 1st Amendment which I have posted here twice

Then you'll see that your arguments about it being infringed in any way are fallacious and amount to apologetics for "pastor" Jones and are just being used as a front for defending bigotry & hate speech/actions.

[merqz]

107. It's a violation of SCOTUS case law, as well as the first amendment

see, for example: Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

[Hoopla Phil]

96. So you DO want to back charge MLK for all the "extra security to ensure

the safety of local citizens". Thanks for the clarification. What other political free speech would you charge a fee for? Just the free speech that you do not agree with?

[Turborama]

118. Yeah, you totally missed the clarification

Thanks for trying to take part, though.

[Hoopla Phil]

123. Don't think I missed anything. You want to charge people for saying things you don't agree

with. I got that pretty clear.

[Turborama]

125. Nope, you really didn't get it.

I think I made it quite clear http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4544905&mesg_id=4545063">here. I didn't say what you're accusing me of. However, you are making it quite clear that you love hate speech, though.

[Hoopla Phil]

128. Yep, some people only want free speech when it is speech they agree with.

some consider being consistent with free speech somehow means that that person agrees with the speech - not the right. How very sad for some. I suggest you look up Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992, you may learn something.

It is a true test of a persons dedication to the right of free speech when it comes to defending a persons right to say something you do not agree with. Your metal has been tested - you come up lacking.

[Turborama]

131. My metal has been tested and I came up lacking LMFAO!

Your continued apologetics for "pastor" Jones and his behavior tells me all I need to know about the kind of "metal" you and your ilk hold dear.

Thanks for the laughs.

[haele]

45. In CA, whenever you have an event where you need security or fire standing by, you get a bill.

Doesn't matter if it's a high-school homecoming fireworks show, a political rally, or a half-marathon for charity, if you need someone from the city, county, or state to stand by to support your event, you need to pay for them, unless there is an existing agreement for volunteer time.
If you have a large gathering that might block or affect accessibility or public safety (like a block party, street fair, school or church function), you need to make arrangements with the municipality - and you do have the option to provide your own traffic control, security, fire, or medical.
You still pay a (much, much smaller) registration fee to licenses or provide acknowledgment that those people will be able to take responsibility for those activities, but you can at least control some of your costs.
I don't know what Florida's rules are, but $200K sounds about right if the city needs to schedule a couple dozen or so personnel (plus their equipment) belonging to the local police and emergency services departments standing by to work overtime to "support" your event.

Haele

[seattleblue]

65. They did not request any security for this 'event'.

I asked another poster for a link to back up this assertion about being billed for political rallies and they were unable to provide one. I'll ask you for the same. I call bs.

[haele]

73. City of San Diego Special Events rules -

http://www.sandiego.gov/specialevents/

"Events or organized activities for 75 or more people that involve street closures or include event components requiring the coordination of a number of city departments or other agencies such as the use of alcohol, on-site cooking, food sales, or large-scale temporary structures typically are reviewed through the Citywide Special Event Permit Process. Examples include festivals, parades, runs/walks, farmer's markets and other planned group activities."
Note - it's not a matter of "requesting" the event permit, it's a matter of "street closures" or the nebulous definition of "event components", which can include anything that might affect public safety. On edit - if you expect a large press contigent to show up, that counts as part of your 75 or more people. And if you're going to have a large wedding that will affect parking and traffic patterns for any major length of time, you also need a permit.

I used to do re-creationist events. We would have to identify that we would provide our own security and fire for expected incidents, and that we acknowledged that if we had to call for emergency services, we would pay if it were police or fire, the injured party would pay if it were medical. And if our event affected any municipal property, we were liable for damages, so we had to carry insurance.

BTW, here are the Special Event Public Safety User fees:
http://www.sandiego.gov/specialevents/pdf/fees090701.pdf

Haele

[seattleblue]

77. The fees described are hardly the 200k that the church is being charged

now are they??? Also none of the conditions you describe would apply to the church event. Are you really going to use this to justify a 200k$ charge for an event??? Also I guess you did not read the fine print of your link. It says the fee was authorized but never implemented by the city.

[haele]

83. I think there's a bit of mis-communication here -

You asked -
" I asked another poster for a link to back up this assertion about being billed for political rallies and they were unable to provide one. I'll ask you for the same. I call bs. "
I provided you with an example of a municipality being able to bill for political rallies.
I am not justifying the amount of fees this organization that is nominally defined as a church is being charged, nor am I justifying how the municipality has determined that they can charge the church these fees.

But I am providing an example on how a municipality charges fees for special events, including church and political events that affect the community at large.

In this case, the actions of the organization that calls itself the Dove Church, which allows it to be tax-exempt, (but not exempt from user or community fees, nor exempt from community codes) had advertised on a national stage that it was holding an politically-charged event that could possibly impact the safety of the community at large.

An individual commenting on the outcome can call "bs" all they want, but it will come down to a judge if the city has been skirting the rules to punish the flamboyant "Rev." Jones for causing a scene that put them in potentially a bad light.
Charging the Church fees for the requirements of the large special event they advertised that they were going to hold within the letter of the municipal code that covers special events and public safety is not out of line. No-one's First Amendment rights have been trampled on. Over-charging the fees - well, go to court and challenge it, as any other organization would have to do, be they political, religious, or commercial.

It also does not matter to bring up "how rallies and large social events of the '60's and '70's were conducted" and whether or not fees and regulations would have harmed events such as the Civil Rights movement.

In the city of San Diego, where I am living currently, they do have regulations for even last minute political or social rallies and events - on as little as a 12-hour notice. Politically-charged Rallies and Marches (Anti- and Pro Prop-8, Immigration Rights, Anti-War, and Environmental) in the City of San Diego have not been hindered in the least over the past seven years that Special Events permits requirements and fees have been enforced.

And it was only the "Standby" fees that were not implemented, not the Special Event fees themselves. From what I read about the fees in Florida, it was not that the police and fire had been put on "Standby", but that they had actually been sent out.

Haele

[seattleblue]

90. I don't know if the church would have been billed using the SD fee structure

or how in practical terms these fees are or have been applied to protest demonstrations. But I do know that 200k is not in the same universe and would be held unconstitutional. Whether the SD fees are unconstitutional or not I don't know because I don't know how they have been applied or whether any group/individual have bothered to take it to court. Taking unconstitutional measures to court costs money and unfortunately the ACLU doesn't have the resources to take up every unconstitutional action. Yes in fact it does matter "whether or not fees and regulations would have harmed events such as the Civil Rights movement". This is exactly what courts considering constitutional cases look at.

[amandabeech]

87. I think that you're looking for the word "precedent."

I think that the courts will agree with you, by the way.

To do otherwise would not just "chill" free speech, it would free speech at the temperature of absolute zero.

Not what the framers had in mind.

I'm sure glad that present day DU hasn't been able to call a constitutional convention.

[merqz]

106. exactly. And fwiw, it will set NO precedent

because it is patently unconstitutional and will never be paid. The city manager admits he did not research it's legality. Iow, he's not even claiming he believes it to be legal

see, for example: Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

[Codeine]

146. There's a real disconnect at DU

when it comes to free expression. It's not the whole board, but there's a strong sentiment for the piecemeal destruction of the 1st Amendment with a core group of posters. It sickens me.

[Chulanowa]

130. The people who hate Islam and Muslims on DU...

Are about as well-educated as their twins over on FreeRepublic. You can't expect even short hops of cognition from 'em.

[merqz]

105. it's stated here, among other places

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

Read the article. The city manager himself admits he did not research the constitutionality/legality of this "bill". It's CLEARLY not going to pass constitutional muster.

[Eric J in MN]

30. Agree. They could say that criticism of the Iraq War emboldens terrorists,

...therefore critics or the Iraq War need to pay for police patrols.

[ET Awful]

39. Nonsense. If you engage in activity that requires extra security to protect the public, you pay for

that security. If you have a public event that requires police, fire, etc. to work overtime, you will be billed for the time.

It doesn't matter whether it's a street fair or a nutcase acting like a nutcase. If you hold an event (especially without a permit), you will be billed for the security for that event.

It has nothing to do with the First Amendment at all.

There is nothing in the First Amendment that says "if you chose to exercise your free speech by creating a public hazard, the local authorities will be required to provide security free of charge in order to protect the public from your idiocy."

Hell states bill people who get lost in the woods for search and rescue costs.

The local authorities are well within their rights to bill for the costs of security for such an event, or security for ANY public gathering that requires extra costs to the municipality.

[SomeGuynTexas]

58. Authorities have "rights?"

"The local authorities are well within their rights to bill for the costs of security for such an event, or security for ANY public gathering that requires extra costs to the municipality."

To what rights are you referring?

[ET Awful]

89. The right of the citizenry to not have their tax dollars spent for events that

were held without permits against local regulations.

Any other questions?

[SomeGuynTexas]

119. Aactually, you didn't answer the first question...so how about it?

To what rights were you referring to for authorities?

Pretty simple question. Either you have an answer or you don't.

I think we'd agree on Citizen rights. No problem there.

How about answering the original question?

[ET Awful]

135. Fine, the right of the local authorities to not violate regulations enacted

by the legitimately elected and appointed local government to exceed the approved expenditure levels for police and emergency salaries and overtime.

[seattleblue]

67. Where are you getting this crap?

Provide a link that shows that political events are billed for security.

[ET Awful]

88. Political events require permits. Permits are only issued if you provide security.

This event did not have a permit, thus security was required to be provided.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with laws that cities and towns have governing such gatherings.

Your lack of knowledge of the law is your fault not mine.

NOWHERE in my post did I say "political events are billed for security". BUT, events that do not provide their own security necessitate other security and will have to pay for it.

I don't need to provide a link. I just need to tell you to familiarize yourself with requirements for holding public gatherings pursuant to local laws.

[seattleblue]

93. You should familarize your self with first amendment law.

Your lack of knowledge of the law is your fault not mine. President Obama, who taught constitutional law, said they only thing the church might be violating would be a fire ordinance regulation where you would get a citation at best. This event did not ask for any security but said they would provide their own (Check the news clips on it). This was to be an event on private property where a permit is not needed. Thank god you are not a judge ruling on constitutional cases. But if you were you would only last about 15 minutes in any court I know of.

[ET Awful]

100. Actually, a permit IS needed if you will be impeding traffic.

That's why police can bust up parties if you block traffic and are too loud.

Thank God you aren't in any capacity where you have to interpret law of any kind whatsoever.

Little clue for you: I have over ten years experience in the legal field engaging in litigation research and preparation for cases ranging from wrongful prosecution (such as suits against a city for wrongfully arresting and prosecuting a person) to complex corporate litigation (representing small business owners in cases against large corporations such as Shell and Miller Brewing Co.), in addition to which I've handled planning for various events on public and private property which required interaction with local government and coordination of security for said events. What's your experience? Reading internet forums?

I'm betting that if someone was killed a few blocks away because the city police were tired up providing security for an event like this, you'd whine about police not doing their jobs.

If you're too blinded by your misunderstanding of Constitutional law to understand that if a publicity stunt costs a city money, they have the right to recoup that money, you should really step back and think for a minute.

If ANYONE holds an event that is intended to inflame passion and posses a risk to the public welfare, security must be provided. Not just any security that the person holding the event wants (hell, they did that at Altamont and look what happened). The security must meet the requirements of the city where the event is held. In most cases this means a bonded and licenses security agency.

Your ignorance of local ordinances in pretty much every city and town in the nation is duly noted.

Your misunderstanding of the Constitution is also duly noted.

Here's another little hint for you a city charging for security does NOT under any interpretation of Constitutional law equate to a violation of a clause which states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . "

By your standard, it would be forbidden for any city anywhere to require permitting for any event. Using your standard, anyone could hold a parade at any time without permitting.

[seattleblue]

112. I won't bother saying what I do because you would just say I was making it up.

Although there are others on DU who know who I am and would get a good chuckle at your comments. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-538.ZS.html This is just one of their decisions on the subject. Your position was held by the right wingers who were in the minority in this decision. Enjoy the company.

[ET Awful]

136. You DID read that case, and you DO understand that it says nothing

whatsoever about billing for security AFTER THE EVENT don't you? You do realize that the finding on that case pertained to ordinance requiring prohibitive fees prior to an event thus seeking to stop people from seeking a permit for the event in the first place.

There is NOTHING in that case about either requiring licensed and bonded security for an event, or for billing for an event after the costs have been legitimately ascertained, it pertains to billing prior to an event based on estimates of cost.

Shall I quote your link?

"(a) In order to regulate competing uses of public forums, government may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally, if, inter alia, the permit scheme does not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official, Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 56, and is not based on the content of the message, see United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177. Pp. 6-7.

(b) An examination of the county's implementation and authoritative constructions of the ordinance demonstrates the absence of the constitutionally required "narrowly drawn, reasonable and definitestandards," Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 271, to guide the county adminstrator's hand when he sets a permit fee. The decision how much to charge for police protection or administrative time--or even whether to charge at all--is left to the unbridled discretion of the administrator, who is not required to rely on objective standards or provide any explanation for his decision. Pp. 7-10.

(c) The ordinance is unconstitutionally content based because it requires that the administrator, in order to assess accurately the cost of security for parade participants, must examine the content of the message conveyed, estimate the public response to that content, and judge the number of police necessary to meet that response. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, distinguished. Pp. 11-13."

Anyone who reads that will understand that that it says that the Constitutional issue arose because the fee was not uniform (i.e. the administrator could set the fee at his discretion based on the type of event and an estimate of the costs)

The law in the case you cited was unconstitutional because it sought to limit free speech by charging prohibitive fees based on a guess as to what security would cost.

HOWEVER, charging for actual costs does NOT amount to infringement.

You do understand the difference between charging a fee prior to an event based on what you think the event might cost in order to stop the event and charging actual costs after the event don't you?

A fee levied AFTER the event, and AFTER the costs have been tallied does not meet the criteria of this decision. In order to meet the criteria of your cited case, it would have to be proven that the fees were determined prior to the event, based on the content of the event, and were charged as part of the permitting process.

Since the case regarding the Pastor's insanity involved an event without a permit which necessitated extra security through a broad area, it does NOT meet the criteria of Forsyth.

Or did you not read the case?

[seattleblue]

143. I know the case and if you think there is some difference

between charging excessive fees before an event or excessive fees after an event then you will be on the losing side of this case. You are making the arguments the hapless attorney for the city will try and make and courts will say sorry that is not going to fly. If you put prior restraint on first amendment expression by excessive fees or you chill the practice of the first amendment after an expression by excessive fees the result is the same. As I said before enjoy your company.

[ET Awful]

144. The difference is in guessing what fees would be based on the event's content

and charging for fees actually incurred.

My company? So let's see, I agree with the decision in the case you cited, and disagree with you in this case. . . so which company would you be referring to?

Your inability to differentiate between charging for a complete guess as to what fees will be and charging for an actual calculated amount after the fact is duly noted.

It's not "chilling the practice", it's charging for excessive costs that would not have been incurred were it not for the event in question.

If someone causes property damage in an expression of "free speech", they can and will be charged for that damage.

If someone, in the exercise of their free speech, causes injury to another person, they can, and will pay for that harm.

If someone, in the exercise of their free speech, pulls needed resources away from police, fire and other emergency response services, necessitating additional personnel to insure that the rest of the community is served as needed, then that someone can and should be charged for said excesses.

I'm guessing that if someone had died because there were insufficient emergency personnel to reach them because they were pre-occupied with providing security for this event, you'd completely side with the family if they were to sue the city for not providing the extra personnel, even if their budget was cut to a shoestring level in past years and they could not afford extra personnel.

Your inability to grasp the difference between arbitrary guessed at fees and expenses actually incurred is sufficient for me to discount any further statement you might make.

[harun]

40. Wrong, right.

If I am about to hike up a mountain and the park officials tell me, weather is bad, wrong time to do it, and you don't know how to do it right and I say "It is my right to do it anyway". If I go up there, then get hurt and need to be rescued. They will rescue, they will bill me.

For example rich conservatives have a right to go and set up protests in ghetto's saying out loud everyone in ghetto's is lazy and there because they are too stupid to make any money. The officials would tell them not to do this, if they went anyway the police would usher in to protect them. Again they should be billed for these services.

Question arises what happens if they don't pay? Because the rest is going to happen regardless.

[seattleblue]

71. Mountain climbing is not covered by the first amendment.

Your ghetto analogy is just plain wrong. No court would require a group you describe to pay a bill that you describe.

[AllyCat]

108. Just what I was thinking. If they can do this to these arguably deserving nuts

they can say the same thing anytime anyone does something that is controversial: war protests, peace marches, rallies at the capitol...whatever.

While my gut said "alright!", my head said, "not cool".

[Chulanowa]

129. They're being charged for using city resources

What, you think police are free?

They DO bill protest organizers, by the way.

I wish DU'ers would stop running to the defense of hatred, bigotry, and intimidation

[hughee99]

21. Charging for church for "security" at the Florida game

Does anyone here see an potential issue with the town charging a exorbitant amount for "security" when someone decides to exercise their free speech? Sure, this time it's a douchebag and his church burning the Quran, but what happens when it's a LGBT rights demonstration or anti-war rally? Would everyone here support sticking them with a $200K security bill as well?

[Jefferson23]

53. I believe you have a legitimate concern. In this instance the decision

to charge for security and such a high fee has more to do with the community at large distancing themselves
from overt racists imo.

Not good publicity for them on more than one level.

[xxqqqzme]

68. wasn't his 'burn' permit denied by the

local Fire Department/authority?

[hughee99]

81. It was, and they can fine him for that.

It's not the same as charging him 200K for all the security provided by the town for all venues, even those unrelated to the protest (like the U of F football game).

[COLGATE4]

24. Has nothing to do with their First Amendment Rights. They

were not prohibited by the government from carrying out their nasty little Quaran burning. The government is merely charging them the cost of additional security it was required to provide for them in order to be able to carry it out.

[Capitalocracy]

26. Which could set a precedent

for them to send us a bill for the cops they send to peace protests to beat us up

I love seeing these guys suffer, but this is dangerous

[COLGATE4]

37. The problem is that government at all levels is now routinely

billing us for services that before were assumed to be provided for free - ambulance, fire departments and often police too bill users for their services. A lot is due to shrinking budgets, probably more because of that than for punishing speech they don't like.

[Capitalocracy]

43. I'd love some more information on that

if you have it

[KansDem]

44. Here's one such instance...

Paying for 911 calls in California.

[KansDem]

46. Here's another...

Crash in Huntington Beach, pay a fee

[KansDem]

47. And on a similar note...

Several years ago I received a letter from the county that my wastewater removal would become "fee-based." It used to be covered with county taxes but not anymore.

Now I have to pay a bi-monthly fee to have my wastewater removed...:eyes:

Republicans may hate taxes, but they love fees...

[Capitalocracy]

51. Oh, and after they itemized that cost your taxes went down, right?

:rofl:

[KansDem]

59. You know, I've often wondered that!

I thought about calling the county and asking just how much my county taxes went down after the change to a third-party, pseudo-corp-based service, but wonder if I'd get anywhere.

I will say this, I didn't pay at first until I got a letter from the county DA threatening me with court action. I would be taken to court for refusing to pay a fee I never agreed to. Anyway, this happened a couple of times. Now I don't receive any letters at all. I wonder if enough county residents refused to pay and the DA just didn't want to hassle with it anymore!
:shrug:

I haven't paid for some time and I receive a "pay or will send you to collections" notice. I don't pay and the very next statement the "balance" I owe is my current payment due(???) No past-due amount!

And I still haven't heard from any collection agency. I wondering if the wastewater-removal corp is just plain incompetent or payment is now "voluntary." :shrug:

[pnorman]

74. "We'd be paying for the cops to beat us up"!

I wish I had thought of that phrase, elsewhere in this thread!

[Hoopla Phil]

36. So the government mealy "charges for security" of speech they do not agree with. I wonder

what would have been the case had Shrub been smart enough to try this.

[Xithras]

52. Problem is, the government was not "required" to provide security.

There is no law, anywhere, stating that the police had to either protect the Quran burners or the football game. The city leaders decided to do so of their own volition.

This is certainly an "abridgement" per the First Amendment. If this is allowed to stand, controversial speech will quickly be limited to those who can "afford" it.

[Stellar]

25. This should be made front page news everywhere

so that copycat churches etc, will know there is a price to pay for the shenanigan they're pulling off.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. You mean so that everyone knows the price of free expression?

Want to be the peace protestor billed for an entire day's worth of police on the street for watching over a rally because you burned a flag?

Please think this through.

[merqz]

110. Which shenanigans? Protesting the war?

Protesting DADT? Protesting gay bashing?

Jones is a fuckhead, but billing him for this is just as unconstitutional as it would have been to bill MLK for police dogs and waterhoses.

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

[Quantess]

28. As they are a tax-exempt business,

finally they will be contributing.

[AnnieBW]

42. LOL!

Yeah, stick it to 'em!

[Jefferson23]

50. LOL, I love it!!!!!!!!! Great to see the community putting distance between

themselves and the assholes.

[pnorman]

54. As Civil Libertarians, that's a legal precedent that we should all EMPHATICALLY denounce!

Just read "Freedom Summer", and imagine how many segregation-fighting churches in the south could have been BANKRUPT under that doctrine!

And NO, I'm NOT a card-carrying Christian; I'm essentially an agnostic---perhaps even an atheist.

[Turborama]

56. It is not a legal precedent

ET Awful explains quite clearly why http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4544905&mesg_id=4545055">upthread.

[pnorman]

66. I'm not a lawyer, and I used that term as laymen usually understand it.

I've read (listened to by Audible.com) Freedom Summer TWICE this past summer, and it still lingers (BURNS!) in my mind. As much as I LOATH such hate-inspiring conduct, I'll stick to my above statement.

In the last century, some communities passed "Anti-Littering" ordinances. They were aimed at socialists, anarchists, and wobblies, whose ONLY means of expression was passing out leaflets at street rallies. a single leaflet discarded on the street was considered a "hazard to public sanitation"! I believe they wer all deemed violations of the first Amendment.

[Fire1]

55. ROFLMAO!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[chillspike]

60. Big +1

And they didn't even get to burn it... Bwahahahahaha.

Wanna get away? :rofl:

[Initech]

64. Terry Jones is the biggest troll on the planet, now he has to pay the price.

[Turborama]

75. Seems like whenever a story about him comes out a whole load of trolls swarm in, too. n/t

I agree, he is the biggest troll on the planet and he's got one hell of a following now, too. Which is really scary.

[ZombieHorde]

76. He got extra security, yet his Koran was still stolen. Should he really have to pay? nt

[Tx4obama]

111. It wasn't Florida Terry Jones' book that was stolen. It was a different guy's book in Amarillo. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

114. Oops! I get my book burners mixed up. nt

[Stevenmarc]

80. As a good Christian Rev. Jones needs to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s

[marias23]

85. A better question: Is this organization really a church?

Billing is stupid and Unconstitutional(For a church). You do not want to go there or you will start getting bills from the fire department. These are costs to society that we all must bear.

[Liberty Belle]

86. He's repulsive, bo so is this. If they can bill him, they can also bill anti-war protesters,

flag burners, healthcare reform rally organizers, and virtually anybody else who is exercising their free speech rights. What if they'd tried to bill Civil Rights demonstrators back in the 60s for the crowd control needed to keep the bigots at bay? this is a very, very dangerous precedent.

A better approach is to take away his tax exempt status and make him pay Uncle Sam.

But I do not believe political groups, churches, charities, or anybody else should have to pay for security. Especially if you are not warned ahead of time that such a charge will be made, which it presumably was not in this case.

I expect the ACLU may come forward to defend this guy.

[4saken]

92. So Americans aren't free to burn a symbol?

This kind of fine used regularly would in essence censoring those who would protest any group who has any history of reacting violently. As much as I dislike the nutty pastor, burning books, and both side's religion, he has the right to burn whatever symbols he wants.

Will everyone who speaks out against Islam get this kind of fine? I'm not ignoring the fact that the pastor was speaking out in a negative and inconsiderate way, but that is irrelevant to his right to speak. This fine is going further to obstruct our freedom of speech because it is demonstrating one thing, that we can't/shouldn't speak out against those who may threaten violence(in this case, because the protection needed is to expensive). The exact opposite of what we want right now, which is the strict critique of these archaic belief systems that are informing the actions of so many right now.



In many of the other comments here it's really sad to see people's emotional reaction to seeing the idiot pastor pay overcoming the principle of the matter. Especially when it comes to such a key subject.

[merqz]

109. People here have emotional reactions and celebrate unconstitutional behavior

merely because some asshole (Jones) is the subject of it.

Constitutional law, and freedom is not dependant on whether you like the person or what they are doing. The 1st amendment was designed to protect the most offensive sort of speech.

There is also case law on this already. The city manager admitted he did not research the legality of this bill. It's unconstitutional: Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

If it was constitutional then southern racists could have billed MLK and his church for police dogs and waterhoses. Is thats what you want? (I don't mean YOU as in the previous poster. I mean YOU as in those who think this bill is perfectly fine, no pun intended)

[BrklynLiberal]

97. I hope they get every dime that POS made off this publicity stunt!!!

[LawnKorn]

98. Interest should start accruing immediately

Interest should start accruing immediately compounded daily at the current market rate.

Make them pay and perhaps the next group wanting to pull some stupid stunt to get attention will think twice about it.

[SnakeEyes]

116. This can cut both ways.. non-political

Just cities looking for money. Please consider what you are saying a little more.

[LawnKorn]

99. K&R

[flyingfysh]

101. I disagree with this

People should not have to pay for exercising their rights to free speech, even when the speech is stupid.

[merqz]

102. this "bill" will never survive constitutional scrutiny

sse, for example

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15663411359492122494

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123 - Supreme Court 1992

Gainesville manager ADMITS he doesn't know if the city has legal authority. He should have done some legal research

[beac]

113. K&R for a well-deserved idiot tax on Pastor Jones and his hateful flock. n/t

[MickeyD]

115. Also they should not have tax breaks.

[JoeyT]

120. I look forward to seeing the city lose the lawsuit that comes from this.

Because if they don't, we can kiss any sort of remotely unpopular speech goodbye.
Say goodbye to LGBT groups, anti-war groups, marijuana legalization groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, and a whole bunch of others. Because anytime any of those decide to protest, leaflet, march or any other kind of public demonstration, this *will* be used against them if it's allowed to stand.

Anyone that thinks this is a good thing is either delusional or a damned fool.

[Bragi]

141. Agreed /nt

[larwdem]

122. NATIONAL SECURITY

fuck em make them pay

[alp227]

134. Based on the Forsythe Cty v Nationalist Movement case can Pastor Jones sue?

Hmm, I wonder if it'd be worth attorney's fees and then some for a federal court case appealing a $200k fine.

But it's common knowledge that Muslims abroad get really pissed off and will threaten violence whenever there's depiction of Muhammad in an editorial cartoon or an effort to desecrate the Islamic holy book. Seems that Jones wanted attention and knew the consequences and kept wanting to burn the Quran till the last minute. I think that Jones was pretty much asking for trouble and should have focused on other things.

[ET Awful]

137. No. That case pertains to a law requiring a permit fee prior to an event

based on what the administrator, in his sole discretion, thinks security should cost.

That is not the case here. I quote the case above for anyone who cares to read it.

[Bragi]

139. Two words that prove free speech is now dead in America

"Molly Norris"

Put those words into google news, read a bit, and understand that your first amandment rghts no longer exist when it comes to speech that may be declared offensive by fatwa-spewing Muslim extremists.

And understand that your government will do NOTHNG to protect you, and say nothing to defend you.

Just as they have with Molly Norris.

[Codeine]

145. Will DU be cheering as loudly when they charge

an anti-war rally or a gay pride march for the extra police presence required?

Besides, I'm pretty sure this was dealt with in Skokie v. National Socialist Party in 1977.