Sunday, December 4, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

Muslim Can’t Sue the Dove World Outreach Center That Burned the Quran

3 August 2011 General 13 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

By MARIMER MATOS

(CN) – A federal judge refused to let a Muslim file a third amended complaint that claims a Christian church in Florida violated the First Amendment with its ultimately successful, highly publicized attempts to burn the Quran last year.

Terry Jones

Terry Jones

Though the Dove World Outreach Center did not burn the Muslim holy book on the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as it planned , the church ultimately set fire to the book in April 2011 after finding it guilty of having caused “murder, rape and terrorism” in a mock trial.

Syed Mohammed Iqtidar Haider, a Muslim, filed for an injunction against the Rev. Terry D. Jones, who publicized a Quran book burning on Sept. 11, 2010, at his church, the Dove Church Outreach Center.

The motion was denied the day it was filed because Haider neither served the motion on Jones nor filed an affidavit as required. After attracting international criticism for his demonstration, Jones ultimately canceled the event .

By March, however, Jones announced plans to judge the Quran in a mock March 2011 trial. Signs outside of the Dove Church read: “Burn it. Drown it. Shred it. Shoot it.”

Haider filed a second amended complaint, which was again dismissed because it not state a cause for relief. It also exceeded the maximum page limit and was not filed on the standard complaint form.

Jones announced that his church found the Quran guilty of murder, rape and terrorism, and that his church subsequently burned it.

In April 2011, Haider moved to file a third amended complaint, claiming Jones violated his First Amendment rights by all the aforementioned actions and others, including posting a sign at Dove Church in July 2009 that read “Islam is of the Devil.” Haider also challenged the church’s July 2010 protest at the Islamic Center of Gainesville in which Dove congregants wore shirts saying “Islam is of the Devil” and carried signs that related Islam to terrorism. Haider said Jones’ propaganda caused the deaths of two people and injured four others during Afghanistan protests.

Haider sought to have the city manager, sheriff, police chief and fire chief of Gainesville release any records they have on the Dove Church. He also sought a hearing at which he could “explain the First Amendment in the light of the verses of Qur’an”.

Haider went on to say that if the court accepted his explanation of the First Amendment, he wanted to submit additional claims for relief.

U.S. District Judge Gary Jones in Gainesville rejected the motion on July 15.

Although complaints may be amended more than once with leave of court, such a leave can be denied if the amendment is deemed futile, the nine-page ruling states.

“Plaintiff’s complaint falls squarely within the definition of frivolous,” Jones wrote. “Plaintiff appears to allege not that his own First Amendment rights were violated, but that Jones, in the course of exercising his First Amendment rights, expressed himself in ways that plaintiff contends are outside the scope of First Amendment protection. The First Amendment grants rights and cannot be invoked by a private citizen to curtail speech he finds disagreeable.”

“A plaintiff must allege facts supporting a violation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights,” he added. “The third amended complaint contains absolutely no mention that any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated.

“Because the flaws in plaintiff’s complaints are so numerous and so fundamental, the court concludes that granting plaintiff a further opportunity to amend would be futile and would simply be a further waste of scarce and valuable judicial resources,” Jones concluded.

Original post: Muslim Can’t Sue Church That Burned the Quran

Share/Bookmark




13 Comments »

  1. A better route would be to:

    1. Highlight how the “free speech” has resulted in provocations that has lead to security issues in places like Afghanistan. For his “free speech rights” Jones actions have caused deaths. We now have some effects of this “free speech” in Norway.

    2. Continue to point out that people like Jones actually have more “free speech rights” than others, especially Muslims and Leftists. note how these people are capable of writing hateful and threatening language that has now provoke terrorism in Norway.
    If Geert Wilders as a Muslim iman, he would be labeled a radical and thrown out of the country.

    The issue he is RESPONSIBLE free speech. Jone, like Geller, Spencer. believe that they can say what they want (while others would be put on watchlists). These bad speech actors like Jones must be called out as the very ones that have provoked violence in Norway and perhaps in attacks against. This is now happening…

    Social sanctions, like the one for anti-Semites and racists, are the best method to deal with these bad speech actors!

  2. Speech doesn’t have to be “responsible”, because no one can judge just what constitutes “responsible” speech. One could argue that it is irresponsible to read aloud from the Koran since some Muslims behave irrationally and commit mass murder when a single Koran is burned.Thus leading to calls for all reading aloud from the Koran to be banned.There’s a principle in US law that there should be no hecklers veto on free speech where Jones or any other citizen is silenced based on the irrational behavior of other people.We also have private property rights in America. Terry Jones purchased the Koran that was burned and it is his property that he can dispose of as he see’s fit. You also cannot extend special protections to the Koran that are not given to any other book.As a matter of law the Koran is no different from the Bible, Websters dictionary, Harry Potter or any other book.Just because one person finds a book “sacred” doesn’t mean everyone else has to view that book as “sacred”.Just like a crucifix could be placed in urine and put on display and called “art” a single privately owned Koran can be burned in protest. Both are protected speech under the first amendment.Terry Jones has the US Constitution on his side.

  3. Good comment Hera

  4. The general Christian community denounces Terry Jones and his antics. Most Americans find his point of view to be appalling. Muslims do not need to concern themselves with this sad little man. He cannot hurt Islam no matter how many copies of the Qur’an he destroys. The best course of action is to deny him the attention he so desperately seeks.

  5. “the church ultimately set fire to the book in April 2011 after finding it guilty of having caused “murder, rape and terrorism” in a mock trial.”

    One could say the precise, same thing about the Bible. No matter. Fanatical people with stunted mental capacity exist in all races and cultures, and are to be avoided like the plague.

    As a twenty-year military service veteran of the United States Marine Corps, and United States Navy – – – I have seen a good bit of the world. I have been fortunate to have made friends in all of the countries that I have visited. I have been to many Muslim countries, and never experienced a problem.

    The sad little man that purports to be a leader of the church in the article is no leader at all. A man truly humbled before God would not seek to burn any religious text. Rather he would seek to learn from it. There is but one God known by many names to different people.

    I have no problem with God. Only a problem with man-made religions that seek to control, rather than enlighten.

  6. While I don’t like people like this Jones character and he should be silenced, it looks like that the person filing these doesn’t have a lawyer.
    Most of the rejections are procedural so the merits of his arguments aren’t even being considered. This person really needs to get a lawyer that is willing to help him.

  7. because person A says something, and person B does something, that doesn’t make person A responsible for the actions of person B. if i say i hate white peole, or wait if i say white peolple are the devil (i think a famous american muslim said that once) and someone else goes out to eliminate the devils from our country, it’s not on me. offensive speech is what is protected by the first amendment. see hera’s comment. hera i don’t think most on this site are old enough to remember piss christ.

    ““Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”

    But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.””

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?pagewanted=all

    http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/handout1a.aspx?id=14083

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

    eslaporte,

    “have more “free speech rights” than others, especially Muslims and Leftists.”

    when have muslims and leftists free speech not been protected in america?

  8. No matter how repulsive the act of burning the Koran was or is, the act by this Minister is still protected speech. It is not like a sexual harassment case where how it impacts the victim is taken into account, unless the act resulted in mass violence against the victim or Muslims or burning of Koran at a Mosque there is little that a judge could do but dismiss the case.

    Personally, burning of any holy book or desecration of places of worship and cemeteries is an act of intolerance. It is still not 100% clear in my mind when incidents do become legitimate hate crimes from a pure legal perspective. None of these behaviors are acceptable in a civil society.

  9. “when have muslims and leftists free speech not been protected in america?”

    All the time. Not sure about leftists but for Muslims it always happens. Muslims have been banned from entering the country due to “hate speech”, yet people like Wilders Geert are fine to enter and continue their hate speech.

    Then we have America asking facebook to ban the group “Hizb ut tahrir”, simply because they call for an Islamic Caliphate and state. Yet you have plenty of other hate Christian mongers asking for the Church/State to be one again, to freely preach their messages.

    It’s very hypocritical. But, I don’t worry, they can censor and discriminate as much as they like, it won’t stop the believer from worshipping his Creator and it most certainly won’t stop the spread of Islam.

  10. Perseveranze,

    i said: “when have muslims and leftists free speech not been protected in america?”

    you said: “All the time.”

    dude, can you help me out with one example. i don’t mean to be all lawyerly with you but “Muslims have been banned from entering the country due to “hate speech”,” denying enter to the country is not the same as resticting free speech. they can say whatever they want from their own home. see anjem choundy. in fact i think they put him on fox. but still do you have an example? even of someone being denied entry?

  11. Muslims, stand and chant death to America while in America. That is protected hate speech. Muslims Step on, shred, desecrate our flag while claiming they can do it because of a flaw in the constitution. That is protected hate speech. Various Muslims in America publically celebrating terrorist actions. That is protected hate Speech. Muslims on You Tube or other social sites calling for America’s downfall. That is protected hate speech. This list can get longer, however, Muslims receive plenty of protections for their speech and I support those protections regardless of how the speech disgusts me or makes me angry.

    What I do not like is to hear people cry because they do not like what other people have to say and wanting that speech banned as irresponsible ,while demanding the right to say whatever they want, simply because they believe in what they say. People on this site want to say the burning of the Koran is the same as shouting fire in public theater and thus should be banned. What they ignore is that various Muslim protests make me just as angry, but they mistake the calm in which I endure it as indifference to the act. What keeps me calm is self discipline, morals and belief in the core concepts on which this nation was founded. The reason those 10 people were killed after its burning: the lack of discipline, low morals, and a flawed set of core beliefs which allow no challenge of said beliefs. If you asked me what disgusts me more: the burning of the Koran or the killing of the 10 people during the “protests” I would say it was the people who attempted to hoist the blame on the man who burned the Koran rather than the poorly educated people who did Islam no favor on that day. By the way if I had to label an act as Hate speech and a Hate crime I would say the killing of those 10 people qualify.

  12. “even of someone being denied entry?”

    People like Zakir Naik for example. There’s 100’s, all do the same thing or less as Geert Wilders and have been banned entry.

  13. perseveranze,

    this guy is your champion?

    “Naik has said that any Muslim is free to convert from Islam if the person so chooses, but added that if a Muslim converts and then speaks against Islam it should be considered treason. Naik stated that under Islamic law this is punishable by death.”

    “Naik’s views and statements on terrorism have at times been criticised in the media. In a YouTube video speaking of Osama bin Laden, Naik said that he would not criticise bin Laden because he had not met him and did not know him personally. He added that, “If bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam, I am for him,” and that “If he is terrorizing America — the terrorist, biggest terrorist — I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist.””

    i see canada and the uk denied him entry, but i’m an american. did we (america) deny him entry. if so i disagree with such a decision. let him speak. give him all the rope he wants.

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

    i’ll repost on the whole foods article because this is much more interesing. sorry i missed your post for so long.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>