Here's the story:

Link



This is front page news here in Chattanooga.

To be debated:

1. If the events took place as seen in the video, has there been a crime committed?

2. Is an investigation by the FBI warranted (i.e. is this a federal offense)?

3. Would the situation be any different at all if another group other than Muslims had been targeted? (In other words, does the struggle against violent, fanatical Islam make these actions more justified, less justified, or have no relevance?)

4. More generally, when does a symbolic action stop being "free speech" and become a threat?

I will try to address my own questions.

1. If "mully 88" had just purchased a Quran and then shot it to pieces, I would have to accept this as symbolic speech. (I have to assume that the weapons are otherwise legally owned and operated.) (I seem to spend a lot of time here at defending things I find unpleasant, but so be it.) However, the action of leaving the bullet-ridden Quran outside a mosque would seem to involve a direct threat against a specific target. I have defended the right to burn one's own cross on one's own property, but this is more like burning a cross on someone else's property. If "mully88" had expressed his reprehensible opinions by leading a protest on public property in front of an Islam, I would have to defend his right to do so. In this particular case, it is hard to see his actions as anything other than direct intimidation.

(If I sound confused, it is because I am. I am very, very reluctant to restrict symbolic actions, and would only do so when there is a "clear and present danger" of others being harmed.)

2. I don't really know. No doubt someone can provide a better answer than I can.

3. I would like to think that this is irrelevant. However, it seems to me that, if anything, societies engaged in a struggle with undeniable evil have the responsibility to bend over backwards to avoid harming innocents during this struggle. For this reason only, perhaps the United States has a special motive to protect the rights of innocent Muslims.

4. This is the big question, and one with which I struggle. Each situation has to be judged on an individual basis. When in doubt, I tend to err on the side of allowing even the most offensive symbolic actions.

1. If the events took place as seen in the video, has there been a crime committed?

If the events took place as seen in the video, then yes, I'd say this is a direct threat. The difference lies in the method of delivery. Had this person shot the book, then hung it in a gallery or merely posted the image online as a work of art, then I'd say he was making a statement and well within the limits of free speech... though playing with fire.

Putting the defaced book in front of a mosque however is akin to the horses-head-in-the-bed scenario and is clarly a threatening gesture and should be regarded as such. Freedom of speech does not extend to threats.

2. Is an investigation by the FBI warranted (i.e. is this a federal offense)?

I would imagine so, though I have little knowledge of American law. I would be interested to see what kind of a sentence such a gesture might bring.

3. Would the situation be any different at all if another group other than Muslims had been targeted? (In other words, does the struggle against violent, fanatical Islam make these actions more justified, less justified, or have no relevance?)

It has no relevence on the actual threat. It neither increases nor decreases the manner of the threat, but I would say that if the roles were reveresed (and that has happened) and a Muslim defaced a bible and dumped it in front of a church, I do not believe this would generate much attention. Muslims here and else where have been carrying out all manner of violent gestures and actions against priests, bibles churches and christians in general and so far I have yet to hear any one in authority call any one to account for such threatening behaviour.... its not that long since I read about a Turkish Christian priest being stabbed to death in his church.

4. More generally, when does a symbolic action stop being "free speech" and become a threat?

I would say when it can clearly be identified as intended to be a threat by an impartial observer.

This is not a case of free speech
the threat was direct and very clear. The action of dropping on the steps of the Mosque even more clear. This is the same as a burning cross.

Yes the FBI should get involved, inbreeding should be stopped whenever possible.

Would the situation be regarded any different if it were Jews or Christians, No and it shouldn't be.

MOIF has the last question nailed.

I'm going to have to call BOLOGNA on this one...

I don't think any crime has been committed, regardless of bad taste. I figure that if a Bible had been shot up and thrown on the steps of a church, chances are that it wouldn't even make the news as no one would care, oh... of course unless it was a black church. Then it might be a hate crime. Seriously. Think about it. If this was a copy of the bible, and was thrown at the steps of the Prestoncrest Church of Christ in Dallas, TX... I doubt it would even make the 5:00 news. If Al Sharpton was involved, and it was the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Montgomery, maybe there'd be mention.

The guy seems like a literal nut job, and maybe someone should keep an eye on him, but no crime has been committed other than maybe littering. If a book, say, written by Shakespeare had been shot up and thrown on say, the steps of the English dept at the local University, would that be a threat against English professors? Would a crime have been committed?

I believe that in America that we've begun to become entirely too sensitive and pander to the needs of Muslims as if they're more protected under the eyes of the law than another. All in the same country where we don't allow children to pass out pencils at Christmas with Jesus on them... wow.

It's as much free speech as burning a flag or any other distasteful act. I don't think this guy should be able to procreate or hold public office, but this definitely wasn't a criminal act just because it was a Muslim book and tossed at their steps.... UGH...

If men like Farrakhan, who openly has made very biggoted statements against whites and jews, can hold a lawful march in the nation's capital, some lone kook in the boon docks can shoot up a Quran (in the woods none the less) and toss it on the porch of a Mosque... give him a littering ticket. Chances are he won't have the money to pay it, and we can lock him up safe and sound...

aevans

I don't think it matters whether or not the book in question was a koran or a bible or even a collection of the works of Shakespeare, its all the same thing. The nature of the threat lies in the public use of a gun against a clear symbol of a group of people.

Had the book been the works of Shakespeare thrown before an English department, then although it would be less clear who the threat was directed at, clearly a threat is being made. I can't see how this act can be seen as anything other than a threat.

I think moif raises a very good point. I seriously doubt there would be any real danger of doing such a thing and then splashing it over the internet. People do that all the time with flag-burning. People will desecrate things for their own personal statements but nothing else will become of it. However, there is a well-defined line between action and intent.

The action of shooting the Quran is freedom of speech and tolerable if the person doing it believes it is merely bound words with no bearing on his/her life.

The obvious intent of leaving the shot Quran at a mosque could be directly interpreted as being a serious threat.

To put it another way, our law will give a person a slap on the wrist for spreading rumors and lies about another person. However, once you cross a line and stalk/intimidate a person, you get a more severe punishment. It makes sense in my mind.

Well, I hope you like the taste.



It's amazing to me that you seem to be able to find a way to mention Al Sharpton in whatever thread you happen to be in.

Topic of Debate: Should we eat less cheese?

aevans: Well, if Al Sharpton said it was okay to eat cheese, it'd probably get more media attention.

What are the socio-economic ramifications of peanut butter?

aevans: If Al Sharpton ate peanut butter... We should stop pandering to race just because race eats peanut butter.





"Hello kids!" said Pander the Panda. Yes, aevans, you've nailed it. We're all too sensitive. I guess, I should probably ask if you think Muslims are more protected under the eyes of the law than blacks. I mean, we really need to get a sense of where groups fall on your pander list.



No, this is a criminal act because it was a symbol closely related to a particular group that was destroyed in a very specific and violent manner and left on the door step of a place where people of this particular group gather so that they could see what someone believes should happen to that particular group. That is called intimidation, it is a threat, it is no different than the Klan burning a cross on a black family's lawn and equally illegal.



Well, if this guy was making anti-Islamic statements and walking down the street, you might be able to compare the two, but, being that this isn't what happened, I don't think the comparison works.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of this post, as most of it really doesn't attack the merits of my statements but moreover me.

However, burning a cross on the lawn of a private residence involves trespassing and is considered a hate crime in that cross burning was established by the Klan as a sign of intimidation. There has been no history of muslim lynching, no muslim beatings outside of mosques for simply being muslim, and our country has no history of muslim persecution. There has been no established coorelation between shooting the Quran and violent acts, so as American law stands... if you arrest this person (regardless of stupidity), I'd imagine that it would turn up in the USSC.

The point I'm attempting to make is that I believe that Americans have become hypersensitive to anything in relation to a religious or ethnic minority. We should take the time to remember that we're entirely more alike than we often portray, and if this kook shot up a Quran and has some crazy speech on the internet, lump him in with the other zealots and keep a note in a file that this happened. Maybe even have the local Sheriff watch him while he's in town, etc. I believe that with people like this, the more attention they get, the more it fuels their cause. After all, why on earth does the KKK march through towns? They want people to notice them and hear their crazy cause... ignore them, and maybe they won't march so much....

Certainly the awful treatment towards Muslims pales in comparison to KKK style hates crimes against African Americans, but that doesn't mean a bullet-ridden Quran placed in a mosque would not be intimidating. Furthermore, there actually has been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crime since 911.



I agree on principle that we are becoming hypersensitive in a PC way, and publicity empowers, but this is hardly an issue of hypersensitivity. This constitutes as much of a threat as a note saying, "I will kill you because you are a Muslim." Death threats are not protected speech. Period. This was intended to intimidate the individuals frequenting this mosque. It thereby inhibits their personal freedom.

1. If the events took place as seen in the video, has there been a crime committed?
Depends on the state and local laws where the book was shot. Did Mully have a Koran hunting permit? Was the Koran big enough to be legal, or should he have passed on that one and waited for a larger one?
Was the Koran hunted in a "free fire" zone, or were there higher risks for downrange accidents?

Did Mully suffer from a brain fart and accidentally leave the riddled Koran on the doorstep, rather than the Yellow Pages? (This is important, because it is perfectly acceptable to leave books on folks doorsteps....)

It should be noted that unlike the book burnings and church trespassings frequently undertaken by various groups, all of the "action" on this took place in the boonies. No risk of inadvertenly burning down the mosque by tossing a burning Koran on the doorstep (or, more traditionallyy, a burning bag of dog doo doo, which may be indistinguishable from the Koran....), no risk of provoking a riot by charging into the mosque during the services and "protesting."

2. Is an investigation by the FBI warranted (i.e. is this a federal offense)?
Probably. They should find out if there's anything specific going on at that Mosque that attracted Mully's attention. Yet, I'm sure that CAIR will try to make it out as a Federal offense. Places of worship have been afforded special protections, although as a practical matter the protections are usually not extended to white Christian and/or Catholic churches, but are extended to black churches, synagogues, Buddhist temples, mosques, etc...

3. Would the situation be any different at all if another group other than Muslims had been targeted? (In other words, does the struggle against violent, fanatical Islam make these actions more justified, less justified, or have no relevance?)
Yes, the struggle against Islamofascism certainly grants justification as a symbolic protest. As a threat, i.e. level of force, used in the struggle, that's a bit more problematic, but I believe that it is also justified. At the current time, had some random boonerhead imam been holding the Koran when it was perforated, that wouldn't have been justified. There are, however, more than a few imams where it would have been justified, and even handsomely rewarded.

4. More generally, when does a symbolic action stop being "free speech" and become a threat?
When the actions stops being symbolic. If the wiffle Koran was accompanied with a note saying "you're next", that's a threat. Otherwise, you're venturing into the realm of subjective hate speech. If Mully never does anything else, then it is simply symbolic. On the other hand, if Mully shows up drunk at the mosque next week in a Catepillar D9 and proceeds to bulldoze it, this incident will reflect quite poorly in his defense.

I'd like to remind folks that it is not the use of violence, much less the threat of violence, that is "wrong." A call for the FBI to investigate this, and prosecute Mully, is an explicit call to utilize violence or the threat of violence in order to silence Mully. So the question be becomes, "when is violence, actual or threatened, acceptable"?

Inasmuch as I believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the following cultures: Western secularism, Judeo-Christian culture, Hindu culture, Buddhist culture, European socialism, African animism, etc, etc, I believe that violence is acceptable in answering the threat it poses. Whether or not its the most effective means is another question, and what level of force is necessary and just is yet another.

Do we? The problematic aspect of this is whether or not the "innocent Muslims" are participating in "the struggle with undeniable evil", or are they merely standing on the sidelines, or are they sympathizing and passively aiding the undeniable evil? Given that, just a week ago, 13% of British Muslims consider the Tube bombers to be martyrs, 'tis a compelling question. I realize that some folks find this type of thinking quite distressing, but sometimes the old "if you aren't with us, you're against us" is true. Whether or not we're to that point regarding "innocent Muslims" in this country is debatable, but there's no doubt in my mind that we may reach it.

With all dues respect Mrs P, that dog don't hunt. CAIR is actually a pretty good example of the challenge we have identifying "innocent Muslims."

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad, Co-Founder of CAIR

Here's some examples of what CAIR considers to be anti-Muslim hate crimes:

1) CAIR cites the July 9, 2004 case of apparent arson at a Muslim-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington. But investigators quickly determined that Mirza Akram, the store's operator, staged the arson to avoid meeting his scheduled payments and to collect on an insurance policy. Although Akram's antics were long ago exposed as a fraud, CAIR continues to list this case as an anti-Muslim hate crime.

2) CAIR also states that "a Muslim-owned market was burned down in Texas" on August 6, 2004. But already a month later, the owner was arrested for having set fire to his own business. Why does CAIR include this incident in its report?

CAIR's Hate Crime Nonsense

I wonder when in American history was discrimination and/or violence against an "outside" group nonexistent during a war. Using your "logic" harassment/threats applies to bullet-riddled Torahs and Bibles based on social preferences. We can try ratifying an amendment modifying the 14th as a soothing agent to Culture War aficionados: Arabs need not apply.

If the events took place as seen in the video, has there been a crime committed?

The Tennessee statutes define intimidation as

to make timid, make afraid, overawe; to force or deter with threats or violence. "Intimidation" means unlawful coercion, duress; putting in fear.

I can't imagine what other purpose than intimidation Mully 88 would have had for placing a bullet ridden Quran on the doorstep of a mosque, and it seems that fear would be the natural response for the people who attend that mosque...fear of attending the mosque and exercising their right to practice their religion, because what may come next? A man with a gun? In my opinion, this was clearly a threat of violence.

Additionally, Tennessee has laws that specifically address situations like this, and, if I'm reading this correctly, according tothe state statutes this is a Class D Felony which at the state level calls for a minimum of 1.8 years or maximum 12 years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Chances are that if Mully 88 is a first time offender, he would get 1.8 - 4 years in prison as a mitigated or standard offender.

Is an investigation by the FBI warranted (i.e. is this a federal offense)?

Yes, it may be a federal offense according to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245, and the FBI should investigate.

Would the situation be any different at all if another group other than Muslims had been targeted? (In other words, does the struggle against violent, fanatical Islam make these actions more justified, less justified, or have no relevance?)

I don't think that the struggle agains fanatical Islam makes these actions any more justified, and had he targeted another group, I would not feel any differently. Everyone should have the right to attend their place of worship without fear of a madman toting a gun around, and that's exactly what Mully 88's actions suggested.

More generally, when does a symbolic action stop being "free speech" and become a threat?

In this case, it became a threat when the man placed the defiled object on the doorstep of the mosque. It was not a general statement against Islam, but a specific threat against the people who attend that particular mosque.

As far as a more general definition, I think that Moif is correct when he says:

No ..as long as his rifle was not stolen..


A precautionary file on them / him should be kept where it can be viewed in case somebody falls victim to their rage..



Moslims elsewhere in the world played their hands poorly at the expense of those still willing to embrace the west ..hence they aren't given the same level of acceptance other groups are getting..so yes it would've been handled differently at least in the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans.





Anybody's free speech ends where my free speech begins ..and I lose my free speech when i'm shot at right after they're through with the Quraan ..as long as that doesn't happen ..we're good ..and let'em shoot all they want ..

1) Was a crime committed?

That's a very broad question. Assuming that no local law regarding the discharge of a firearm was broken or any public safety law violated, I would say no.

2) Was there a federal offense?

Is burning a flag during a protest in front of the US Capital or a city street a federal offense? If not, then why is shooting a book an offense? Should the FBI investigate every incident of damage to important symbols? When an artist placed a cross in a jar of urine, did the FBI investigate it?

3) Would it make a difference if another religious group were offended?

This is no different than any other book or important symbol. I believe we have ample examples of offenses to Christianity that occurred and were defended as free speech.

4) Why does free speech end and criminal offenses begin?

When the message is an overt threat to physical harm.