8 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., has hanged an effigy of President Barack Obama from a gallows on its front lawn, a move DWOC pastor Terry Jones said was in response to Obama's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage, as well as his stance on abortion and what Jones called his "appeasing of radical Islam."

According to the Broward-Palm Beach New Times, the U.S. Secret Service is currently investigating Jones in response to the display.

"The Secret Service is aware of this incident and will conduct appropriate follow-up," Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary told the paper's "The Pulp" blog.

The effigy is suspended from a makeshift gallows with a noose of yellow rope, has a doll in its right hand and a rainbow-colored gay pride flag in its left.

SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTO

In a telephone interview with The Huffington Post, Jones said the flag was meant to call attention to Obama's stance on same-sex marriage and that the baby doll is there because the president is "favorable toward abortion."

Jones also said that radical Islam is "the most dangerous threat to life and national security in America."

There is also an Uncle Sam dummy standing at the base of the gallows outside the DWOC. Jones told HuffPost that the Obama effigy had originally been positioned to be hanging Uncle Sam when the display went up two weeks ago, but that the church changed the display on Wednesday.

The words “Obama is Killing America” are printed on a trailer nearby.

The DWOC came under intense scrutiny in 2011 after Jones burned a copy of the Quran, a move which sparked three days of violent rioting in Afghanistan that resulted in the deaths of at least 21 people, including seven U.N. workers.

In addition to its higher profile controversial moves, the Dove World Outreach Center has also been criticized for its internal rules, which The Smoking Gun has called "cult-like."

In the church's Academy Rulebook, written by Jone's wife and published in 2007, prospective ministers are directed to cut off most contact with family members.

This is not the first time that an effigy of the country's first black president has been hanged.

In March 2010, a teacher at a failing Rhode Island school hanged an effigy of Obama in his classroom. That same month, another dummy was found hanging on Main Street in the Georgia hometown of President Jimmy Carter.

In 2009, a Kentucky grand jury refused to indict two men who hanged an Obama effigy on the campus of the University of Kentucky. The men had been charged with burglary and disorderly conduct, the latter count associated with hanging the effigy. The lawyer for the two men said that the disorderly conduct charge violated his clients' rights under the First Amendment.

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000009

[Whistlers Momma]

He can hang whatever he wants if he'd stop taking tax exemptions for his "church" and outreach programs. It ticks me off that fanatical church leaders can get away with this stuff by hiding behind the constitution. You want the tax payer to support your "church" through a no taxation policy then don't get involved in politics!!!!

[artcinco]

He is a media whore. Comes up with some "stunt" every few months. Best to ignore him and not give him the attention he craves.


#iThing #word

[freedom78]

I support his free speech. But his church shouldn't be tax exempt if he's going to do this there.

[AxlsMainMan]

I support his free speech.

I don't understand this mentality. How does letting this hateful man spew his hatred improve the world or those around him in any way? Isn't it harmful and divisive to society? Why should it be allowed to go on? How is 'free speech' like this upheld and defended but works like Catcher in the Rye or Huckleberry Finn are vilified and yanked from classrooms?

[freedom78]

Speech doesn't have to improve the world and unfortunately, often does the opposite. But I do believe that we do greater harm to that world by censoring speech, including those books you mentioned.

All I'm saying is that this is, in the US definition, protected speech. But since he is doing this AT the church and it IS political speech, then there is a cost that SHOULD be imposed by the state. In other words, my criticism of him wasn't from a "I don't like this guy, therefore he should be punished for his speech" angle.

[AxlsMainMan]

But I do believe that we do greater harm to that world by censoring speech

Surely a fine line can be drawn between doing greater harm through censorship and censorship for the good/benefit of society. Here are two examples off the top of my head:

Ernst Zundel was jailed several times in Canada for publishing literature which "is likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group" and for being a threat to national security. Zündel founded a small press publishing house called Samisdat Publishers which issued such pamphlets as "The Hitler We Loved and Why" and "Did Six Million Really Die?", both prominent documents of the Holocaust denial movement.

Zündel underwent two criminal trials in 1985 and 1988.The charge against Zündel alleged that he "did publish a statement or tale, namely, "Did Six Million Really Die?" that he knows is false and that is likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance, contrary to the Criminal Code." After a much publicized trial in 1985, Zündel was found guilty.

In 1984, James Keegstra was stripped of his teaching certificate and charged under the Criminal Code of Canada with "wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group" by teaching his social studies students that the Holocaust was a fraud and attributing various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers." Keegstra attempted to have this charge quashed as a violation of his freedom of expression; this motion was denied, and he was convicted at trial.

[PERM BANNED]

I don't like the idea of a group or person deeming what is offensive and what isn't. If we held that logic throughout history, anyone who questioned the church would have been found offensive and deemed a criminal. I give people the credit that they alone are able to discern what is a good idea and what isn't. I don't need someone else to tell me that. I don't support book burning or punishing people for saying something different, regardless of how insightful or offensive the masses deem their opinion to be.

[freedom78]

Surely a fine line can be drawn between doing greater harm through censorship and censorship for the good/benefit of society. Here are two examples off the top of my head:

Ernst Zundel was jailed several times in Canada for publishing literature which "is likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group" and for being a threat to national security. Zündel founded a small press publishing house called Samisdat Publishers which issued such pamphlets as "The Hitler We Loved and Why" and "Did Six Million Really Die?", both prominent documents of the Holocaust denial movement.

Zündel underwent two criminal trials in 1985 and 1988.The charge against Zündel alleged that he "did publish a statement or tale, namely, "Did Six Million Really Die?" that he knows is false and that is likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance, contrary to the Criminal Code." After a much publicized trial in 1985, Zündel was found guilty.

In 1984, James Keegstra was stripped of his teaching certificate and charged under the Criminal Code of Canada with "wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group" by teaching his social studies students that the Holocaust was a fraud and attributing various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers." Keegstra attempted to have this charge quashed as a violation of his freedom of expression; this motion was denied, and he was convicted at trial.

Speech that incites violence isn't protected, though I have trouble seeing the first as such. It's absurd speech, of course, but unless it made a clear case for violence against Jews or something like that then it isn't inciting violence so much as giving violent idiots the excuse they'll likely find somewhere anyway. Having not read it (shocker!) I can't say whether it specifically calls for violence against Jews. If it does, then I'm okay with prosecuting him, especially if his words can be linked to the violent actions of someone.

Let me give an example that pulls back from this. I can say "my Congressman is a dick" and that should be protected. If another person reads/hears that and acts violently because of it, I wouldn't say that I incited violence, so much as someone took my end point and ran with it. Of course, being a dick is an opinion, so it doesn't quite fit with the facts of the scenario you give. So let me take this a bit further. Let's say someone is completely ignorant of 9/11 and stumbles upon a 9/11 Truther website, and hears all those tales about how the US government took down the towers, and so on. If that person acts violently toward the government, was the initial speech illegal? Again, in my mind it is protected so long as it wasn't actively calling for violence.

But we come from different perspectives, and mine is largely couched in having taught about the US Constitutional liberty of speech and its limitations. Civil liberties work differently in different places and that's up to each society to decide for themselves. The Germans ban pro-Nazi speech that would be protected (if loathed) here.