He Should Have Burnt An American Flag

[Solar]

Then he'd still have a job, but burn a Kotan, and you can forget your 1st amendment rights.


The protester who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero has been fired from NJTransit, sources and authorities said Tuesday.

Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at _nj_transit.html#ixzz0zbWbqhUb

[Noir]

I assume he will sue the company and go for judicial review?

[Insein]

We have freedom of speech. Not freedom from consequences. He can say or do anything that he believes is right as long as it causes no harm to another human being but if his employer disagrees with that opinion, then expect to be looking for a new job.

[Solar]

I assume he will sue the company and go for judicial review?

Yep, and I will assume him to win.

Where is the ACLU in all of this, they are always defending the flag burners.

Does anyone else see an agenda?

[Noir]

We have freedom of speech. Not freedom from consequences. He can say or do anything that he believes is right as long as it causes no harm to another human being but if his employer disagrees with that opinion, then expect to be looking for a new job.

I don't agree with that at all, that would mean that say a person coverted from one faith to another that the employer could sack them because of tier beliefs, or if someone put that Repiblician/Democrat/Libatarian bumper sticker on their car then that is reason enough for an employer to fire them if the don't support that party.

[Solar]

I don't agree with that at all, that would mean that say a person coverted from one faith to another that the employer could sack them because of tier beliefs, or if someone put that Repiblician/Democrat/Libatarian bumper sticker on their car then that is reason enough for an employer to fire them if the don't support that party.

Good point....
Did we just agree?:coffee:

[Indy]

Then he'd still have a job, but burn a Kotan, and you can forget your 1st amendment rights.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at _nj_transit.html#ixzz0zbWbqhUb

Burn the flag, burn the bible or pizz on a crucifix and call it art and the left will cheer your constitutional right to do so. But burn one little koran and the left becomes unhinged, calling for the mans head. They call it hate, then call this hard working family man every hateful vindictive name in the book.It probably wasn't such a good idea in retrospect given the worried look on the mans face. This paper won't be held liable for plastering his name and face all over the front page. Given the propensity for violence from the head cutters, I fear for the safety of him and his family. I don't think this decision will hold unless they can site a similar incident where a public employee lost his job for burning a bible or a flag. I don't condone what he did, but he's well within his rights to do it. The city can't inter into a contract that suspends the constitution. He wasn't screaming racial slurs or physically attacking anyone. He may have violated some obscure fire code, but that's about it.

Thanks Solar, good to see you.

[Noir]

Good point....
Did we just agree?:coffee:

Naw, you've just misread my post as always :coffee:

[Solar]

Burn the flag, burn the bible or pizz on a crucifix and call it art and the left will cheer your constitutional right to do so. But burn one little koran and the left becomes unhinged, calling for the mans head. They call it hate, then call this hard working family man every hateful vindictive name in the book.It probably wasn't such a good idea in retrospect given the worried look on the mans face. This paper won't be held liable for plastering his name and face all over the front page. Given the propensity for violence from the head cutters, I fear for the safety of him and his family. I don't think this decision will hold unless they can site a similar incident where a public employee lost his job for burning a bible or a flag. I don't condone what he did, but he's well within his rights to do it. The city can't inter into a contract that suspends the constitution. He wasn't screaming racial slurs or physically attacking anyone. He may have violated some obscure fire code, but that's about it.

Thanks Solar, good to see you.
Indy!!! My Ca buddy to the South, how ya been? :salute:

The reasoning behind this baffles me, the left could care less about Religion, but insult a Muscum, and they nearly wet themselves.

[Solar]

Naw, you've just misread my post as always :coffee:

:slap::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Trigg]

Yep, and I will assume him to win.

Where is the ACLU in all of this, they are always defending the flag burners.

Does anyone else see an agenda?



If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."

farther down in the article.

I'm sure he'll sue and here's hoping he wins.

[Solar]

farther down in the article.

I'm sure he'll sue and here's hoping he wins.


Then this crap from Justice Bryer:
But why now, why hasn't he spoken in the past when bibles were burned, or the Flag, why now?
Inquiring minds want to know....

CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said on Tuesday that globalization may change the way the First Amendment applies in the United States, and he suggested that Pastor Terry Jones’ proposed Quran-burning may or may not be protected under the First Amendment.

Breyer -- appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to promote his book “Making Our Democracy Work” -- made the comments to anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton when Breyer was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. The ABC anchorman asked the justice to explain whether globalization, and Jones’s ability to broadcast his actions, poses “a challenge” to the First Amendment.

“[W]hen we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law,” Stephanopoulos began. “When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Quran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment—to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of…what we can allow and protect?”

“Well, in a sense, yes; in a sense, no,” Breyer replied. “People can express their views in debate, no matter how awful those views are -- in debate, a conversation, people exchanging ideas. That’s the model so that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot.”

While the “core values remain,” Breyer continued, “how they apply can change” over time, he suggested.

Breyer pointed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in a 1919 case testing the limits of First Amendment protection. Holmes argued that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater would not be protected speech because people could be trampled in the rush to escape a burning theater.

“And what is the crowded theater today?” Breyer asked. “What is being trampled to death?”

On Tuesday morning, Breyer said any new interpretation of the First Amendment and the “crowded theater” benchmark will be decided over time through jurisprudence.

“Yes, well perhaps that will be answered by—if it’s answered by our court, it will be answered over time in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” he said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333

[Pagan]

Then this crap from Justice Bryer:
But why now, why hasn't he spoken in the past when bibles were burned, or the Flag, why now?
Inquiring minds want to know....

CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said on Tuesday that globalization may change the way the First Amendment applies in the United States, and he suggested that Pastor Terry Jones’ proposed Quran-burning may or may not be protected under the First Amendment.

Breyer -- appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to promote his book “Making Our Democracy Work” -- made the comments to anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton when Breyer was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. The ABC anchorman asked the justice to explain whether globalization, and Jones’s ability to broadcast his actions, poses “a challenge” to the First Amendment.

“[W]hen we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law,” Stephanopoulos began. “When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Quran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment—to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of…what we can allow and protect?”

“Well, in a sense, yes; in a sense, no,” Breyer replied. “People can express their views in debate, no matter how awful those views are -- in debate, a conversation, people exchanging ideas. That’s the model so that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot.”

While the “core values remain,” Breyer continued, “how they apply can change” over time, he suggested.

Breyer pointed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in a 1919 case testing the limits of First Amendment protection. Holmes argued that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater would not be protected speech because people could be trampled in the rush to escape a burning theater.

“And what is the crowded theater today?” Breyer asked. “What is being trampled to death?”

On Tuesday morning, Breyer said any new interpretation of the First Amendment and the “crowded theater” benchmark will be decided over time through jurisprudence.

“Yes, well perhaps that will be answered by—if it’s answered by our court, it will be answered over time in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” he said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333

Doesn't surprise me, as I've said for a long time now the Constitution has been functionally dead for a long time. The Right AND the Left are equally responsible for it's destruction.

Both the GOP and the Democrats wipe their collective ass's with it Daily to the cheers and chanting of their Loyal "Party Members".

[Solar]

Doesn't surprise me, as I've said for a long time now the Constitution has been functionally dead for a long time. The Right AND the Left are equally responsible for it's destruction.

Both the GOP and the Democrats wipe their collective ass's with it Daily to the cheers and chanting of their Loyal "Party Members".

which is about to change with the advent and influence of the Tea Party.

[Kathianne]

which is about to change with the advent and influence of the Tea Party.

I agree, though I don't think in all the ways you hope.

[Solar]

I agree, though I don't think in all the ways you hope.


It's a slow process, but were making inroads into the GOP and the RINO are very scared at the moment.
Our next move will be to unseat Steele.

[Kathianne]

It's a slow process, but were making inroads into the GOP and the RINO are very scared at the moment.
Our next move will be to unseat Steele.

Tea Parties are not in the main religion based. In fact, many find it offensive.

[Pagan]

which is about to change with the advent and influence of the Tea Party.

We shall see, this Tea Party reminds me of a classic Gary Cooper movie "Meet John Doe". Which happens to be one of my all time favorite movies.

Watch it and you'll see what I mean ;)

[DragonStryk72]

Then he'd still have a job, but burn a Kotan, and you can forget your 1st amendment rights.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at _nj_transit.html#ixzz0zbWbqhUb

Actually, he'd have been just as fired. The state of NJ doesn't want to be any more associated with the burners of holy books than they do flag burners. This wasn't even an act free speech, as free speech is contained within the book, it is in effect pissing on the Bill of Rights, for no reason but hate, and trying to spin it as patriotism.

[Noir]

Actually, he'd have been just as fired. The state of NJ doesn't want to be any more associated with the burners of holy books than they do flag burners. This wasn't even an act free speech, as free speech is contained within the book, it is in effect pissing on the Bill of Rights, for no reason but hate, and trying to spin it as patriotism.

Well I think you'll find the supreme court (as well as plenty of normal people) disagree with you there.

[Abbey Marie]

Actually, he'd have been just as fired. The state of NJ doesn't want to be any more associated with the burners of holy books than they do flag burners. This wasn't even an act free speech, as free speech is contained within the book, it is in effect pissing on the Bill of Rights, for no reason but hate, and trying to spin it as patriotism.

How is this not an act of free speech?

Interesting comment, given the history of the church in England, and our forefathers' reasons for writing the 1st Amendment.

[Kathianne]

I'm pretty sure this guy has a good lawsuit for unjust firing.

[Solar]

Actually, he'd have been just as fired. The state of NJ doesn't want to be any more associated with the burners of holy books than they do flag burners. This wasn't even an act free speech, as free speech is contained within the book, it is in effect pissing on the Bill of Rights, for no reason but hate, and trying to spin it as patriotism.

which is irrelevant, speech is speech, whether you agree with it or not.

With that said, I would not be one bit surprised to see a claim of hate speech, a law I think is about as necessary as teats on a man.

[Pagan]

which is irrelevant, speech is speech, whether you agree with it or not.

With that said, I would not be one bit surprised to see a claim of hate speech, a law I think is about as necessary as teats on a man.

http://www.allrightmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/WhatChangeLooksLike.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

How is this not an act of free speech?

Interesting comment, given the history of the church in England, and our forefathers' reasons for writing the 1st Amendment.

As well, if he was burning stuff on a public street, then in NY that's illegal period, even if he was just burning hot dogs or blank sheets of paper. That he can be dismissed for.

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who owned a personal copy of the Quran? Yeah, it was around back then too. Burning books, any book, is an act of destroying speech, given through the written word, and in the case of religious texts, attempting to silence a religion.

[Abbey Marie]

As well, if he was burning stuff on a public street, then in NY that's illegal period, even if he was just burning hot dogs or blank sheets of paper. That he can be dismissed for.

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who owned a personal copy of the Quran? Yeah, it was around back then too. Burning books, any book, is an act of destroying speech, given through the written word, and in the case of religious texts, attempting to silence a religion.

Ignoring your snide implication that I do not know history, the fact is, burning a book is a form of speech. You cannot claim otherwise, just because the object being burned is also speech. To impose such a restriction would be to curtail speech to unconstitutional limits. In fact, if you were to study law, you would know that many, many things are deemed "speech".

As for the act of burning being illegal, I assume you are referring to public safety laws, which are a whole different concern, and tangential at best to discussions of constitutionality.

[Indy]

which is irrelevant, speech is speech, whether you agree with it or not.

With that said, I would not be one bit surprised to see a claim of hate speech, a law I think is about as necessary as teats on a man.
You make a good point.I wouldn't be surprised to see new hate speech laws for Muslims like in Britain and other European countries. Then it will be illegal to burn the Koran. But flags and bibles, no problem. Your right about liberals and their selective support for religion. Their hate for religion is legend. Yet they support just about every Muslim insanity. This country is about ten years behind Europe in regards to Muslims. If we don't wise up soon, sharia law will be the norm. From the beginning this mosque has been a distraction. This Imam knew full well how New Yorkers and Americans in general would react.Meanwhile lawmakers are discussing how they plan on confiscating eight trillion dollars worth of retirement accounts.

[Indy]

Tea Parties are not in the main religion based. In fact, many find it offensive.

You're absolutely right. It's about limited government as the founders intended.It's about fiscal responsibility and accountability.People are fed up with pork filled bills with hidden agendas, and fed up with politicians who think the Treasury is their personal piggy bank. And especially fed up with elitists who ignore the will of the people.

[Pagan]

You're absolutely right. It's about limited government as the founders intended.It's about fiscal responsibility and accountability.People are fed up with pork filled bills with hidden agendas, and fed up with politicians who think the Treasury is their personal piggy bank. And especially fed up with elitists who ignore the will of the people.

Hopefully the Tea Party movement won't get hijacked.

This reminds me so much of the classic Frank Capra movie "Meet John Doe" which just so happens has been one of my favorite movies for decades.

Anyway if you haven't seen it I highly recommend it for it is so relevant for what is happening today -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033891/

[bullypulpit]

Then he'd still have a job, but burn a Kotan, and you can forget your 1st amendment rights.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at _nj_transit.html#ixzz0zbWbqhUb

He has every right to sue the NJ Transit Authority. As a government agency, they have no right or authority to punish him for the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights. Especially since he was on his own time. Free speech is free speech whether you agree with it or not.