By Tracy Emblem
Terry Jones, Reverend of Florida’s “Dove World Outreach Center” has called for “International Burn a Koran Day” to commemorate September 11. Jones’s divisive ploy has traditionally been considered constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.
Americans guard our First Amendment rights fiercely. There is no question that if we were to draw the line against Jones, other groups’ demonstrations could also be silenced. However, there are some overarching principles at stake.
The FBI defines one type of hate crime as an offense committed against a person, property, or society motivated by the offender’s bias against a religion. The symbolic act of burning Korans on 9-11 has similarities to the elements of a hate crime, without the physical crime itself since it is not a crime to burn books.
Nonetheless, there is a distinction between “free speech” and action intentionally designed to incite and exploit violence. An exercise of free speech involves peacefully talking about an issue, such as Jones’s right to his opinion that “Islam is evil.” In contrast, Jones mob-like “assemblies” involving burnings are acts of violence and are actions designed to evoke an emotional response and incite violence in others.
Most recently, in Tennessee where a new mosque was being built, after several hundred opponents of the mosque demonstrated a few weeks earlier carrying signs like “MOSQUE LEADERS SUPPORT KILLING CONVERTS,” construction equipment was damaged by suspected arson on the construction site.
The 9-11 rhetoric against Muslims heated up when then President George W. Bush proclaimed that it was America’s responsibility to “rid the world of evil” and it became a religious issue to some fundamentalists.
We are not in a “holy war” yet the distinction has become increasingly blurred for many Americans because first America was fighting against the Al-Qaeda terrorists, next the war on terror included the Taliban and fundamentalist Muslim groups. We are not fighting against a religion, we are supposedly fighting against leaders of a political movement.
The “Burn a Koran Day” is more than just about hateful “expression” of individual rights – it is a dangerous practice because it involves “action.” While technically not espousing any “fighting words” against Muslims burning Korans would send a message and provide a catalyst for religious “fights” both in the U.S. and around the world and would necessarily put our troops and Americans abroad at heightened risk.
There are consequences for action and consequences for inaction.
We live in an increasingly hostile and mobile society where “holy wars” could be waged using car bombs and improvised explosive devices – therefore, we may have to consider drawing a line for safety reasons against those who would incite immediate and dangerous reactions which will destroy our domestic tranquility.
Tracy Emblem is a former Democractic candidate for California’s 50th congressional district and a frequent diarist at FDL’s The Seminal.



8 Comments







You are walking on dangerous ground Tracey. Who do you want to draw this line? From your comment it seems that you want to do the drawing.
I despise anyone who burns books for any reason but that isn’t the point, We have a Constitution that protects free expression even if we or others disapprove. This book burning is symbolic and anyone who uses it to justify violence on either side is responsible for their actions.
From your statement in this post i am glad that California voters rejected you as a candidate for public office.
Not every country protects all speech. Canada doesn’t protect hate speech/incitement and they have a pretty open and free society.
I think Canada has a good model for health care i don’t think a country that worships the queen of England is a role model for our Constitution.
As an appellate attorney who has fought for civil rights, I fully understand the constitution and case law on the subject, and I respect your comments. However, we have to seriously consider the consequences of inaction as well. My comments are made to open dialogue on the subject.
I believe i detect a hint of paternalisn in your statement,we have to consider the consequences of inaction. Who has the power to make decisions about this subject? We prols don’t have that power.
Burning books or flags are symbolic acts that harm no one. Violent acts are the responsibility of the people who commit them and are illegal.
Connecting these two allows people to avoid personal responsibility for their actions.
We have a President who is a Constitutional scholar and thinks it’s legal to murder Americans without due process. Where do we draw the next line through the Constitution to make us feel safer?
I just can’t seem to work up much outrage against two-bit book-burning clowns. A US president who signs off on incinerating huts full of Afghan farmers and their terrified children with drone strikes at 100K a pop, on the other hand…
They have free Speech yes but where is the Dem Leadership Free Speech to Denounce this? Where are Obama’s Stones? Did Candidate Obama loan them to the GOP after he became President?
Just call this jerk a small time hate monger looking for his 15 minutes of fame and some quick cash from other hate mongers.
Then close the interview with do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
Then ask if the Jerk has ever read the Bible?
“Not every country protects all speech.”
Once you determine that it is OK to place limits on our first amendment rights, someone must be empowered to make that determination. Who do YOU trust with that responsibility? The republicans, the democrats, some muddle of a bi-partisan committee or maybe some version of a FISA court? Maybe the Texas State School Board would work?
The biggest problem with censorship is choosing the censors.
Whatever problems exist in this country flow from the attitudes and prejucices of the citizenry not the foundational framework.