Hey, It's His First Amendment Right...Right?

[nathanm]

It still doesn't bother me if I'm asked for identification.  I'm not a chronic law breaker so I really don't understand why law-abiding citizens and immigrants would really care.  

Far as I know every state requires you to be in possession of a driver's license at all times when operating a motor vehicle.  How do you feel about police sobriety check-points?  Drivers are all asked for identification and are often cited for offenses unrelated to drunk driving.

Uh, perhaps because, as our founding fathers believed, anonymity is a crucial part of freedom. Perhaps because I don't want to be taken to the police station just because I forgot my license when I go riding on my bike. Perhaps because I don't want to risk my license being stolen.

It's one thing to require one carry a driver's license when operating a motor vehicle. After all, your license is what gives you the privilege of operating said vehicle on the public streets. Last I checked, walking or riding a bicycle does not require a license.

As far as sobriety checkpoints go, I'm ambivalent towards them. I'd prefer they not exist, because the real drunks know where the cops set up shop, but there is some deterrence value in being so highly visible. The odd thing is that the Supreme Court allows them, yet does not allow checkpoints for other purposes, aside from a few limited circumstances.

Edited to add: What does bug me is passengers being required to identify themselves. They're not the ones driving, so it's not really anybody's business who they are.

[Conan71]

I believe the context of anonymity the founding father's advocated had to do with being able to practice free speech without repercussion in revolutionary times.

I do carry an ID with me at all times and especially when I'm on one of my bikes so I can be identified quickly in the event of an accident.  If I'm asked by an LEO to see my identification at random, I don't consider it a violation of my rights.  Who knows, random ID checks might well nab a guy who just broke into your car and stole your stereo or beat the smile out of you. 

In addition to sobriety checks, LEO's also set up seatbelt checkpoints or "safety" checkpoints to specifically catch things like no liability insurance, expired tags, open warrants, etc. 

I think it's interesting to note that as a small governent person, ID checks don't bother me and as someone I see as liking the concept of big government, you don't want them to have the ability to do so.

[nathanm]

I believe the context of anonymity the founding father's advocated had to do with being able to practice free speech without repercussion in revolutionary times.

I do carry an ID with me at all times and especially when I'm on one of my bikes so I can be identified quickly in the event of an accident.  If I'm asked by an LEO to see my identification at random, I don't consider it a violation of my rights.  Who knows, random ID checks might well nab a guy who just broke into your car and stole your stereo or beat the smile out of you. 

In addition to sobriety checks, LEO's also set up seatbelt checkpoints or "safety" checkpoints to specifically catch things like no liability insurance, expired tags, open warrants, etc. 

I think it's interesting to note that as a small governent person, ID checks don't bother me and as someone I see as liking the concept of big government, you don't want them to have the ability to do so.

I'm a fan of as small a government as works in a modern society. I think that these days, that includes providing equal access to necessities like health care for those who are left behind by our chosen economic system. It also includes infrastructure. I like to think of it as pragmatic libertarianism. I agree that it's an interesting difference. I have a problem with authoritarianism. I don't have a problem with government in general.

Regarding random ID checks catching criminals, that's just ridiculous. If they see someone matching the description of someone who committed a crime in the area where the crime was committed, it's perfectly reasonable to ask said person to identify themselves. It is not reasonable to stop everyone on a street and require them to produce ID when they aren't engaging in a specific investigation.

I also don't have a problem with police asking people in general to identify themselves. I do have a problem with them being legally required to do so absent reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. The police should have the freedom to ask and I should have the freedom to tell them no unless they can articulate a reason why I should be required to do so beyond "I want to know who you are." It's not a matter of them violating my rights by asking, it's a matter of my rights being violated by being forced to comply by the threat of fines or jail time.

Speaking of which, I need to check and see what Oklahoma law has to say on the matter. I do generally carry an ID, and I'm generally in a cooperative mood, but it would be nice to know what my rights are in this fine state.

[patric]

Regarding random ID checks catching criminals, that's just ridiculous. If they see someone matching the description of someone who committed a crime in the area where the crime was committed, it's perfectly reasonable to ask said person to identify themselves. It is not reasonable to stop everyone on a street and require them to produce ID when they aren't engaging in a specific investigation.

A street crimes cop once told me that, while the law says that it's "voluntary" for a person to comply with a random request for ID, anyone exercising their legal right to decline is told they will be arrested for public drunk (or something just as convenient).
He's now in a much greater position of authority in the department, so I would take that as the rule rather than the exception.

[we vs us]

It's kind of interesting that Interpol has issued a global terror alert in response to the Koran burning.

I wonder if they know something we don't. 

[Hoss]

And the AP gets it right

AP will not distribute photos of burning Qurans

[Conan71]

This guy is an assmonkey.  A good Lee Harvey to the head would help us all.

[Gaspar]

Only when interviewed on national TV? 

I'm having a hard time not likening this to the "Ground Zero Mosque".  While it's his right to do this and perfectly legal, it's very provocative and is flying against good taste and what is sensible.  Hell even the Vatican is chiming in saying this is a bad idea.  I think what pissed me off the most about this Jones character is even when asked about this putting more troops at danger, he basically said it's worth it.  I wonder if the God hates fags crowd will show up....

Oh, and this is what an asshat looks like:

Apparently the "link" may indeed exist in his mind.  This just in:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
Pastor Terry Jones said Thursday that he decided to cancel his protest because the leader of a planned Islamic Center near ground zero has agreed to move its controversial location. The agreement couldn't be immediately confirmed.

I didn't hear that they were moving the Mosque?  But if so, it seems like an equatable compromise.  One completely idiotic action for another.

I will defend anyone's right to burn a pile of Bibles, Qurans, or DVDs of Sex in The City.  While I only agree with the latter, freedom of speech must be allowed, especially when exercised by idiots. 

One of our greatest strengths is our ability to quickly identify and discount morons by their exercise of our first amendment.  Without it, we would still think Mel Gibson, Cheryl Crow, Chris Matthews, and Sean Hannity are intelligent people!

[Townsend]

The assmonkey believes Jesus is ok with extortion.

[Hoss]

Apparently the "link" may indeed exist in his mind.  This just in:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
Pastor Terry Jones said Thursday that he decided to cancel his protest because the leader of a planned Islamic Center near ground zero has agreed to move its controversial location. The agreement couldn't be immediately confirmed.

I didn't hear that they were moving the Mosque?  But if so, it seems like an equatable compromise.  One completely idiotic action for another.

I will defend anyone's right to burn a pile of Bibles, Qurans, or DVDs of Sex in The City.  While I only agree with the latter, freedom of speech must be allowed, especially when exercised by idiots. 

One of our greatest strengths is our ability to quickly identify and discount morons by their exercise of our first amendment.  Without it, we would still think Mel Gibson, Cheryl Crow, Chris Matthews, and Sean Hannity are intelligent people!

Wow, some of the comments on there made me feel like I was reading a TW article...

[Gaspar]

Not sure, but perhaps this was the deal?
Associated Press

Donald Trump is offering to buy out one of the major investors in the real estate partnership that controls the site near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center.

In a letter released Thursday by Mr. Trump's publicist, the real estate investor informed Hisham Elzanaty, a major investor in the Islamic center, known as Park51, that he would buy his stake in the Lower Manhattan building for 25% more than whatever he paid. Mr. Trump wrote that he's making the offer not because he thinks the location is spectacular but because it would end "a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation."

It's unclear whether Mr. Elzanaty, an Egyptian-born Long Island resident, has total control over the property, which is owned by an eight-member investment group managed by Soho Properties.

If so. . .Good for the Donald!  This thing has gone too far.

[we vs us]

I honestly think there's a snowball's chance in hell of this particular action getting Parc 51 to move.  Not to say that there's no chance of it moving at all, but this ain't the thing that will do it.

I'm actually quite happy with how this has progressed.  Crazy whackjob guy has been able to insist on his right to burn the holy book of his choice, while everyone from the President to the Pope to Interpol to Petraeus to anyone else remotely considered reasonable (and even those, ahem, on the threshold, like Palin) have been able to ask him in varying tones of politeness to stand down.  All the while his freedom to say and do the despicable have remained intact.

It's been an excellent opportunity for civil society to prove itself civil.  The question will be whether radical Muslim terror cells the world round will laugh it off or not. 

[nathanm]

What would be a shame is if the jagoff burns the Korans and Park51 ends up moving. While we all know it wouldn't be about religious freedom only applying to one set of people, the rest of the world might not see it that way.

Also interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/08/imam.lkl/index.html

[Hawkins]

He has the right to be a dick under the First Amendment just as Fr@d Ph@lps has the same right.  But there's another concern here.

The local fire department denied him a burn permit, and to my way of thinking, that would abridge his First Amendment rights.

The local police department plans to do a documents check on anyone approaching the church, which is located at the end of a single street and it's the only way in or out.  "Papers, please" is - or should be - anathema to Americans.

The news this morning reported the FBI had stopped in and visited his church. This made think of the above-mentioned "harassment."

The local community/and federal government is probably going to treat him like the jerk he is, and that is how it goes.

Its like when you get pulled over by a police officer. You can be polite, professional, and maybe get a ticket or a warning. Or you can go all crazy on him, and end up with your car impounded and a court date.

This guy is upsetting the United States government's HUGE investment in nation building in the middle-east (and risking the lives of our soldiers) with this stupid idea of burning a Koran. The U.S. government therefore, will respond in kind, and so will the local community.

The IRS and everyone else will come knocking on this guy's door now, and I am fine with this.

[Ed W]

I'm actually quite happy with how this has progressed.  Crazy whackjob guy has been able to insist on his right to burn the holy book of his choice, while everyone from the President to the Pope to Interpol to Petraeus to anyone else remotely considered reasonable (and even those, ahem, on the threshold, like Palin) have been able to ask him in varying tones of politeness to stand down.  All the while his freedom to say and do the despicable have remained intact.

This is getting weird.  In the last hour, the Florida preacher said he had a deal with the Imam in NYC regarding moving the mosque, therefore in line with God's will, they were suspending (or canceling - depending on the news source) the Koran burning.  Then the Imam said, no, we didn't make a deal.  

But what I don't get is whether God changed His mind or He was against the Koran burning all along.  If the latter, then the preacher was going against God's will.  But if God did indeed change His mind, does that mean He responds to public opinion?

There's more to write on identifying oneself to a police officer, but perhaps that should be a separate thread.