Think before you act

The Muslim world is reacting with anger and violence over the burning of the Quran by a small Florida church. Recent protests in Afghanistan left 20 dead, hundreds injured and thousands protesting and rioting.
The Taliban claimed Western countries excused this action in defense of “freedom of speech,” while Afghans “cannot accept this un-Islamic act.” NATO officials, meanwhile, have reiterated their condemnation of the Quran burning.
According to reports, about 30 people attended the “mock trial” for the Quran outside the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL on March 20. Pastor Terry Jones is quoted as saying, “We had a court process. We tried to set it up as fair as possible, which you can imagine, of course, is very difficult.” And after six hours of deliberating by the 12-person jury, the verdict was delivered. This followed the church’s much-publicized threats last 9-11 to burn copies of the Quran in protest of plans to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero.
According to USA Today, Jones said that burning the book was chosen over shredding, drowning or facing a firing squad by a vote tallied on the organization’s Facebook page.
How democratic.
The end result: innocent people dead (including several UN employees), arrests, injuries and violence. And more venom directed at the United States.
But the big question remains. Is this free speech or incendiary action? And if it’s protected speech, is that blanket authority to say it, or in this case, do it? Does the fact it’s protected make it the right thing to do?
Columnist Rick Sanchez offers General David Petraeus’ view that there was nothing brave about burning the Quran over here when US troops will suffer the consequences over there. Add to that some innocent UN employees and others as well – 20 and counting.
Just because the First Amendment guarantees a right to freedom of speech isn’t carte blanche to act before we think. Years ago the U.S. Supreme Court established that prohibited speech must present a “clear and present danger that [the words] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” And Congress has the right to outlaw certain forms of conduct that are harmful to the nation. But in 1927 Justice Louis Brandeis opined that to find that “clear and present danger” the speech must be shown “either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated….” Pastor Jones’ actions didn’t openly advocate violence. But serious violence was certainly highly probable.
Still, this is not to excuse the acts of violence perpetrated by offended Muslims on Afghans, UN workers, and, potentially, US troops. But sometimes making a statement just because one can is foolhardy, dangerous and counterproductive. Several have died already because of this action, which has thrown more gasoline on what is already a burning hatred.
Under the First Amendment, Pastor Jones had the right to do what he did.
Now he should explain that to the families of the dead.