Home > Florida Death Records > Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?

Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?

This looks a lot like a slow motion disaster in the making.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is at the center of the Koran uproar, has so far resisted calls to cancel the bonfire.

President Obama and Eric Holder feel that there’s absolutely nothing they can do, apart from giving speeches, of course.

They have mis-interpreted the First Amendment, contrary to 230 years of US law, which is available in all law libraries. They feel that the First Amendment gives everybody an absolute right to say anything they want any time they want anywhere they want. They have decided to utterly disregard hundreds of Supreme Court cases that say that freedom of speech is limited (like every other right in the Bill of Rights).

One man’s right to free speech ends when that speech is highly likely to cause death or great bodilty harm to another person. Gen. Petraeus is on record in sworn testimony before the Congress that death or great bodily harm is the likely consequence of Terri Jones proposed speech act.

And yet the spineless, wormlike, Jellywaggle Blancmange Obamination — who has never seen any evil anywhere that he was willing to stand up to, says that he and Eric Holder’s hand are tied, there’s not a thing they can do — no injunction — no restraining order — not a thing — they are helpless.

Does that mean that every tort lawyer in the world is also helpless — and will be completely passive and inert if Terri Jones does his act and harm actually ensues.

See, then it’s not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment is about prior restraint by the Federal government, not about tort suits brought after harm has been done by private tort lawyers.

Terri Jones and his Church and possibly his congregation members who participate in his act might very well be liable in civil law for all deaths and injuries that occur as proximate results of the proposed Koran burning. If a jury is satisfied that act A caused result B, and that result B was a clearly foreseeable consequence of act A, and that harm was done, then liability can be imposed as a matter of civil law. It’s called a mass tort — where a lot of people are hurt from a single act done by a single party — Terri Jones and his Church.

I think there’s also a case for damages based on the costs of increased security precautions that had to be put in place as a proximate result of the conduct of Terri Jones. So it’s like the Balloon Boy situation. One person causes a costly mass alarm that imposes otherwise unecessary costs on officials and law enforcement and security professionals.

Between these two torts Terri Jones will be out of business.

I think there’s also a Federal law that prevents malfeasors from profiting from book deals they make based on their bad acts. There may be a Florida law as well.

The fact that the President is a Jellywaggle Blancmange does not mean that Terri Jones is completely beyond the reach of American and world justice.

If the bad act is done the bad Karma will come to Terri Jones. I speak as a former member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now retired).

We are not helpless.

We are not spineless.

When we see evil, we do something about it.
To the many out there who simply have no idea what the First Amendment protects, I have this question:

If Terri Jones shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there was no fire, would his speech be protected by the First Amendment in your opinion?

Do you feel that the Supreme Court of the United States, in 100 opinions dating back 70 years, might possibly know more about the First Amendment, and what it protects, than you do based on Civics 101 that you slept through in High School?


And naturally you would have the same opinion about the Ground Zero mosque, right?

If they started building and violence erupted, you would hold the mosque builders liable?

  1. Uncle Pennybags
    March 30th, 2011 at 14:13 | #1

    And naturally you would have the same opinion about the Ground Zero mosque, right?

    If they started building and violence erupted, you would hold the mosque builders liable?
    References :

  2. How_Would_I_Know
    March 30th, 2011 at 14:46 | #2

    Are you sure you want that? Better think this through..

    You are here voicing your support for a book which calls for the genocide of billions of people. The followers of this book will kill millions of people every year while following what this book teaches.

    Do you really want to be liable for the bloodlust you’re here supporting?
    References :

  3. Jynn Jynn
    March 30th, 2011 at 15:08 | #3

    Here’s the deal the people who will be violent have a choice: they can either be violent in retaliation or be sensitive and tolerant. This is the CHURCHES opinion and in this case their expression of what they feel is right. What these people at Dove Outreach feel they want to do to express their opinion is burn the Koran in opposition to radical Islam. When I seen radical Muslims on t.v. burning the Holy Bibles and American Flags I was enraged but I was also told to be sensitive to their needs- to let them express how they felt about our western culture and they need to do the same. Whats good for one is good for all. We are all responsible for our own actions and will be held accountable. So it they want to retaliate let them it will only hurt their cause.
    References :

  1. No trackbacks yet.