Pastor Jones and the Koran burning ! (Page 2)

hellbhoy: OK from what I've read we should just invade the middle east and burn the whole area with a few nukes to sanitize the situation ha ha.

Valid and good points on the American and Union Jack flag burning !.

Seems like we should just let Pastor Yosemite Sam Jones do what the hell he likes from now on.

If there were no excuses by the likes of Pastor Plot actions then there would be no reason for mad fanatics in the Middle East to have done what they did in the UN compound in retaliation of the Pastors actions and the blame could be firmly put on the trouble makers in the area.Meaning that the local law enforcement could deal with it as an internal affair and not the blame some loud mouthed jackass in the US feeding the fire of hatred and directly endangering American lives.

Malobear: Well said hellbhoy, The actions of a few in a part of the world affect the actions of others in another part of the world. It all has to do with respect,but in todays world there seems to be very little. No one lives in this world without sin,so no one can really point a finger at the other and forgiveness seems to have lost its meaning.

xanderiley: Aw, but when you're 'right' -- you don't have to forgive...*sighs*

apologosian: Terry Jones = the oil that bin-ladin need to be stronger.

StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"Seems like we should just let Pastor Yosemite Sam Jones do what the hell he likes from now on."

He should just have to follow the law like anyone else. If his behavior is within the law, he can do whatever he wants. But what he CAN or CAN'T do, and what he SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do, are two different things.

hellbhoy says:
"If there were no excuses by the likes of Pastor Plot actions then there would be no reason for mad fanatics in the Middle East to have done what they did in the UN compound in retaliation of the Pastors actions and the blame could be firmly put on the trouble makers in the area."

The First Amendment to our constitution guarantees Pastor Jones to express himself as he sees fit, including burning the Koran. That is his "excuse," as you put it. You seem to be suggesting that the single most important part of our constitution should be repealled because of some irresponsible Christian nutcase and a bunch of murderous religious zealots in Afghanistan. That's a terrible suggestion.

hellbhoy says:
"Meaning that the local law enforcement could deal with it as an internal affair and not the blame some loud mouthed jackass in the US feeding the fire of hatred and directly endangering American lives."

What does local law enforcement have to do with any of this? There were no laws broken. Your words "loud mouthed jackass in the US feeding the fire of hatred and directly endangering American lives" could equally have been applied to George Bush, when, during a speech, he challenged terrorists to "bring it on." Like Jones, that speech is legal.

You want to outlaw free speech for everyone because someone like Terry Jones or George Bush would carelessly and stupidly abuse it.

chronology: After his mock Trial of a Koran, and then burning it on a Barbecue Grill you would think Rev Jones hard put to upstage himself. But hold onto your hats Guys, the Rev has done just that; he is to march on the biggest Mosque in the United States and protest outside for some reason. American Muslims are unlikely to react in the same way as the uneducated third world Muslims who murdered U.N. Staff, but the situation will be tense to say the least. It is also unlikely Community Groups, and Public Organisations in the U.S. will be electing the Pastor as 'Model Citizen of the Year'.

Malobear: Like Westboro church the pastor has the right to do as he wishes within the law.Of course,muslums have the same rights. That's going to be explosive.

KrAsH: Someone in the u.s must be willing to spend a couple of dollars on ammo..

The recession cant be that bad can it?

hellbhoy: Sits says "hellbhoy says:
"If there were no excuses by the likes of Pastor Plot actions then there would be no reason for mad fanatics in the Middle East to have done what they did in the UN compound in retaliation of the Pastors actions and the blame could be firmly put on the trouble makers in the area."

Sits ,I was talking about the Afghani local law enforcement dealing with an internal affair with local rioters with no blame on anything from any American or Western influence dude other than they attacked a UN compound because they wanted to because of the UN being there or other.

Sits ,As for your first amendment will you be able to stand in front of Obama an say to him "Your nothing but a f%z^~yz half black,half Muslim bastard and bending over for the bankers and the rich and taking a fw%#xyz good arse shagging and stealing more taxes from me you c^yw" without any sort of law suit or any other lawful action ?.Incase you try and shoot me down with the swear words in Obama bit I may point out if you did say that to him that would be REAL freedom of speech baby.The American legal system has how many court cases a year about people being sued for slander for what they said and the gagging orders on whistle blowers.My point being there do you really have total freedom of speech really ?.
If Pastor Jones starts shouting "burn all Korans and death to all Muslims" outside a Mosque and gets the publicity and more deaths follow as in American troops or civilians or foreign innocent people then what ?.There is a line where to stop and is the Pastor starting to cross over it ?.

ANALOGY here Sits,,,,if you share a house with someone and they shout at all Muslim people passing by from a window with all manner of profanities about the Koran,would your safety feel threatened by their freedom of speech or would you just let them keep shouting and hope the building does not get mobbed ,attacked or your personal safety in general ?.Of course I wait for your response there in trying dismiss that as anal poppycock.

StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"Sits ,As for your first amendment will you be able to stand in front of Obama an say to him "Your nothing but a f*&^&^@ half black,half Muslim bastard and bending over for the bankers and the rich and taking a f@^xy~& good arse shagging and stealing more taxes from me you c&w^" without any sort of law suit or any other lawful action ?.Incase you try and shoot me down with the swear words in Obama bit I may point out if you did say that to him that would be REAL freedom of speech baby."

Yep. If I was so inclined, I could do that. Our constitution guarantees me that right. But let's attempt to put that in a real world context. The president has better things to do than talk to me. The only context where I can imagine being able to address him personally would be if I was attending some sort of public function where he was speaking. And if I stood up and yelled that, I'd be breaking the law, probably something like "Disturbing the peace." But if I printed up copies of your little speech, stood outside of the White House, and distributed them to passers by, or if I put that on a website, etc. no one could legally stop me.

(By the way, readers, Obama isn't a Muslim. He's a Christian.)

hellbhoy says:
"The American legal system has how many court cases a year about people being sued for slander for what they said"

That wouldn't fit the legal description of slander.

hellbhoy says:
"and the gagging orders on whistle blowers."

Again, that's legally a different situation entirely, one which is entirely too complex for me to address here in any intelligent way.

hellbhoy says:
"My point being there do you really have total freedom of speech really ?."

Of course not. "TOTAL" freedom of speech would include all sorts of things that no rational person would want society to tolerate. The obvious example is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. There are many others.

hellbhoy says:
"If Pastor Jones starts shouting 'burn all Korans and death to all Muslims' outside a Mosque and gets the publicity and more deaths follow as in American troops or civilians or foreign innocent people then what ?. There is a line where to stop and is the Pastor starting to cross over it ?."

So far, he's not done anything illegal. Reprehensible, yes. Illegal, no.

hellbhoy says:
"ANALOGY here Sits,,,,if you share a house with someone and they shout at all Muslim people passing by from a window with all manner of profanities about the Koran,would your safety feel threatened by their freedom of speech or would you just let them keep shouting and hope the building does not get mobbed ,attacked or your personal safety in general ?.Of course I wait for your response there in trying dismiss that as anal poppycock."

It's a dumb analogy that doesn't really address the issue. It may not be anal, but it's poppycock.

You're wanting him to be STOPPED. As long as what he does is within the law, he can't legally be stopped. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Outbackjack: Its unfortunate that a few extremists have murdered some U.N workers who had nothing to with this moron in the U.S.

But then its unfortunate that our armies are in Afghanistan in the first place and have murdered many innocent civilians.

If this pastor did this in Australia then he would be thrown in jail for inciting hatred.

And rightly so.

StuckInTheSixties: What if he did that in Australia, but no one was hurt? Throw him in jail?

What if he did something lesser than burning the Koran, for instance, he suggested that it SHOULD be burned, and the same thing happened. Throw him in jail?

What if he did something even lesser than that, such as saying that he thought Islam was not the word of God, and the same thing happened. Throw him in jail?

What if he just said he preferred Christianity over Islam, and the same thing happened. Throw him in jail?

What if he just said that he wasn't really sure about Islam, and the same thing happened. Throw him in jail?

How do you determine what is "inciting hatred," and what isn't? What if it's hateful to you, but not to me? What if it can't be determined if it actually incited hatred or not? What if one person says something, and it incites riots, but another person says the same thing, and no riots occur?

The variations on this theme are endless. They all have one thing in common:

They all can be argued to be the same remedy to the same problem. The logical end to that argument is that no one should be allowed to say anything, lest it be interpreted as "inciting hatred."

Outbackjack: You pose some very interesting questions here.

I believe because he incited hatred that led to the deaths of others then he has some liability.Obviously most of the blame lies with the murderers themselves.

An interesting example was one of the people who was arrested during the Iraq war protests.He was an aboriginal boy and he had burned the Australian flag.

Heres another example of a man going to jail here in Western Australia:

http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1150558&Replied=25

I know that this opens the usual conversation about free speech but tell me what you think of this:

A former nurse from Faribault, Minn., was convicted of two felonies Tuesday when a judge ruled he had used "repeated and relentless" tactics during Internet chats that coaxed two people to kill themselves.

Rice County District Judge Thomas Neuville found that William Melchert-Dinkel, 48, "imminently incited" the suicides of Mark Drybrough of Coventry, England, and Nadia Kajouji of Ottawa, Ontario. Drybrough, 32, hanged himself in 2005, and Kajouji, 18, jumped into a frozen river in 2008.

In a 42-page ruling that found Melchert-Dinkel guilty of two counts of felony advising and encouraging suicide, Neuville wrote that it was particularly disturbing that Melchert-Dinkel, posing as a young, suicidal, female nurse, tried to persuade the victims to hang themselves while he watched via webcam.

"Actually witnessing a victim's suicide could serve no purpose other than to satisfy Defendant's own morbid excitement of witnessing the death of another," the judge wrote.

Although the defense promises to appeal, the verdict was a key moment in a case that began three years ago, when a British woman alerted a Minnesota Internet crime task force to an "online predator" from Minnesota.

Melchert-Dinkel eventually lost his nursing license and was charged last April. He, the defense and prosecution agreed last month to submit written evidence and arguments to Neuville and ask him alone to decide guilt or innocence.

County Attorney Paul Beaumaster said during that process that although Melchert-Dinkel faced only two counts, he chatted online with 10 suicidal people, five of whom killed themselves.

Melchert-Dinkel's attorney, Terry Watkins, argued that his client's writings, while "despicable," didn't materially assist the suicides and constituted protected free speech.

Watkins on Tuesday called the verdict unprecedented nationally. He said that although he respects the judge's decision, it could threaten the "exchange of ideas between two private people who are both consenting adults. Depending on how far you pull that, it certainly could set a dangerous precedent."

Watkins said Melchert-Dinkel, who is not in custody, took the news "in stride" and is prepared to appeal.

Beaumaster said the verdict proves the state's assisted-suicide statutes work even when the suspect and victim are nations or oceans apart. The technology is different, but the principle is the same, he said.

"We don't want people preying on others in society that are despondent or have health issues and are suicidal," he said. "We don't want anyone encouraging them to follow through with a desire to end their life."

In a confession to police, Melchert-Dinkel acknowledged that what he did was wrong.

"I wanted to just ... be with them in their time of need. ..." he said, according to interview transcripts. "Just to be an advocate for someone who is all-along depressed, is at the end of their rope, wants to die and is going to do it come hell or high water."

Neuville, in rejecting the free-speech defense, noted that inciting people to commit suicide is considered "Lethal Advocacy," which isn't protected by the First Amendment because it goes against the government's compelling interest in protecting the lives of vulnerable citizens.

Outbackjack: If Melchert-Dinkel had written a political or religious opinion on suicide for public consumption, the law would allow him an "almost limitless opportunity to express his view," the judge wrote. Instead, he wrote, Melchert-Dinkel "focused his advice and encouragement on two vulnerable and depressed victims in a private setting."

Marc Kajouji of Toronto said the verdict represents justice for society more than for his sister, Nadia.

'It doesn't bring her back'

"People think they can go unpunished regardless of what they say over the Internet," he said. "This is a clear message that you can't encourage suicide. It's not going to be tolerated, and people will be punished.

"It's justice for her, I guess, but it doesn't bring her back. I'd trade it all just to say hello to her again and give her a hug."

Neuville scheduled Melchert-Dinkel's sentencing for May 4. Beaumaster said the conviction is an unranked offense in state sentencing guidelines, so it's too early to say what prison time, if any, Melchert-Dinkel may face.

The judge, in his order, marked in boldface Melchert-Dinkel's most incriminating statements, taken from transcripts preserved from the Internet chats.

In one exchange, Kajouji shared her despondency and laid out her upcoming plans to jump into the Rideau River. Melchert-Dinkel, posing as "Cami," feigned understanding.

"It feels good being able to be honest with someone," Kajouji wrote.

"Yes, and I'm honest with you," he responded.

StuckInTheSixties: Apples and oranges. Actually more like apples and sagebrush.

Victimizing someone until they commit suicide has virtually nothing in common with inciting a riot by burning a Qu'ran. They both involve somebody expressing something, but nothing else.

Outbackjack: I disagree.

They both involve incidents that could be interpreted as involuntary manslaughter (depending on the laws in the region).

I also posted the link which shows how a man was jailed in our state for inciting hatred(an example that you enquired about) that didnt really harm anyone.

So what do you think?
Do you believe the man who incited the suicides should have had his 1st amendment rights upheld?

StuckInTheSixties: I'd need far more details than what you've provided to say definitively, but even with that little bit, I'd say that it might be legally arguable that he crossed the line between expression and act.

Other than saying that they were "interesting questions," you didn't really respond to the essence of my argument. Speech of that manner is, by nature, ambiguous. It's not like a guy standing up in front of a crowd, and exhorting them, "Let's hang the bastard!" or "Let's burn that building down now!" How do you apply a vague standard like "inciting hatred" to all of those various shades of expression and behavior that could be argued to fit that description? That term, "incite hatred," is TOTALLY subjective, TOTALLY vague, TOTALLY ambiguous. Either of us could use that standard to endorse the other to being imprisoned for what we have posted in Forums, couldn't we?

Your standards appear to be based on the result, not on the cause. You seem to be saying that if someone says something, and harm results, it should be considered illegal and that person should be punished.

So with that phrase, "incite hatred," being so vague and non-specific, who gets to determine how it gets applied?

That Danish cartoonist that drew an image of Mohammed (or was it Allah? It doesn't matter ...) and was subsequently murdered by a Muslim extremist ... should he have been imprisoned?

Let's look at the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (and murder of six others):

The assassin, Jared Loughner, was reportedly influenced by conspiracist talk radio host Alex Jones' movie "Loose Change." If, when he gets to trial, Loughner cites that film in his defense, should Jones be imprisoned?

Answer me this:

If crowds of religious zealots riot and people are killed over something divulged by Wikileaks, will you demand the imprisonment of Julian Assange?

Can't you see how irrational this thought control shit is?

hellbhoy: Sits your completely missing the basis of the question,should something be done to at least silence him.The President himself and senior politicians have condemned his actions as well as all the Christian organizations.Your reply SO WHAT freedom of speech man !.

Try telling the Christian communities in the Middle East who have been burning effigies of the Pastor in response to his stupidity because they now fear for their lives and their families now.I'll bet they'd be very assured of your spammed responses on this thread that the Pastor can say what he likes as long as it's not directly affecting yourself !.Shows what type of person you are by blatantly disregarding human life by your argumentative rebuttals so you can proof a point.

Your posts saying he has not broken any laws yet is not the issue and I may add that he HAS broken or impeached a few laws of hate and racism but your loop holed judicial can manipulated around a few amendments can ensure he will not be jailed with expensively paid lawyers.

Regardless of whether these Muslims would have rioted and murdered even if the Pastor did not do and say what he did,the fact remains that he is fast becoming a threat to innocent civilians,armed forces and missionaries around the globe including people where you live.He knows what he is doing and has admitted that his actions HAVE gotten people murdered and will STILL continue his stupid crusade knowing he WILL cause more deaths of innocent people,thousands even ? .... this is the basis of this thread to help protect the lives of people outside the US as well as possible fanatics in the US murdering in response to the Pastors actions !.The American government have a political time bomb on their hands with the Pastor,they do not know how to deal with him.If they take action on him then there will be a public outcry of Christian victimization and riots and if they do not there WILL be more deaths on because they did not take action.

American values are supposed to better than those other countries and nations by showing compassion,tolerance and consideration to ALL others and leading by example like the UK's constitution as well.Western democracy and thinking is built on a better foundation than the Islamic revolution happening just now because your constitution was amended to keep politics and religion separate or we would have some sort of Holy war.

StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"Sits your completely missing the basis of the question,should something be done to at least silence him.The President himself and senior politicians have condemned his actions as well as all the Christian organizations.Your reply SO WHAT freedom of speech man !.

My reply is anything but "so what." Like any civilized country, Jones lives in a nation of laws. One of those laws guarantees him the right to burn a Koran. It's an important law. When our constitution was drafted, those that wrote it decided that there were certain rights that citizens should have that were so important that they should have their very own special section in the constitution. This is called the "Bill of Rights." The first one, number one in that list, the First Amendment, is the law that allows free expression. Either you don't understand that what Jones did was legal, or you think the law should be ignored. You say "something should be done to at least silence him." What would you want done?

hellbhoy says:
"Try telling the Christian communities in the Middle East who have been burning effigies of the Pastor in response to his stupidity because they now fear for their lives and their families now.I'll bet they'd be very assured of your spammed responses on this thread that the Pastor can say what he likes as long as it's not directly affecting yourself !.Shows what type of person you are by blatantly disregarding human life by your argumentative rebuttals so you can proof a point."

Don't misinterpret me. I'm not at all dismissing the RESULT of Jones' despicable actions. What he did was reprehensible, destructive, selfish, irresponsible, and just plain crazy. Again, we live in a nation of laws. The idea, the concept of our constitution, is the very foundation of our nation. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect that concept, those ideals. Weigh that against the crazy rantings and actions of a deranged Christian zealot. Making a cheap personal attack on my character doesn't change my mind, but it shows the bankruptcy of your argument.

hellbhoy says:
"Your posts saying he has not broken any laws yet is not the issue"

It is the issue whether you understand it or not.

StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"and I may add that he HAS broken or impeached a few laws of hate and racism"

What laws are you referring to? Laws you're just imagining? You're taking a personal preference in how people should behave (one I happen to agree with), and pretending that your preference is a matter of law. If so, cite those laws, please.

hellbhoy says:
"but your loop holed judicial can manipulated around a few amendments

Again, this is the First Amendment Jones is hiding behind. It's not just some "loop hole." It's the keystone of the entire constitution. It's the number one law, right at the top of the list. It was placed there because it's the law that is the most important.

hellbhoy says:
"can ensure he will not be jailed with expensively paid lawyers."

Hahaha! Jones is s little hick preacher in a dumpy little church with some 30 regular parishoners. Where is he going to get the money for the "expensively paid lawyers" you imagine him to have? You just don't get it. He doesn't need lawyers for protection. He has the First Amendment. He hasn't been arrested or sued. No injunctions have been place against him. No legal actions are pending against him. He is, however, having financial problems, and his church may get forclosed on because he can't pay his bills.

hellbhoy says:
"Regardless of whether these Muslims would have rioted and murdered even if the Pastor did not do and say what he did,the fact remains that he is fast becoming a threat to innocent civilians,armed forces and missionaries around the globe including people where you live."

True. But what would you do about it, besides jumping up and down, waving your arms around, and shouting that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!

hellbhoy says:
"He knows what he is doing and has admitted that his actions HAVE gotten people murdered and will STILL continue his stupid crusade knowing he WILL cause more deaths of innocent people,thousands even ?"

That is completely wrong. He has repeatedly disavowed any responsibility for his actions. Get your facts straight.

hellbhoy says:
"this is the basis of this thread to help protect the lives of people outside the US as well as possible fanatics in the US murdering in response to the Pastors actions !."

(laughs) Really?!? You think this thread will have any affect upon what is happening in the Middle East, or with Jones? Either you're having visions of grandeur, or Wireclub must be more popular than I thought ...

hellbhoy says:
"The American government have a political time bomb on their hands with the Pastor,they do not know how to deal with him.If they take action on him then there will be a public outcry of Christian victimization and riots and if they do not there WILL be more deaths on because they did not take action."

You're half right. Hypothetically, there would not be "a public outcry of Christian victimization and riots." Are you nuts? You really think anyone would riot in support of Jones? You're ranting now to such a degree that you apparently don't realize how loony you sound.

Unfortunately, you're probably right that more chaos will result from this before it's over. But keep in mind that this incident is being used as the excuse for this unrest by those that foment it. If it wasn't Jones burning a Koran, they'd find some other "reason" for it.

hellbhoy says:
"American values are supposed to better than those other countries and nations by showing compassion,tolerance and consideration to ALL others and leading by example like the UK's constitution as well.Western democracy and thinking is built on a better foundation than the Islamic revolution happening just now because your constitution was amended to keep politics and religion separate or we would have some sort of Holy war."

I have no idea what that incoherent rant is supposed to mean. It's too grammatically and conceptually fractured to make any sense.

Outbackjack: I have to actually agree with you in a sense 60s.Our racial vilification laws have been described as ambiguous in this state.

I do support them however.Heres a recent court case:

November 11 2010

Racial vilification laws have been criticised as "ambiguous" in a Supreme Court appeal case over a YouTube video titled Flubba Wubba Jubba Noongar which is testing whether the legislation shifts the burden of proof to an accused person.

Defence lawyer Tom Percy and prosecutor Sarah Linton described the WA laws as ambiguous and unclear at an appeal hearing this morning before Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall.

The DPP is challenging a Perth magistrate's decision to acquit filmmaker of a racial vilification charge over a You Tube video titled Flubba Wubba Jubba Noongar.

Simon Charles Barker was acquitted of aggravated conduct likely to cause racial harassment after a trial in the Perth Magistrate's Court in July.

The charge was based on a video which featured two men in afro wigs with blackened faces singing a rap song while drinking, being chased by police and selling stolen goods.

The video was removed from YouTube because it was deemed inappropriate.

At the trial before Magistrate Kevin Tavener, Mr Barker said he had made the video to lampoon the prejudices of urban white Australians and highlight the stereotypical views that he said most West Australians held against Aboriginal people.

Mr Tavener ruled that the prosecution needed to negate Mr Barker's defence to the charge after accepting that the video was an artistic work.

In the Supreme Court this morning, Ms Linton argued that Mr Tavener had erred because the legislation shifted the onus of proof to an accused.

She said Mr Barker had needed to prove his defence on the balance of probabilities.

But Mr Percy said any statutory ambiguity had to be interpreted in favour of an accused, the legislation was ambiguous and if Parliament had intended to shift the burden of legal proof it would have been expressly stated in the legislation.

Mr Percy said even if the Magistrate had erred in his assessment of the burden of proof, he had made positive findings about Mr Barker's evidence which suggested the outcome of the trial would not change.
Justice Stephen Hall reserved his decision.

December 8th 2010

A Perth filmmaker accused of a racial vilification because of his music video Flubba Bubba Wubba Jubba Noongar on YouTube had his controversial acquittal overturned yesterday.

Simon Charles Barker had argued that his rap video was an artistic work to lampoon stereotypical attitudes towards Aboriginals. But his acquittal sparked outrage among Aboriginals.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall ruled yesterday that Magistrate Kevin Tavener put the onus of proving the video was artistic or not on the prosecution, when it should have been on Mr Barker.
Mr Tavener must now re- examine the evidence in light of the appeal decision.

StuckInTheSixties: Jack, I studied and studied that story. For reasons I can't quite adequately explain, I found that the way the story was worded to be really confusing, and seemingly contradictory. I read it over several times. I even Googled up the original source (The West Australian) to be sure it was copied correctly.

So I'm going to try something here. I'm going to try to unravel it, and see if you think I understood it. I'm going to try to make a sort of list, sort of a timeline, in sequence, of what this story says happened, and see if you think that correctly interprets the story. Here goes:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

~ Simon Charles Barker made a controversial video called "Flubba Wubba Jubba Noongar."
~ Barker was criminally charged with either "racial vilification" or "aggravated conduct likely to cause racial harassment" (not sure which, or both, or if they are the same thing) by some government entity in West Australia. (I assume that government entity is the equivalent of what we would call a "district attorney." )
~ In court, Barker's defense attorney was Tom Percy.
~ In court, the prosecutor, speaking for West Australia against Barker, was Sarah Linton.
~ In court, the trial was heard by Magistrate Kevin Tavener.
~ In the trial, Magistrate Tavener “accepted” Barker's argument that the video was "an artistic work."

Here is where I get confused. If I understand correctly, the following statement describes something that happened in the trial I outlined above (my clarification is added in [brackets] ) :

"Mr Tavener ruled that the prosecution needed to negate [invalidate] Mr. Barker's defence to the charge after accepting that the video was an artistic work."

That statement seemingly makes no sense:

If the court "accepted" Barker's defense that the video was an artistic work, why would the court order the prosecution to "negate" it?

Also ...

One would think that if the court was ordering that particular defense to be "negated" (invalidated), the court would essentially be telling Barker that his defense was not a legally acceptable argument, and was thus invalid, essentially telling Barker, "Your defense is negated and can't be used. Come up with a different defense if you can." So why and how could the court be impose this upon the PROSECUTION? It makes no sense. I'm baffled.

Okay, I'll go back to that timeline thing:

~ As a result of whatever-the-f%&x happened there, Barker was acquitted. (It's unclear if Barker was acquitted on the basis of the law being "ambiguous and unclear," or on the basis of the argument that the burden of proof should be placed on the prosecution, not the defense.)
~ The "DPP" (whatever that is) challenged Magistrate Tavener's acquittal of Barker, and it was appealed (by someone or other) to a higher court: the Supreme Court.
~ The case was heard in Supreme Court before Justice Stephen Hall.

StuckInTheSixties: Again, here's something that leaves me baffled:

"Defence lawyer Tom Percy and prosecutor Sarah Linton described the WA laws as ambiguous and unclear at an appeal hearing this morning before Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall."

I can understand why the defense would make that argument. They would argue, "It's an ambiguous, unclear law, and it's unjust that someone could be convicted and punished under a law that is ambiguous and unclear." That would be a logical argument, and it would make sense for a defense to offer it to the court.

In a trial like this, one would assume that the setting is adversarial. Each side wants to win. However, the way the story is worded, it appears that the defense and prosecution BOTH sought a clarification on that law from the Supreme Court. So why, in this adversarial setting, would a defense lawyer and prosecuting lawyer both be in agreement that the law is ambiguous and unclear?

One would think that if the prosecution thought that the law was ambiguous and unclear, they would either find a different law to prosecute with, or they would drop the case.

One would also think that if the defense thought the law was ambiguous and unclear, they would seek a dismissal of the case, not a clarification of the law. Obviously, a dismissal is a dismissal, and the defendant goes free. Just as obviously, a clarification of the law might go against the defendant. So it makes no sense to me that the defense would seek clarification.

Okay, to continue the timeline thing:

~ In Supreme Court, Prosecutor Linton argued that Magistrate Tavener had previously erred because the wording of that law that Barker was charged upon placed the "onus [burden] of proof" on the accused – Barker.

Again, I'm confused. First the story said that the prosecution argued that the law was "ambiguous and unclear," but now, the story is saying that the prosecution argued that Magistrate Tavener made a legal error in his acquittal of Barker because since the "onus of proof" was on the defense, the defense should have had to prove innocence in order to gain acquittal. The story is contradicting itself with two completely different accounts of what the prosecution's argument before the Supreme Court consisted of.

Back to the timeline thing:

~ The defense argued that the law was ambiguous and unclear, and because of that, the court must rule in favor of the accused. The defense further argued that if Parliament intended for the burden of proof to be upon the accused, the law would have included specific language to express that.

StuckInTheSixties: Here's another slightly less confusing, but confusing nevertheless statement:

"[Defense attorney] Percy said even if the Magistrate had erred in his assessment of the burden of proof, he had made positive findings about Mr Barker's evidence which suggested the outcome of the trial would not change."

This is the first indication in the story that Magistrate Tavener acquitted Barker on the "burden of proof” issue, and it didn't help that it came way at the end of the story.

Back to the timeline thing:

~ The defense further argued that even if Magistrate Tavener had erred in his acquittal based on the burden of proof issue, his acquittal was nevertheless correct because he had made "positive findings about Barker's evidence that the outcome of the trial would not change." (I assume that refers to Magistrate Tavener finding that the video was "an artistic work," but since that reference came way at the beginning of the story, and this account of the defense argument comes way at the end, it's not really too clear on that account.)
~ The appeal hearing before Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall was concluded, and the various involved parties went on their way to await a decision.
~ Justice Stephen Hall rendered a ruling that the law that Barker was prosecuted under was worded in such a way that the burden of proof was on Barker - the accused, and not on the prosecution. The case will now return to the court of Magistrate Tavener, where he will have to decide it with the Supreme Court's ruling as a guideline. The burden of proof will now be on Barker - the accused.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That took a great deal of effort, but I want to make sure I fully, and correctly, comprehend what that story said. (Although terribly written, it’s an interesting story.) And my reaction basically boils down to two thoughts:

~ I strongly object to the idea that someone could be criminally prosecuted for the expression of an idea – in this case, the offensive video.
~ I strongly object to the idea that someone could be criminally prosecuted, and the burden of proof would be placed upon THEM, not on the state. That is absolutely MEDIEVAL. Frankly, I'm shocked that Australia would have laws that would permit a situation where a person is assumed to be guilty unless proven innocent. That's just plain f~@*zx up! That's jurisprudence from the dark ages.

Both of those things are completely contrary to my values, my concept of freedom, and the way I think a state should conduct itself. Both of those things are completely contrary to the Constitution of the USA.

hellbhoy: Sits your an argumentative idiot and like I posted earlier.Also I don't need you to copy huge paragraphs of my posts to appear like "LOOK PEEPS SEE HOW STUPID I MAKE THIS PERSON SEEM".Just type "Hellbhoy I don't agree because ......",I know what I typed and I'm sure people read the postings know what I typed as well.You took up sooooo much space when you could have used less space,but like I said you needed to prove you point to the whole world like you so much smarter than me.

Pastor Jones has admitted directly/indirectly his actions HAVE caused the deaths.
Quote from Jones "It was intended to stir the pot; if you don’t shake the boat, everyone will stay in their complacency".This is admissible in High court as probable cause as an act of racial incitement and can be used against him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article*******7/ Terry-Jones-Mohammed-trial-Koran-burning-sparks-2nd-day-violence.html

That is just one of many quotes he has said that could be used in a court of law as a KNOWING "premeditated" act that will lead to violence from a racial community spreading hatred like "I don't care if it causes violence".

He is a Pastor and has already broken his contract with GOD and JESUS,"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you".This quote says don't do anything you would not wish others to do to you,he wouldn't want the Muslims to burn the Bible but he burnt a Koran a direct violation of Christianity.
"Respect/love one another as a brother",he has broken another promise he made to GOD and JESUS.He should be thrown out of the church immediately.

My opinion here ! the pastor should have a gagging restraint to stop him from further attempts to cause public unrest.The tabloids and media should be asked/gagged not to publish any of the Pastors speeches or acts promoting his stupid crusade.He should be asked to publicly announce an apology to the Muslim nation and ask forgiveness for not practicing what he preaches according to the Bible.

I have relatives in the UK armed forces who have been or are ready to go into the Middle East conflict zones beside American troops.It is idiots like Pastor Jones who will cause more deaths or their deaths by adding to the anger of oppressed nations who produce oil for the west so people like Sits can have cheap fuel,electricity,better economy,cheap PC for spamming his philosophy on social sites and so forth.

SOOOOO yes I'd like the American government to take some sort of action on this fool so my family have a better chance of returning from a tour of duty in DANGEROUS places.If the American government are seen to be taking some sort of action this may have a small chance of a calming effect on fanatical nutters not killing non Muslims.

Afghanistan does not have huge oil resources but is very rich in mineral deposits and is the real reason why we are there.Fighting the Taliban my ass so Americans can feel safe from terrorism,there were never any attacks on the UK or the US before we decided to overthrow Saddam for control of cheaper oil and there's the truth.