Chris Coons questions your Free Speech right to Burn Quran- Delaware Senate Debate

Chris Coons, Delaware Senate Debate, Christine O’Donnell, Delaware Senate Race, Islam, Burning Quran, Free Speech, Religious Freedom

Chris Coons showed his true Statist self in a brief exchange during the Delaware Senate Debate with Christine O’Donnell.  The exchange revolved around the Florida Pastor who burned the Quran.  The question was whether he had a right to burn the Quran.  Here is his response:

Chris Coons calls into question the Florida Pastor’s right to set the Quran on fire:

Chris Coons- It is an important challenge, a key role of the United States Supreme Court to continue to draw the line in the First Amendment between those who would do the equivalent of calling fire in a crowded theater, who would be inciting to attack and riot, such as Osama bin Laden has in some extremist and hateful writings, and those who have scripture, religious traditions that are deserving and worthy of broad support.

Those are difficult lines to police.  And that’s a central role that the Supreme Court plays in our democracy.

Christine O’Donnell agreed with the principles of free speech and speech that crossed the line, but assigned the right to decide nuanced issues of free speech to the local level:

O’DONNELL:  Well, I would agree.  The Supreme Court has said that there are restrictions on our First Amendment rights.  Again, you know, you can’t, as you said, go into a crowded theater and yell fire.  You can’t stand up on a plane and yell hijack.  You can’t slander and libel someone.

However, where the question has come between what is protected free speech and what is not protected free speech, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the community, the local community has the right to decide.

We at The Freedomist make no bones about the fact that we endorse Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware Senate Race, the most important race in this year’s midterm elections.  But we must disagree with Christine O’Donnell on this point.  To imply in any way, shape, or form that the Florida Pastor could be prevented, at any level, from burning the Quran because Muslim extremists might do what they are already doing, kill American soldiers and anyone else they can get within the range of their suicide bombs, is to back down in the face of political correctness.

However, while we may disagree with Christine O’Donnell in a nuanced way, we completely oppose Chris Coons’ take, that somehow the Supreme Court might actually be able to prevent a Pastor from burning a Quran on the grounds that it might incite violence.  Painting a picture of Allah might trigger violence as well, should that be construed as speech not protected by the Constitution?  While Christine O’Donnell may have blinked in the face of political correctness, Chris Coons just wrapped himself around it as a weapon to blunt the freedoms of Americans under the name of ‘tolerance’.

To be sure, the act of burning the Quran we at The Freedomist do not in any way endorse or approve of.  It is simply in bad taste, nor does it represent the principles of Christ (do not meet evil with evil).  Be that as it may, we support the Pastor’s Constitutional, God-Given right to be an idiot.

Here is the entire exchange:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  In light of the events in the past decade, Islam has been viewed as a religion for extremists and terrorists, where Muslims, including myself, can attest that Islam is far from that.  Now recently there has been much controversy over the mosque being built in the vicinity of ground zero and also the Florida pastor making outrageous remarks about the Koran.  Now my question to you is, as senator, where is the line between the freedom of speech and the respect of other religions?  Both of which freedoms are found in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER:  Mr. Coons.

COONS:  That’s a great question-and a difficult one.  The Florida pastor who caused a lot of outrage by threatening to burn the Koran showed a profound misunderstand of the difference between the Islamic terrorists, the extremists who genuinely attack America, and, I think, deserve our condemnation and the vast majority of Muslims who participate in a religion whose fundamental principle is a commitment to peace and embracing the rest of humanity.  If that Florida pastor wanted to make the right point, he should have threatened to burn the readings and the teachings of Osama bin Laden, or of other folks who are a part of the Islamist extremist groups.

It is an important challenge, a key role of the United States Supreme Court to continue to draw the line in the First Amendment between those who would do the equivalent of calling fire in a crowded theater, who would be inciting to attack and riot, such as Osama bin Laden has in some extremist and hateful writings, and those who have scripture, religious traditions that are deserving and worthy of broad support.

Those are difficult lines to police.  And that’s a central role that the Supreme Court plays in our democracy.

O’DONNELL:  Well, I would agree.  The Supreme Court has said that there are restrictions on our First Amendment rights.  Again, you know, you can’t, as you said, go into a crowded theater and yell fire.  You can’t stand up on a plane and yell hijack.  You can’t slander and libel someone.

However, where the question has come between what is protected free speech and what is not protected free speech, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the community, the local community has the right to decide.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/christine-odonnell-chris-coons-debate.html