This is the correct blog post for this week; I will not be changing it.
After reading the two articles below, answer the following question: What decision should the judge make in this case?
Pre-reading information:
- "Standing" is an important concept in this case. The idea is that only people who have been wronged can file a lawsuit. In other words, if you caused harm to my friend, I can't sue you, but my friend can, because he has "standing" in the case. One question is, does the former firefighter have standing in this case? Should he even be able to file the lawuit?
- The judge in this case, New York State Supreme Court Justice Paul Feinman, is the brother of SVMS grade 6 teacher Mrs. Beilinson!
Article #1: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/16/Ex-firefighter-sues-to-stop-mosque/UPI-94371300284799/
Article #2: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/nyregion/16mosque.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
57 comments:
I don’t know what to think the judge should do. If one thing goes wrong then that could mean a kind of war would commence. Personally I think that there has been too much violence lately. Please just find a peaceful way to figure this out. There could I don’t know start a war in New York. Just cause the people in charge of Park 51 got sued.
I think that the judge should not rule in favor of the ex-firefighter. I believe that the firefighter, Timothy Brown, should not even be able to sue. He was not harmed by the mosque planners or by the 9/11 attacks. Someone who was harmed in the attacks would be able to sue because they have “standing.” Also, the creators have the right to free expression of religion. Like the creator of the mosque said, “We’re going to protect freedom of religion and our First Amendment. Anyone has the right to pray where they want.” Mr. Brown cannot take this right away. This reminds me of one of our previous blogs about Pastor Phelps and his church group. They were protesting homosexual soldiers’ funerals. The families wanted to sue, but they could not take away the group’s right to free expression. This is like Timothy Brown because he is suing the creators, but he can never take away their right to religion.
What decision should the judge make in this case?
I think the judge should not rule in favor of Timothy Brown, the fireman. I think this because he was not even hurt in the 9/11 attack. He does not have the right to sue. Did the fireman break his leg, arm, or collar bone? No he did not, not a single bone in his body was injured. I can't even believe that he had the thought of being able to sue NYC. As Sarah said, If some one who got injured would be able to sue, because they have "Standing."
A connection I have to this is about my dad when someone crashed into him in his car. He tried to sue him but he couldn't because the person who crashed into his car did not have any money. This is related to the fireman trying to sue them because in both situations a person tried or is trying to sue someone else.
No the judge should not do it since I think the law suit is false. I think they can find a peaceful way to figure this out. We cannot have more violence since we already have a lot going on right now. I agree with Nick when he says this could lead to more trouble in New York. Also I agree with Molly when she said “did the fireman break his leg, arm, or collar bone?” Not a single bone in his body was injured by the owners of the property. I believe that he had the thought of suing NYC really just to prevent the Mosque from being built, not because of the historical building. Although I personally think that building the Mosque so close to ground zero is disrespectful. If the city has said they can then they do have the right to build it
The decision that I think Justice Feinman should make in the case of Timothy Brown vs. New York City is that the landmark commission did the right thing in the first place and the judge should rule not in favor of Brown. In the first article it said, “At a hearing Tuesday before Justice Paul G. Feinman, lawyers for the city charged Brown lacked special standing to question the decision since he does not live near ground zero.” The former fireman shouldn’t even be able to file this lawsuit because he was never wronged (he doesn’t have standing in this case). Even though, Brown had a presence at the World Trade Center on 9/11, when he joined in the rescue and recovery effort, it didn’t give him a special interest in the matter. “The judge suggested that by that logic, every police officer and firefighter who worked that day would have the right to intercede in every development project near ground zero (if Timothy Brown was able to file this “standing” lawsuit).” I also think that the judge should take into consideration that it is un-American to limit a group of its rights. As an independent, free country, we must protect freedom of religion and the First Amendment. Brown certainly should not be able to take this away from anyone in this nation. This reminds me of the law day essay (should students be suspended or expelled from school for comments or threats they make towards a teacher or school on Facebook?) because in it I said that,” Some would argue that the First Amendment protects one’s “freedom of speech,” and people should be able to say what they want vocally or in writing – through print or electronic media. While Americans possess the right to speak their minds, some go too far and wind up infringing on the safety and peace of mind of others.” These two topics are similar because they have to do with people’s opinions and the First Amendment. This is why I think that the judge should not rule in Timothy Brown’s favor.
I think that the judge shouldn’t rule in favor of the fire fighter. I think this because of how he shouldn’t be suing the mosque planners. He shouldn’t sue the mosque planners because the planners have a right to build there. The firefighter doesn’t have much of an argument against them. I also think that he shouldn’t be sued because he wasn’t hurt in the attack. If he wasn’t hurt in the attack, then he shouldn’t have the right to sue. He can never take away their rights. This connects to when someone crashed into my mom’s car in the winter. The person tried to sue, but they were the ones who crashed into my mom, and they were the ones that weren’t driving at a safe distance away.
I think the judge should rule that Timothy Brown does not have ‘standing’ in this case. I think this because as the judge said, “by that logic, every police officer and firefighter who worked that day would have the right to intercede in every development project near ground zero. Although Timothy Brown was not injured physically during the 9/11 attacks, he probably is emotionally injured from being there at the rescue and recovering all those dead bodies and knowing many firefighter friends that died. He has strong feelings on this but he will have to join the other protesters against the mosque by other means like demonstrating with signs.
I agree with Daniel G. that it is disrespectful to build this Islamic mosque at this site. I think they should find another location to keep peace and end all this fighting. Since they are having trouble coming up with the money, maybe they can find a cheaper site. This reminds me of when we were discussing the First Amendment in class. At the end of the article he says, “We’re going to protect freedom of religion and our First Amendment. “Anyone has the right to pray where they want.” I don’t agree with this because you can’t really pray anywhere you want, for example in school you can’t.
I think that the firefighter should have the right to sue because he was one of the men who fought the blaze and tried to save people. The 9-11 attack was an act of terrorism against America. He has standing because he was personally a part of the firefighters who fought the fire on 9-11. If he thinks that building a mosque is wrong he has the right to file a lawsuit. That day changed the lives of every rescue worker that came to that scene, every family that lost someone, every person who lived through the attack, and every American.
Knowing that the firefighter was one of the fighters at 9/11 i think he has the right to sue the builders of the mosque. I think he also has the right to sue the city becuase they are letting them build their mosque where not more than five blocks away was held a terrorist attack on the world trade center. He is standing. Hes standing for his city and his family and for the dead firefighters of semptmeber 11, 2001. He has been wronged. He should be able to file a lawsiut without a question. He does have standing.
I believe the judge should rule in the favor of New York. The man Timothy Brown was a survivor of the attacks of 9/11, but he was never even injured. He believed that he could sue and have a better trial because people will know that he was at the twin towers on the tradgic day of September 11th, 2001. In this case Timothy Brown believed that the the city of New York was falsly influenced because of the mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. He was pro mosque because he believed that everyone has equal rigjhts which they do, but Timothy Brown is trying to take away the naturaal rights of the islamic people by trying to take away a holy place. I think that everyone deserves a second chance. This man is trying to take away rights given to them. The only reason he is doing this because he believs that all muslims and islams are bad which is false. They did not attack the twin towers the people of the terrorist group. Not the people worshiping their god. Sure there are bad people everywhere but we can not judge people on what their countries past had brought them. This is why I believe the judge should rule in favor of New York.
Knowing that the firefighter was one of the fighters at 9/11 I think he has the right to sue the builders of the mosque. I think he also has the right to sue the city because they are letting them build their mosque where not more than five blocks away was held a terrorist attack on the world trade center. He is standing. He’s standing for his city and his family and for the dead firefighters of September 11, 2001. He has been wronged. He should be able to file a lawsuit without a question. He does have standing. I do think that the building is historic and should be able to change because obviously the people of New York City do not want the mosque to be called a mosque. They want it to be changed but I don’t make the vote it’s all up to the judge and my it’s my opinion.
In my opinion, the judge should not go in favor of Timothy Brown. I think this because if he is able to sue, then he is going against the right to religion. Also he has no official "standing". He was not physically harmed by the Park 51 Initiative so therefor, he should not be able to sue. This reminds me of the socratic circle we did on the Park 51 Initiative. We had to decide wether or not the mosque/community center should be built. It was a very hard decision because it infringes on the right to free religion. In this situation, if Timothy sues, he is taking away the right to a religion.
I think that the judge should not be in favor of Tim Brown. If they let this one person who lives nowhere near the 9/11 crash site have say in this, than they will have to let all of the firefighters and policemen who worked that day have a say in this matter. If they do that than the answer would most likely be against Park 51. Also it would not be very productive if have all the firefighters and policemen have a say on all the building going up around Ground Zero Mr. Brown says that Park 51 is a historical building because some of the bits of the planes fell on the building site. I figure to make the building historic someone that died due to the bits of plane. The building had nothing to do with 9/11, except or having some plane parts fall on it. I figure the judge should vote in favor of Park 51.
What decision should the judge make in this case? I think the judge’s decision should not be for the former fireman to sue to stop the construction. I say this because the fireman does not have “standing” in this argument. The former fireman was at the scene of Ground Zero of September 11th, 2001 but he was not injured in anyway. He did not break a bone or got bruised. If he was a victim of 9/11 then it would be different story. A connection I have is about is when my aunt fell in a parking lot at a super market and she broke a bone and she wanted to sue. But she was unable to due to some sort of reason. This reminds me of how Brown is mostly unable to sue.
I think the judge shouldn’t do it because the lawsuit is false. I think they can try to find another way to be peaceful to figure this situation. If we have more violence it will make it worse to figure all this out another way without fighting. Another thing is that what Ray said “That the judge shouldn’t rule in favor of the fire fighter.” which they shouldn’t be doing any of these bad things. Because there must be another way than this.
What decison should the judge make in this case? The firefighter shouldn't have the right to sue. He wasn't actually harmed by what happened at Park 51. I also agree with Nick and how he said that then they would have to listen to every firefighter or police officer that was there. Of course he can't sue NYC, that is outrageous. Then anyone could be able to, and where would that leave us? My connection is that when my mom was at a stoplight someone crashed into her car. The people who crashed into her didn't have insurence and their car was stolen. She had no way of suing them, and the police had no way of finding the information for the people. This is related because in both situations they want to sue someone or something, but they really aren't able to.
I think that the judge should not allow Tim Brown to sue. I feel that yes, it must be upsetting to the former fireman but I don’t think this is a strong enough case! I think that Tim Brown trying to take action this late is almost insane! The Constitution protects our rights and freedom of religion is included. Trying to yet again stop the mosque is taking away Muslims right to freedom of religion. The way people have treated Muslims after 9/11 is awful. Muslims were killed that day and also lost people that they loved. People should just put their hatred behind them. The discrimination is very similar to something’s that happened in World War II. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the Japanese were discriminated against. Yet again it was not the Japanese-Americans fault. Nor is 9/11 Muslim-Americans fault. I think the discrimination has to stop. I also think the first step towards that is allowing the mosque to be built.
I think the decision that the judge should make in this case is letting the building be built. I think that because this is one fire fighter from 9/11 suing,not a group of them. Also,like Molly said, "Did the fireman break his leg, arm, or collar bone?" No, he didn't, also the fire fighter doesn't have standing. It wouldn't be fair if the judge didn't let the building be built because of an unfair lawsuit. Just like when we first learned about this problem the first amendment has a huge role. As a judge you have to judge using the rules in the Constitution. So if this Park51 is not built then the right of freedom of religion is taken away from Islamic people. Lastly, in the article it says Mayor Bloomberg approves of the idea, so if he is okay with it then others really should be too.
A connection I can make to this is to a movie I saw called Grown Ups. In the movie Eric's neighbor filed a complaint about Eric's dog. He wanted the dog to be killed because it was always barking. The dog had to either be put down or have it's larynx removed. Dogs have freedoms in the first amendment too just like humans. These stories connect because in each someone filed a complaint and the judge had to consider the first amendment because limiting a person or dog's right of free speech or religion would be unfair.
I think the Ex-Firefighter,Tim Brown, shouldn't be able to sue. I agree with Maddy when she said "I don't think this is a strong enough case." I say this because this Mosque argument started awhile ago and now he trys to sue? Personally in my opinion, I don't think the Mosque is that close to Ground Zero. Also if he sues, he is going against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the freedom of speech and religion. He also wasn't even hurt in the 9/11 attacks.This is why I think Tim Brown shouldn't sue.
I think the Ex-Firefighter,Tim Brown, shouldn't be able to sue. I agree with Maddy when she said "I don't think this is a strong enough case." I say this because this Mosque argument started awhile ago and now he trys to sue? Personally in my opinion, I don't think the Mosque is that close to Ground Zero. Also if he sues, he is going against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the freedom of speech and religion. He also wasn't even hurt in the 9/11 attacks.This is why I think Tim Brown shouldn't sue.
I think that Timothy Brown has absolutely no standing on the subject. He does not live near ground zero and he is suing for something that he believes is wrong. Even if Brown had gotten injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he still would have no standing in his arguments because he would be suing the wrong people. Not all Muslims are terrorists and I think that Brown is suggesting the opposite. I don't think that he should be allowed to file the lawsuit. In this case, I think that the judge will decide that Browns case is nonsense. At least this is what he should do, since all religions have the constitutional right to pray wherever they please. This reminds me of a common scenario of someone getting into a car crash with a drunk driver and their parents suing because the parents (Timothy Brown in this case) have no standing.
I think that the judge should decide to just not let them build the mosque 2 blocks away from the 9/11 sight. I think this because it’s not fair to the people of New York who went through the tragedy and suffered from losing a family member or close friend. Also the mosque if for Muslims, and weren’t the people who took over the plane and crashed it into the twin towers Muslims doing this for Islam? Yes, I believe that not all Muslims would have done this but look how much trouble they have caused us. They might all seem like good people but in the end they could be deciding to plan another attach on us again. In the article, in the 8th paragraph it says, “Many of those who oppose Park51 object to the building of an Islamic center so close to the place where thousands of people fell victim to terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam.” And now they are building a mosque for them even though they destroyed a valuable building of ours. Another reason why the judge should decide to stop the building of the mosque is because look what this has created. Now people are going against most civilian Muslims and killing them and they might not have been a terrorist, they could have been very nice people. This is causing more separation between us and could become something bigger. I think that the former firefighter does have standing in this case because he has witnessed people dying and the attack and he has helped people and save their lives. I think that he has every right to say his feelings and step up and say something, and so do others who were at the scene of 9/11. Also he has a right to file a lawsuit because in the first article from upi.com said in the second to last paragraph that the former firefighter took part in a rescue effort following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack that destroyed the world trade center. So this shows that something had happened to him and maybe one of his family members or friend was there at the attack so I think that he could file a lawsuit. That is why I think that the former fire fighter can file a lawsuit, if he has a standing, and what decision I think the judge should make.
I think the judge should not rule against Tim Brown. Although he rescued and helped many victims, in the 9/11 tragedy, he does not have true standing in this law suit. He does not live in the area, and prior to the tragedy he had nothing to do with the historical site. It seems from the articles that his main reason for suing the landmark commission is based on the prejudist of the Islamic people. He called them un- American. If a Christian church was planned to be built there, then he would probably not sue the commission. The first amendment allows us to practice any religion, not just the popular ones. I agree with Maddy that trying to yet again stop the mosque is taking away Muslims right to freedom of religion and the way people have treated Muslims after 9/11 is awful.
I think that the firefighter should have the right to sue. I say this because ground zero is pretty much a historic land mark to New York City and all of the United States. Also if the mosque is being built 2 blocks from ground zero its only adding insult to injury because the mosque is symbolizing the Muslim way, and the men who flew into the World Trade Center were Muslim. I could see why the ex-fireman wants to sue. If I were that judge i would totally be on the ex-fireman's side because he was at the site when the the planes flew into the buildings. Another reason why the judge should decide to stop the building of the mosque is because look what this has created. It is causing more separation between us and could become something worse than just arguments. . I think that he has every right to say his feelings and step up and say something, and so do others who were at the scene of 9/11. Also he has a right to file a lawsuit. That's why the ex-fireman should have the rite to sue, and the judge i think should allow it.
I think that the judge should not rule in favor if Tim Brown. I think this because the firefighter didn’t get hurt. This man was just “Standing” there, he really had nothing to do with it. And the news about the mosque being built was a while ago, and no he says that he will sue. He is kind of late. As Ray said, he doesn’t have much argument against them. They never did anything to him personally, so he really has nothing to say. My connection to this is when my brother changed the channel when I was watching something, and I got really mad. I wanted my mom to ground him, but she said that it wasn’t a big deal and that I should forget it. This is similar because we were both mad at something or someone and we wanted something to be done about it.
I think that the judge shouldn't rule in favor of ex-firefighter Timothy Brown. This is because he really wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks. He was really "standing" there and didn't end up with injuries externally or internally. Also, even though this may have scarred him in his memory, it happened a while ago so he should try and put it in the past. Another reason is, Timothy Brown would be going against the right of freedom of religion. He wants the construction of the building to stop because he thinks it is too close to Ground Zero. But according to the Constitution, anyone who is in America has the right to freedom of religion and the Islamic center is an example of this. My connection is to my brother and I having an arguement about a movie that we wanted to watch. We wanted to watch different movies and we got into a heated arguement. Then, my dad yelled at us for making the littlest things into big fights. This relates because they are just building a religous/community center and Timothy Brown is making a big deal about it.
I think the judge should not rule in favor of Tim Brown. It must be upsetting for him yes but, I do not think he has the right to sue.
He doesn't even live near Ground Zero meaning he doesn't have a stand in the case what so ever. Like Rachel said "Even though, Brown had a presence at the World Trade Center on 9/11, when he joined in the rescue and recovery effort, it didn’t give him a special interest in the matter." Brown is trying to take away a groups right to religion which is not allowed. I don't think it is right to not allow them to build a mosque there or protest it. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and now Tim Brown is just judging all people who are Muslim. Like Mike G. said " Sure there are bad people everywhere but we can not judge people on what their countries past had brought them. This is why I believe the judge should rule in favor of New York."
What decision should the judge make in this case?
I personally feel that the judge shouldn’t rule in favor of the ex-firefighter, Timothy Brown. Timothy Brown wasn’t even injured in the 9/11 attack that he states he was in. Since he didn't get injured he has no standing. The case he is presenting is nonsense since he doesn’t stand in the case. It would be a different scenario if Brown was injured then he could represent the case with the right requirements. I also agree with Sarah C. about how the creators having the right to free expression of religion and how Brown cant take that right away. This reminds me of some police cases of drunk driving because if you were in the passenger seat and you got injured and you decided to sue the driver. I say this because if they were both intoxicated it would be up to the judge if he can even sue since he really doesn’t have standing.
What decision should the judge make in this case? I think that the judge , Justice Feinman, should make is that he should not rule towards Brown. I think this because first of all Brown should not be able to file a law suit because he first of all lives no where near Park51. Secondly Brown is only one of many people who volunteered in 9/11. I agree with Maddy when she said that Brown does not really have a case. Also no other volunteer that helped out that I know have has filed a law suit towards the Park51. In the constitution it states that we have freedom of speech and religion. So this case is in a way going against what the Constitution says. A connection to this is to a movie called Grown Ups. One of the guys neighbor was complaining and threaten to make a case because the dogs bark was to loud so the dog had to go down or get its voice box removed. This is like the case because they both don’t need to go to court over silly things like this. This is why I think the judge should not rule towards the case.
I think the judge should not let Tim Brown sue NYC for building the mosque. This is because Brown did not have a standing; he was not affected from the events that happened in 9/11. Also like Maddy said, not letting the mosque be built is taking away rights from Muslims, and tampering with our constitution. “We’re going to protect freedom of religion and our First Amendment. Anyone has the right to pray where they want,” says Adam Leitman Bailey, a lawyer defending the mosque. Every Muslim in NYC shouldn’t have to pay for something that a group of extremists did, and I think that people who are treating them badly are wrong to do so. Also the article states that he does not even live near Ground Zero, so why should he sue NYC and influence an area that he won’t even see a lot? Also if he is not a fire fighter anymore, he won’t experience regularly the experience of being in a fire. So he won’t have a reason to currently relate to what happened at Ground Zero in 2001. This reminds me of a movie I watched where they wanted to tear down an animal care center to build a mall instead. The builders were going to be sued because many thought this was unfair to the animals, but they couldn’t because they didn’t have legal support. This is like how Brown wants to sue, but he had no standing.
I think that the judge should not be in favor of Timothy Brown. Brown doesn’t even have a standing in this case. Yes, he was a former firefighter involved with the 9/11 terrorist attack, but he was not injured physically by Park 51 Initiative. Brown also doesn’t live near the mosque’s location or ground zero. If he won’t even be near where the mosque is when it is built, then he shouldn’t have a problem with it. Lastly, the people planning to build the mosque have the right to freedom of religion. If the judge rules in favor of Brown, then it takes away the mosque builder’s rights. This reminds me of the Park 51 Initiative Socratic circle that we had in school. In it I had to form an opinion stating how I felt about the Park 51 Initiative. Then, I had to back up my opinion as I shared it with the class. My experience and the situation in the article are similar because they both involve people expressing their feelings about an issue.
Based on the information, I think that Timothy Brown doesn’t have the right to sue, for he doesn’t have a standing in the issue. I say this, because like Alden said, he wasn’t actually harmed by what happened at Park51. For a person to file a lawsuit, they have to have a standing on the issue. This means that only people who have been wronged can file a lawsuit, which Brown was never. Browns argument, as it said in the text, is that since he was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and saving people, he deserves to argue that the mosque shouldn’t be built near the Ground Zero. Yet, if the judge were to accept his lawsuit, then that would mean any policemen, firefighter, paramedic, etc would be able to file a lawsuit regarding anything about and near Ground Zero. This reminds me of when a person neglects to study in a way. In both situations, a decision is made, and the person who made the decision goes on for awhile. Then, the decision comes back to haunt them, and causes them problems, whether it be more arguing about the subject, or a bad test grade. That is how I feel about the subject.
I agree with Nick that the judge sold not rule in favor of Tim Brown. I do not think Brown has standing in this case. I think this because he was not harmed in the attack. This is a racist thing to do he was a fire fighter and he wouldn’t not save some one if they are Muslim so why should he try to stop a mosque for being built? I also agree with Alden that they would have to interview everyone who was in 9/11.
After reading the 2 articles I think that the judge should let the New York City fireman sue New York City. I say this because the Tim Brown says that landmark commission had been unfairly influenced by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. The major is a supporter of the mosque being built. The justice Paul G. Feinman has not made his decision yet but the hearing was Tuesday and he is going to make his decision in the next month. The lawyer against the firefighter had a problem with standing but his lawyers said firefighter took part in the rescue effort following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center. The firefighter wanted to protect the existing building, which was damaged on 9/11. Another one of his lawyers said “This building, which is a monument to 9/11, should not be torn down and replaced.” A connection is that people sue when they feel that they are right and they want to prove that. An example is when someone sued BP because the oil spill was making people lose their jobs. This is like the New York City lawsuit because both people were mad for something that affected them.
I think the judge should not let Tim Brown sue NYC for building the mosque. This is because Brown did not have a standing; he was not affected from the events that happened in 9/11. Also like Maddy said, not letting the mosque be built is taking away rights from Muslims, and tampering with our constitution. “We’re going to protect freedom of religion and our First Amendment. Anyone has the right to pray where they want,” says Adam Leitman Bailey, a lawyer defending the mosque. Every Muslim in NYC shouldn’t have to pay for something that a group of extremists did, and I think that people who are treating them badly are wrong to do so. Also the article states that he does not even live near Ground Zero, so why should he sue NYC and influence an area that he won’t even see a lot? Also if he is not a fire fighter anymore, he won’t experience regularly the experience of being in a fire. So he won’t have a reason to currently relate to what happened at Ground Zero in 2001. This reminds me of the time when a few kids where trying to save homes of many owls where there was supposed to be construction going on. But since the kids had no legal standing they couldn't save the owls' homes.
i think that the judge should vote for timothy brown because if he was a firefighter during 911 and he doesnt want it to be built it shouldent because it was a terrible day and affected alot of the people that helped with them. i do not agree with zach because he said that it is racist, i think this is not racist because if the building did get damaged then it should stay the way it was i dont get why they cant just build the mosque someone else.
The court does not have to make a choice in case because Tim Brown does not have a stand in this. I think this because a standing is the idea that only people who have been wronged can file a lawsuit and I don’t think Tom Brown was wronged. Although he was working on the Ground Zero he was not part of the building of the Mosque. I think that he didn’t have the right to sue because the decision was made to build the Mosque so here shouldn’t be controversy over whether this case should be heard. This firefighter does have the right to freedom of speech, but all rights have limitations. In this case he has to right to say ‘Stop the building. This is a historical site!’ However suing isn’t right. There were already protests against the building, but it’s over. Although people still have mixed feelings over the building, the decision was made, and it was going to be built. People also have the right to a fair trial, but again there are limitations. He sued the builders, but he does not have a standing, so he cannot.
My connection to this is story is like my family at home. When my sister wants something, she protests until she gets it and gets upset when she doesn’t. This is like this story because Tom wanted something to be stopped, so he sued to stop the building. My sister doesn’t sue my parents, but she does fight and thinks she has the right to protests, but just like Tom she doesn’t have the power to.
I think that the judge should not allow Tim Brown to sue New York City for building a mosque two blocks away from ground zero. I say this because he had no reason to just randomly sue now. What i mean is it is about ten years later, why sue now instead in 2001 or 2002 when it was closer. It just seems odd to me that it's coming out of the middle of nowhere. Also to go on with what Maddy and Robert said it would be against our constitution because we the people have the right to do things, and the Muslims have the right to put a mosque down two blocks away. I mean it's not even on the exact place. this reminds me of when my sisters wanted to stand up and join the NVFD when they were thirteen and asked my dad if he could change it because they wanted to be in it with my brother. This reminds me of this situation because my dad had no power over the rules and could not allow them to join, anyway in this topic the ex-fireman couldn't do anything about it and just see where this debates takes him.
Based on the facts in the article, I don't think Tim Brown has the right to file a lawsuit. I think this because the park51 initiative is well under way. The outside building is nearly complete! Also, as I said in the Socratic circle, you can’t just pick up a building and move it somewhere else. Even if they were to tear the building down and move away they would have to make brand new plans. This would take years. Finally, the most ridiculous part of this lawsuit is how late it is. The date for suing this project is long gone, suing would be useless. There is no alternative place or thing to do now. The only true thing you could sue for is money, but even that would be hopeless because of all of the pros for the mosque.
I think that the judge shouldn’t hear the case because Timothy Brown has no standing in this case. Although he worked through the 9/11 disaster, he does not live or work in the area, so the case doesn’t directly affect him. Also, even though Brown worked during 9/11, this does not give him the right to sue because otherwise about 400 firefighters could go to court and make their case as well. He is more like the “friend,” instead of the hurt one. Also, even if he did have standing in the case, the building plans would have to go forward anyways because all US citizens have the right to freedom of religion. He has the right to free speech, but that’s not going to get him anywhere. This is like the first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation. Timothy Brown wants something, but the law is preventing him from carrying this out. The Articles of Confederation was restricting in the same way because the government needed financial help, but could not tax the people. Brown wants to sue, but he is prevented as well.
I think that Justice Feinman should make the decision to have the process of the Park51 Initiative to continue, rather than ruling in favor of the ex-firefighter. While I understand while the firefighter would feel this way after being there at the site of all the trauma, saving lives, and seeing what happened to all the others, neither he, or his family, were harmed in 911, and lives don’t seem to be changed greatly from it, like some others were. Also, I believe he reacted to this decision a bit late; the decision to build the Mosque at Ground Zero had already been agreed on and made, so why should one man’s decision affect the results now? Knowing that he was not “standing,” he should probably not even be allowed to sue, I’m not even to sure what the planners of the Park 51 Initiative did wrong, anyways. In addition, like Sarah C said, was, “he was not harmed by the mosque planners.” This reminds me of a time recently, when a woman fell into a fountain at the Danbury Fair Mall, and tried to sue them for it. In both cases people are trying to sue, without a fair reason behind it.
What decision should the judge make in this case? The firefighter shouldn't have the right to sue. He wasn't actually harmed by what happened at Park 51.I also agree with Nick and how he said that then they would have to listen to every firefighter or police officer that was there. It said in order to stand you had to be harmed by the topic of the case. I also highly agree with Kelsey when she said, “This firefighter does have the right to freedom of speech, but all rights have limitations.” I agree with this because in the real world you cant just go out and say bad things about people’s religion or race because freedom of speech has its limitations. These articles remind me of a passenger in a type of motor vehicle crash. As the passenger you have the right to sue the driver or not. I know some of people that have been in crash and have sued the driver and some that didn’t. This connects to the articles because they are deciding where the firefighter has the right to sue or not. That is why the firefighter should not have the right to sue.
I think that the judge in this case should let the building be built. I think this because it wasn’t like a whole group of people were angry about this problem it was one person. Also he didn’t even live near the 9/11 site and this building would not affect him. I agree with Molly M when she said, “I think this because he was not even hurt in the 9/11 attack. He does not have the right to sue. Did the fireman break his leg, arm, or collar bone? No he did not, not a single bone in his body was injured.” I agree with Molly because this man wasn’t hurt because of 9/11, he doesn’t live near this place, and he is only one person confronting this case. This evidence shows that he doesn’t have a good story to even show the judge.
Also in the article it had said, “At a hearing Tuesday before Justice Paul G. Feinman, lawyers for the city charged Brown lacked special standing to question the decision since he does not live near ground zero.” This statement means that he doesn’t have a standing against this problem all he thinks is that it is not right and that people should not build this Mosque. To a judge this means nothing, and it doesn’t have a substantial fact to support his statement.
A connection to this is about a book that I had read when there was a piece of land where endangered owls were living and a pancake house wanted to tear it down and build one of their breakfast places there. The pancake house tried to sue the city because he claimed there were no owls on the property but he had no standing and he was denied access to the piece of land. This connects to the man who was trying to sue NYC because they were both trying to sue someone or something, but they had no standing so they couldn’t.
I don’t think that the judge should rule in favor of Timothy Brown. Although he worked through the 9/11 disaster, he doesn’t live or work in the area, so this issue doesn’t directly affect him. As Elise said, he is more like the “friend” in the case, suing for anyone who was injured or directly effected by 9/11. Also, the first article says, “At a hearing Tuesday before Justice Paul G. Feinman, lawyers for the city charged Brown lacked special standing to question the decision since he does not live near ground zero.” As Alden said, there are 400 other fire-fighters who could make their cases as well. Suing NYC for something it wasn’t responsible for is crazy; It’s like suing NYC because a taxi ran into your car. I also believe that Muslims have freedom of religion, just like all other religions. Like the creator of the mosque said, “We’re going to protect freedom of religion and our First Amendment rights. Anyone has the right to pray where they want.” Because of a few wronged individuals, the thousands of Muslims in NYC shouldn’t have to suffer. I believe that if another religion attacked the Middle East, and a country there wouldn’t allow the building of a church or temple, that most Americans would become very angry. So how is it that Americans are still questioning the building of a Mosque several blocks away? Many Muslims also lost family members on September 11, 2001, as well. If Timothy Brown saw a Middle Eastern person suffering in the building, he wouldn’t have thought, “This person is a member of the religion that had a few individuals responsible for this. I won’t save this person.” He would see a fellow American and carry them out. We, as Americans, need to protect Freedom of Religion, regardless of which religion it’s affecting. This reminds me of a book I read in which a civilian claimed a man was illegally dumping the sewage contents off his boat into the ocean. However, the civilian was denied a case because he didn’t have proper standing. He solved the problem by getting a worker on the boat to testify.
The Judge should not vote in favor of the firefighter. He has no right to sue. Personally, I believe the mosque should be put up, so I would have a biased opinion If I were the judge. I also agree with Marcus when he said,"He wasn't actually harmed by what happened at Park 51." It is true, who would that really be harming? He can say what he wants to say, but it isnt right. This relates to George Lopez when his boss wants to build a new factory in Mexico, but everybody fights it.
I agree with Sara when saying i think the judge should not rule in the favor of Timothy Brown. My first reason for this is because there is freedom of religion which allows people to pray and express how they feel anywhere anytime. in the second article lawyer, Adam Leitman Bailey said, "We're going to protect freedom of religion and our First Amendment. Anyone has the right to pray where they want." My second reason for thinking the judge should not rule in the fire fighters favor is the fire fighter doesn't have the right to stop a building from being built. Park 51 is more then two blocks away from Ground Zero! This reminds me of when Oprah said that a certain meat factory wasn't healthy and the meat factory sued. Oprah had a right to say these thing because of freedom of speech. This is why i think the judge should not rule in Timothy Brown's favor.
What should the judge make of this case? I think he should let the Mosque be built because it would be breaking the First Amendment. In fact I think that Brown should not be able to sue because he wouldn’t be affected by the mosque. Also he isn’t even a firefighter anymore so that’s another reason this whole thing should go in favor of the mosque instead of against it. In the article is says that 9/11 is just another hurtle that the mosque has to face. This all because Americans mainly new Yorkers are too racist and think that every Muslim is a terrorist. Brown also said that the mosque was “un-American.” But if they build it I think people in New York will learn to accept the mosque. A connection to this when this argument first started last year. The mosque was protected by the first amendment and the Declaration of Independence.
I believe that the judge should allow Timothy Brown to sue against them. I say this because I feel he is being very brave in standing up for what he really believes in even if he has to show it by suing them. Being able to stand up for what you believe in even if you lose really shows the kind of person you are. If I had seen 9/11 in person and was one to help save innocent people in it, then I would be affected greatly. He may be feeling very upset inside about what he had seen that day and of course this is just one of those things that will never leave your mind. Besides, the judge had said that the firefighter is allowed to share how he feels, so why don’t we just let him? It’s not like he is doing any harm by sharing his thoughts, and yes, if he sues then that could harm the process of the mosque being built, but, at least he will feel good about them knowing how he feels. Like Andrew said, “Ground zero is a historic land mark.” It means a lot too many people and this fireman would like to speak for them and support what they all believe in. This reminds me of the time me and my friend had disagreed on something and needed someone else to decide what was right. This is because they both involve an issue that needs to be solved right away.
What decision should the judge make in this case? If the lawsuit is based only on standing, then Tim Brown will probably not win. I say this because in the eyes of the law, Brown was not personally wronged. The building of the mosque is not intended to personally harm him. However, I am strongly against the building of this mosque for the reasons stated in my essay many weeks ago. As Jake V. said, Brown has been wronged and he is standing up for all New Yorkers and rescuers. While Brown was not personally wronged (the terrorists did not target just him) ALL Americans were wronged by the terrorist attack on 9/11. To allow a mosque to be built on that site is just plain wrong. I think the judge should rule in favor of Tim Brown although I seriously doubt he will. A connection I can make to this is when I was in elementary school I saw a boy get pushed by another boy outside. I told the teacher what happened but she didn't do anything. I did not get pushed myself and the boy that did get pushed wouldn't talk about it so nothing got done.
I think that the judge should not rule in favor of the New York firefighter Timothy Brown. I think this because, first of all Timothy Brown was not technically standing in the case- although he was a part of the 9/11 scene and was involved, he was not harmed by the crime. And the plans for the mosque have also not caused any injury to him. For this reason, I think that the judge should not rule in his favor since he was not "standing" in the issue of the case. This reminds me of being in school and witnessing another student be harassed. When I went to tell a teacher, they told me that it wasn't my place to "tattle" and that if the kid being bullied felt hurt, then she could go talk to the teacher.
Once again, this Park 51 Initiative is at the heart of another conflict. From the articles, one deduces that a firefighter, Timothy Brown, is suing the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission on account of the fact that Mayor Bloomberg supported the decision to withhold the building's preservation status. I believe the judge should not even accept this case into the court. I agree with Clayton F. when he says that Brown "doesn't have a standing on the issue." In the second article, it mentions that fact that the court had already questioned if Brown had a special standing on the project since he did not live near the site. He contradicted this by saying that he was one of the firefighters that went to help when 9/11 happened. I do not think this is an actual solid basis to base an argument on. This is because, like it says in the articles, then anyone who witnessed or was affected by that event could say they had a special standing and oppose the decisions. I would also like to ask why the site should be preserved as a historical landmark if its supposed historical importance has been neglected all of these years. Also, why would one oppose the renovation of a site that is two blocks away from a tragic accident when a wheel just dropped through the roof? People are building a new corporate tower on the actual site of the accident, and Brown seems to have no objection to that. Also, I find this situation much like the Roman way of expansion. The Romans tore down old buildings however important for their marble so that new and more glorious constructions could be made. The Historical Preservation Committee did nothing but allow for the area to be reused to build a more useful building. In both scenarios, obsolete objects have to be lost for new more useful items to be created. So why should a case be held if the only end result would be either a waste of time or the prevention of progression?
I don't think the judge should do anything about this case. It's got very poor evidence and hardly any reason to pursue it. As far as the "standing' matter goes, I don't think he CAN file a lawsuit. the construction hasn't cause him harm in any way, and he isn't being directly affected by it. I personally don't understand why it is such a big deal in the first place. It seems to me that people are just thinking up any possible ways to stop construction, no matter how ridiculous. I believe the judge should take that into consideration. This situation reminds me of when I was in third grade and I was very upset with my friend. I tried to ask our teacher to punish her, but she wouldn't because she hadn't really done anything to harm me. Looking back I see the logic behind her decision. And it is for that reason that I don't think the judge should make any effort to pursue this case.
I if was a fire fighter i would've done the same thing because, Parkm51 is a historical landmark. If i ever lost a loved one and someone wanted to build over the place where that loved one died i would surely be mad and sad. I think the judge should allow Timothy Brown to sue against them. i say this because I feel he is being very brave in standing up for what he really believes. The reason why i think Tim might be so sensitive to the fact that people are building a mosque over a historical land mark is because maybe Tim might've lost a loved one in 9/11.
I think the judge should not rule in favor for Timothy Brown. I agree with Molly M when she said, "Timothy Brown wasn't even hurt in the 9/11 attack. He does not have the right to sue." If fireman Timothy Brown were to be injured in the 9/11 attack the judge might have rule in favor of him but because he didn't get injured at all he has no right to sue. I think the fireman sued the mosque builders because he did not want the mosque to be built. Another reason the judge should not rule in favor of the fireman is because he barley even has an argument against the mosque planners and they should not be sued. This connects to when I heard on the news that someone got in a car crash neer a gasstation and they tried to sue even though it was their fault. This is just like the fireman trying to build the mosque.
I think that the decision Judge Feinman should make is that Brown should not win. I agree with Adam Leitman Bailey when he stated, “We’re going to protect freedom of religion and our First Amendment. Anyone has the right to pray where they want.” I agree with this statement. Nobody should be denied the right to worship. Like Sarah C. said “He was not harmed by the mosque planners or by the 9/11 attacks.” Timothy Brown has no real reason to sue. Just because he doesn’t like the idea of a mosque being built two blocks from the sight of Ground Zero doesn’t mean that the mosque shouldn’t be built. That is why I think that the decision that Judge Feinman should make should not be in favor of Timothy Brown.
I think the judge shouldn’t rule in favor of the ex-firefighter, Timothy Brown. I think this because he doesn’t have "standing" in the case. Even though he took part in the rescue efforts on 9/11, that doesn’t mean that he gets to intercede in the Park51 Initiative. He doesn’t even live near ground zero or the proposed site of the Islamic center. He also didn’t get injured in the 9/11 attacks. I agree with the judge that by that logic, every police officer and firefighter who worked on 9/11 would have the right to intercede in every development project near ground zero. This reminds me of the first time we studied the Park51 Initiative and how the opposing arguments were not valid enough reasons to prevent it. The argument against the mosque was that it would be disrespectful to the people who died during 9/11. The new argument is that the building is historic and should be preserved.
I do believe that I, along with many other students, would achieve higher grades if paid, but I also believe that if they were to stop being paid, their, and my, grades would then lower. Although there’s already the motivation of getting good grades so that you can get into a decent college, so you can have a nice life in the future, that’s not enough for many people. Since these grades will be affecting you in a bit of a far future, and not now, it will not often provide people with enough motivation. Since getting paid would affect you now, instead of in the far future, students would diffidently be more motivated. For those students, who think school is an absolute waste, it now has some kind of importance; to receive money so you can go out with your friends more often, buy more clothes, or video games, or possibly to help out at home. That is why I think I and many other students would be more motivated to get higher grades; whether this will hurt or help us in the long run, I am not sure. However, if students are used to getting paid for working hard, they’re not going to want to after the payment gets taken away; some may feel like they no longer have a reason to do well in school. I remember when taking the CMT’s in seventh grade, there was a prompt that had to do with this topic. It was also about paying students for their grades, and asking whether this was a good or bad decision. In both scenarios the topic revolved around students being paid for their grades.
Post a Comment