[sten]

wait.. what? he was *thinking* about protesting outside a mosque, and they put him in jail because the occupants of the mosque might get angry?

wtf

(just coming into this story... news to me)

[OldDeckHand]

"wait.. what? he was *thinking* about protesting outside a mosque, and they put him in jail because the occupants of the mosque might get angry?"

That's it in a nutshell. He was jailed because he refused to sign and pay for the $1 peace bond (think restraining order), which would have been acknowledgement that he was legally restrained from protesting. That, of course, is WILDLY unconstitutional - a violation of not only the USC but also of MI law as well.

The ACLU - yes, that ACLU - pretty easily sets aflame the state's case here, in their Amicus brief to the court - which the court then completely ignored.