News Should the Burning of Books Be Regulated by US Laws to Prevent Violence?

[alt]

I hate to go round in circles on matters that are not the heart of the point. Hopefully we can put some things aside. I only ever sought to establish that the pastor’s actions were intentionally insulting and provocative in answer to someone else who talked of ‘perceived insult’. I always understood that you were not contending that the pastor’s actions were not intentionally insulting.

Neither am I in any way attempting to ‘shift the burden of proof’. I am only trying to argue a case, one in which I believe. And I am not certain that ‘proof’ is the right thing to be seeking, I certainly accept that there are no absolutes here. I apologise if you feel that I have in any way misrepresented you, I did not intend to do that either. I would have to say that I did acknowledge the possibility that I was mis-perceiving your case by talking about what your case ‘appeared’ to be. Perhaps it will be less problematic if I talk instead about what my perception of the contrary case is and why I seek to argue against that contrary case and say nothing at all about what your case is and is not.

But asking for historical and legal precedence seems a little beyond the pale to me. My perception was that this is just a discussion about a current political and world affair. I hold a viewpoint that I sought to express, and certainly that viewpoint may well be in some way informed by my understanding and perception of past events, and as such I might have referred to some such events in support of my case. I am reasonably confident that I am not alone in my view though it may very well be a minority view. I am not sure that many would reasonably expect me to cite historical and legal precedence to justify my viewpoint. All I can say is, dismiss me as you wish, I am only expressing a viewpoint.

On that basis, let me make one more attempt to lay out my case as clearly as I can. I certainly perfectly well understand the motivations for the creation of the first amendment to the American constitution. In the news only yesterday was the story of a Chinese artist arrested and detained on some pretext, when the strong suggestion of events leading up to that arrest is that the true reason for his detention is criticisms he has made of the Chinese regime. It is a critical point that arguing that the arrest of that artist is wrong in no way implies any acceptance of or agreement with the specifics of his criticisms. Whatever the justifications for the things he has said, it is clear that, if you believe in freedom of the individual as a fundamental human right, then you surely must also see it is a profound wrong for him to be arrested merely for the criticisms he has made. His freedom to make his criticisms is a principle well worth standing up for.

But there is a wealth of difference between making criticisms of something that you believe to be flawed and making statements and assertions that you have calculated to touch on the sensitivities of others or acting in ways intended to provoke a violent reaction from others. Now there are a couple of immediate clarifications I need to make to cut off any false assumptions about my case. Firstly, I perfectly well understand and accept the problem of misdirection of blame. If individuals or groups are provoked to violence by something someone else said or did, then responsibility for that violence and the consequences of that violence are not with the person who behaved provocatively, they are entirely with those who actually executed the violence. But that does not absolve the person who behaved provocatively. That provocation carries its own responsibility and the individual responsible is answerable for that. The second essential clarification is that I am not arguing that no-one should ever be allowed to say anything that touches on the sensitivities of others, unfortunately the situation is much more complex than that. I can anticipate a demand for me to cite specific examples, I can only suggest a concern for taking the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent, but what I want to say is that there have been cases where a strong argument can be put that sensitivities that were touched on needed to be touched on, and that the results of touching on those sensitivities was a necessary shift in broadly held opinions and a genuine move in the direction of a fairer, more equitable society.

So it would even be too simplistic to attempt to draw a line on what can and what cannot be said only on the basis of certain people’s sensitivities. But there are situations where sensitivities exist because of a heavy history that the situation carries and cannot escape. Again, I will avoid mentioning specific examples yet, but if it is insisted that I do, then I will mention some cases that I have in mind, and try to prevent a wandering from the point by making it clear that I am only trying to establish examples of situations that are so sensitive that most of us would quite naturally recognise the need to be very careful with what we say.

But ultimately, here is what I am arguing. The contrary case appears to me to be that any attempt to restrict free speech raises the danger of the kind of situation exemplified by the Chinese artist that I mentioned and that the only way to ensure that such a thing never happens is to allow anyone to say whatever they want to say, regardless of the motivations of the speaker, regardless of the sensitivities of any other person to what is said, and regardless of the historical context of those sensitivities. My case is only that there does exist sufficient basis on which to draw distinctions that allow the exercise of sensible restrictions without raising any danger whatever of the restriction of valid and necessary criticism. I hear what you are saying about the practical need for a definite line in law, my concern is only that an attempt to draw a definitive line inevitably tends to lead to a situation where you have amendments to the amendments of the amendment. Reality, it seems to me is always going to prove to be more complex than any attempt to anticipate it is ever going to be.

And finally, I do have to return to my original assertion, in which I do passionately believe. Even if a person continues to contend that the danger to free speech is too great if you allow any restrictions whatever, then still to characterise the pastor’s actions in burning a copy of the Koran as an example of free speech is to lend the act a dignity that it simply does not deserve.

Your last paragraph; No one said the pastors act deserves dignity. It was a stupid, provocative act. However, in a civilised society, neither does ir deserve nor warrant acts of barbarism and murder of innocent (or nocent for that matter) people. The world is full of dumb, stupid, provocative acts. My sensibilities and ethos are assualted daily by such acts. However, I am not inclined, nor do I believe I have a right or worse, a divine obligation, to go around reacting in the barbaric manner in which radical Islamists do.

That's the difference. That's the the issue you keep avoiding.

spelling edit

 

[Ken Natton]

Your last paragraph; No one said the pastors act deserves dignity. It was a stupid, prevocative act. However, in a civilised society, neither does ir deserve nor warrant acts of barbarism and murder of innocent (or nocent for that matter) people. The world is full of dumb, stupid, prevocative acts. My sensibilities and ethos are assualted daily by such acts. However, I am not inclined, nor do I believe I have a right or worse, a divine obligation, to go around reacting in the barbaric manner in which radical Islamists do.

That's the difference. That's the the issue you keep avoiding.

No alt, that is not fair, I am not avoiding anything. If you wish to discuss the difficulties I have with your post #75 then my best suggestion is that you start another thread where we can discuss the pitfalls of the kind of generalisation you are engaging in there. I am only keeping my eyes on what I see as the essential point on this thread.

In response to your last post, others on this thread have characterised the action of burning a copy of the Koran as an example of free speech. That is all I am seeking to challenge. Never have I sought to suggest that there is any justification for the responses to provocation that some people have engaged in. I have accepted that their behaviour lacks any sense of proportion. I have acknowledged that responsibility for their actions lies entirely with them. But I don’t see any of that as impinging on the issue of the pastor’s responsibilities for his actions. That is what I sought to comment upon. I haven’t seen fit to mention the issue of collapsing stocks of cod in the North Atlantic because I see it as similarly relevant to the point I am making. That doesn’t mean that I am avoiding the issue.

 

[alt]

No alt, that is not fair, I am not avoiding anything. If you wish to discuss the difficulties I have with your post #75 then my best suggestion is that you start another thread where we can discuss the pitfalls of the kind of generalisation you are engaging in there. I am only keeping my eyes on what I see as the essential point on this thread.

In response to your last post, others on this thread have characterised the action of burning a copy of the Koran as an example of free speech. That is all I am seeking to challenge. Never have I sought to suggest that there is any justification for the responses to provocation that some people have engaged in. I have accepted that their behaviour lacks any sense of proportion. I have acknowledged that responsibility for their actions lies entirely with them. But I don’t see any of that as impinging on the issue of the pastor’s responsibilities for his actions. That is what I sought to comment upon. I haven’t seen fit to mention the issue of collapsing stocks of cod in the North Atlantic because I see it as similarly relevant to the point I am making. That doesn’t mean that I am avoiding the issue.

Firstly, I should state I am not trying to be unfair or misrepresent your comments.

I think we agree that the pastors acts were provocative, but nonetheless an act of free speech.

So where do we go from there ? Are you presicribing a responsibility to the pastor for his action, that you do not prescribe to Islamists ? I think you should make that clear.

spelling edit

 

[BobG]

In response to your last post, others on this thread have characterised the action of burning a copy of the Koran as an example of free speech. That is all I am seeking to challenge. Never have I sought to suggest that there is any justification for the responses to provocation that some people have engaged in. I have accepted that their behaviour lacks any sense of proportion. I have acknowledged that responsibility for their actions lies entirely with them. But I don’t see any of that as impinging on the issue of the pastor’s responsibilities for his actions. That is what I sought to comment upon. I haven’t seen fit to mention the issue of collapsing stocks of cod in the North Atlantic because I see it as similarly relevant to the point I am making. That doesn’t mean that I am avoiding the issue.

You wouldn't be alone in that opinion. Although the SCOTUS found Phelps' funeral protests to be protected by the First Amendment by a 8-1 margin, Alito's dissent in the case is worth reading. While it would be very hard for me to disagree with the majority's opinion, Alito does raise some very troubling reservations about that decision that are at least worth considering.

I think a public burning of the Koran would be much harder to exclude as a public political statement in spite of it obviously being intended to provoke extreme reactions (especially since an 8-1 majority found making personal attacks on the Snyders to be protected speech).

None the less, not all speech carries the same weight. Commercial advertising, for example, isn't given the same protections as political speech. To be given full First Amendment protection, that speech has to be first evaluated to determine if it even is a political statement. I agree with our tradition of giving the benefit of the doubt if there's any chance the statement could be considered political speech, but examples such as the funeral protests and the Koran burnings are really pushing the limits of what any rational person could consider to be political speech; at least partially because it's so hard to even figure out any coherent logic to the actions of groups such as the Phelps family.

In any event, I agree that the actions of a few individuals shouldn't be equated to an entire nation (or religion) of people. If I were Muslim, I wouldn't get upset until the US government or the governments of its states start passing anti-Muslim law. (Question 755 - Amendment to Oklahoma State Constitution). Voters of Oklahoma approved this measure by about a 70% to 30% margin, but the courts immediately imposed an injunction against certifying the results of the election since this amendment almost certainly violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Presumably, courts should refrain from considering the Ten Commandments or any other religious rules, teachings, or whatever in making their decisions, so the law has little practical effect. It simply makes an anti-Muslim statement not so very different from something like the Koran book burning, but in a State Constitution instead of a public protest. And by taking a public vote on the issue, it's hard to deny the attitude about Muslims at least in Oklahoma.

On the other hand, Muslims should be heartened by the actions of legislators such as Phillip Jensen that are trying to get portions of sharia law regarding honor killings passed in South Dakota's House of Representatives. The bill, http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm expands justifiable homicide to include relatives of unborn children that act to prevent the abortion of one of their relatives. The bill has been shelved indefinitely for obvious reasons. Ironically, Jensen is the author of South Dakota's own version of an anti-Sharia ban, except in South Dakota's case, they learned from Oklahoma's problems and avoid mentioning Sharia law specifically.

 

[Alfi]

I would think burning a person is generally considered wrong.
Burning a person in effigy is a often seen as a statement of protest.

Would Burning an oil painting of the Koran be the same as burning the book itself?

Burning a flag is permissible. Even if disliked by many.
Burning an effigy is permissible. Even if disliked by many.
Burning a book is permissible. Even if disliked by many.

Violence to persons, is NOT permissible.

This comparison, is the simple difference that I see between the acts of the pastor, and the acts of the persons that committed the offense of assault causing bodily harm.

Everyone went home to talk about the former, Some did not in the acts of the others.Find them. Make them defend their actions in a court of law.

 

[rootX]

Firstly, I should state I am not trying to be unfair or misrepresent your comments.

I think we agree that the pastors acts were provocative, but nonetheless an act of free speech.

So where do we go from there ? Are you presicribing a responsibility to the pastor for his action, that you do not prescribe to Islamists ? I think you should make that clear.

spelling edit

Could you cut down this repetitive nonsense. It has already been said many times that religion bashing is irrelevant here. You might want to create a separate thread about your hate against "Islamists".

This comparison, is the simple difference that I see between the acts of the pastor, and the acts of the persons that committed the offense of assault causing bodily harm.

Everyone went home to talk about the former, Some did not in the acts of the others.

The scope of this thread is only limited to the action of pastors not the actions of others. I don't know from where you are brining baseless generalizations like some only thought about pastors but not those protesters.

 

[Alfi]

The scope of this thread is only limited to the action of pastors not the actions of others. I don't know from where you are brining baseless generalizations like some only thought about pastors but not those protesters.

I didn't realize there was a limit.

I thought about one persons action. Then I thought about other persons actions.
Neither are baseless generalizations. Both made definite actions. There appears to be a correlation between the two so I made a comment.
One of the persons actions caused death, One did not.
I can accept the actions of one, I do not accept the actions of the other.

 

[alt]

Could you cut down this repetitive nonsense. It has already been said many times that religion bashing is irrelevant here.

Who is religion bashing ? Where ?

You might want to create a separate thread about your hate against "Islamists".

Very clever of you to divine my hate against Islamists. I'll bet you also divined my worse hate for chicken soup, but didn't mention it here as it's off topic. You might want to create a separate thread about my hate for chicken soup ..

The scope of this thread is only limited to the action of pastors not the actions of others. I don't know from where you are brining baseless generalizations like some only thought about pastors but not those protesters. Should there be new US laws in place to prevent the burning of a book if it will incite a violent response outside of it's borders?

The scope of this thread .. opening remarks of OP;

Should there be new US laws in place to prevent the burning of a book if it will incite a violent response outside of it's borders?

Seeing as the violent response outside borders is not going to happen from inanimate objects, we can assume the discussion is about persons, groups, religions who perpetrate such violent response, and related matters, such as equivalence (a very important one, IMO) etc.

And whether such new laws in place in the US, should also similarly put in place by the other side .. I hesitate to say it again .. Islamists !

Entirely consistent and on topic, IMO.

spelling edit

 

[Ken Natton]

<Sigh>. Let’s be clear, if someone of the Muslim faith, or of any other faith for that matter, committed acts of violence in response to provocation within the jurisdiction of the US courts, or the UK courts or any other liberal western nation’s courts and the individuals responsible for the violence were successfully identified by law enforcement agencies, we could expect them to be subjected to the full weight of the criminal justice system in which ever jurisdiction applied. I must hesitate to talk for others of course, but I would hazard that every single person who has posted on this thread would see that as right and appropriate. That is not the point under discussion because it is not the issue at debate.

There are differences of opinion among those posting on this thread about how the actions of the pastor who burned a copy of the Koran should be seen. That is why that is the issue under discussion. I don’t believe that anyone is making a comparison about which action is better or worse, or anyone is seeking to say that the acts of violence were justified or constituted a proportionate response to provocation. There may not be precise agreement but I am guessing that there would be something close to broad consensus among us about how to view the actions of those responsible for acts of violence relating to this case. There is open disagreement about the actions of the pastor. That is why that is the issue under discussion.

And I can only apologise if this comes across as patronising, but it does seem to be necessary to state the glaringly obvious to some of those posting on this thread. The overwhelming majority of the Muslims of this world are every bit as peace loving as you, want every bit as badly as you do to live a quiet and untroubled existence, and are every bit as horrified as you are by the destabilising and unnecessary acts of violence. But they are also victims of the hurt generated by the actions of the pastor. Understand, that does not in itself make the argument for preventing the pastor from committing his act of provocation, but it does respond to some of the generalisations about ‘Islamists’ that are being made. Political leaders in the USA, in the UK and in other Western nations are at pains to make it clear that nothing of the current events in world politics are a war against Islam. A very delicate and fragile balance is being sought in the relationship between Western liberalism and the Muslim faith. The actions of the pastor are clearly not helpful to that but neither are carelessly expressed generalisations about people of the Muslim faith. Let me state it clearly, none of that is relevant to the discussion about the right and wrongs of allowing or preventing the actions of the pastor. That is not what I am attempting to address in this particular post.

 

[cobalt124]

I've wanted to keep up with this thread, but haven't had the time, so I've gone back to the OP.

Should there be new US laws in place to prevent the burning of a book if it will incite a violent response outside of it's borders?

I've tried to keep up with this thread, but haven't had the time, so I've gone back to the OP.

There could not be a law for burning a book. If anything, the pastors intentions, not his actions, should be on trial, incitement to religious hatred, and he should be put before a jury to decide his fate. It may be considered free speech in U.S law, and may be protected by the First Amendment (both of which I confess my lack of knowledge), but I don't think he deserves either, and that this protection potentially hinders justice.

You guys are looking at the issue of incitement of violence backwards and not protecting the person you are supposed to be protecting.

I disagree, I see it differently, not backwards, I don't think the pastors action deserves any protection.

But demonstrating at a funeral is imposing on bereaved family and friends, it's at a personal level aimed at people that have done nothing, I don't see the two as comparable.

I believe that burning the Koran is imposing on Islamic people, at a personal level, the pastor aimed at people that have done nothing, he did it intentionally, and just because we may not accept that or agree with it, does not make it incomparable. (already said by Rootx).

You're implicitly suggesting that insulting speech should not be protected.

His intentions should not be protected, his actions are secondary to this IMO.

Then you misunderstand. It protects all ideas/opinions equally. That's the entire point of the First Amendment.

Burning a book is an action, not an idea or an opinion. the First Amendment seems to miss the target (intention), and protect the action.

 

[alt]

I've wanted to keep up with this thread, but haven't had the time, so I've gone back to the OP.



I've tried to keep up with this thread, but haven't had the time, so I've gone back to the OP.

There could not be a law for burning a book. If anything, the pastors intentions, not his actions, should be on trial, incitement to religious hatred, and he should be put before a jury to decide his fate. It may be considered free speech in U.S law, and may be protected by the First Amendment (both of which I confess my lack of knowledge), but I don't think he deserves either, and that this protection potentially hinders justice.



I disagree, I see it differently, not backwards, I don't think the pastors action deserves any protection.



I believe that burning the Koran is imposing on Islamic people, at a personal level, the pastor aimed at people that have done nothing, he did it intentionally, and just because we may not accept that or agree with it, does not make it incomparable. (already said by Rootx).



His intentions should not be protected, his actions are secondary to this IMO.



Burning a book is an action, not an idea or an opinion. the First Amendment seems to miss the target (intention), and protect the action.

If a Muslim intentionally and provocatively burnt a Christian Holy Bible, or a Jewish Torah (or desecrated any similar religious or national emblem) for the purposes of incitement of racial / religious hatred, do you hold views of similar proscriptions against him, and punishment of him, as you do for the pastor ?

 

[Upisoft]

If anything, the pastors intentions, not his actions, should be on trial

So you can read minds and you know what his intentions were...

 

[BobG]

So you can read minds and you know what his intentions were...

We can read what Jones, himself, said about the incident: Florida pastor oversees Quran burning

After a six-hour trial on Sunday that featured a Christian convert from Islam as a prosecuting attorney and a Dallas imam as a defense lawyer, a jury of 12 church members and volunteers made the judgment, Jones said.

He said the punishment — burning the book after it had been soaked in kerosene for an hour — was determined from four choices on his organization's Facebook page. He said "several hundred" were polled and voted for burning over shredding, drowning and facing a firing squad.

There's something to be said about protecting First Amendment rights of zealots like Phelps and Jones and the US Supreme Court may have said it back in 1942 in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (and given Chaplinsky's similarity to Phelps and Jones, it's a very fitting case):

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

How that gets applied to a more modern age with global communications is a lot more problematic. Can you legitimately apply it to the Phelps v Snyder case where Snyder had to go to the internet to view the "fighting words"? (The SCOTUS didn't think so.) Can you legitimately apply it to the Koran burning where the President of Afghanistan had to notice it days later and where his public comments about the incident were how the Aghani protestors first heard about it nearly a week after it happened?

Probably stretching the incident out way to far to be credible under Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, but I'm not sure. In an age of global communications, is it worth it to review our old conceptions about "fighting words"?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Should there be new US laws in place to prevent the burning of a book if it will incite a violent response outside of it's borders?

I don’t live in the U.S., but it seems a new law won’t make it – you’ve had to change the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

Hate speech - United States

Laws prohibiting hate speech, outside of obscenity, defamation and incitement to riot, are illegal in the United States.[36][37][38] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[39] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[40] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[41]

There is a lot of political pressure on the US to hold a Florida pastor accountable for his recent little BBQ.

And maybe the best thing to do is to bury this religious fundamentalist nutcase in oblivion, where he and his 30 fans belong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Qur'an-burning_controversy#Pastor_Terry_Jones

2010 Qur'an-burning controversy - Pastor Terry Jones

Terry Jones is a native of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and was born in October 1951.[4] He attended college for two years, worked at a hotel, then joined the now defunct Maranatha Campus Ministries.[4] He moved to Cologne, Germany, to found a charismatic Christian church, the Christian Community of Cologne (CGK) in 1981.[4][5] Jones received an honorary degree from an unaccredited theology school in 1983, and began using the title "Doctor", for which he was later fined by a German administrative court.[4][6] The CGK grew to have a membership of approximately 800-1000 by the late 2000s.[5] According to the German magazine, Der Spiegel, the congregation kicked Jones out in 2008 due to the "climate of fear and control" that he employed which included elements of "brainwashing" and telling congregants to beat their children with rods.[5] There were also allegations that he improperly used church funds, and forced congregants to labor for free.[5] A leader of the Cologne church said Jones did not "project the biblical values and Christianity, but always made himself the center of everything";[7] Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported that church members said Jones ran the Cologne church like a cult, using psychological pressure.[8]

[PLAIN]http://sabejives.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/terry-jones-pastor-mug1.jpg[/QUOTE]


So what we got here is one religious nutcase provoking a big bunch of religious nutcases, on the other side of the planet, to kill completely innocent people, whom were there to help them.

Maybe we need a new law preventing nutcases to hide behind a "tax-free religion", in their endeavor to spread crazy ideas and actions...?

I have no idea how this works in the U.S. – but what happens if you get more organized and dangerous biblioclasm over there??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF5kMVIolYw

On May 10, 1933, in front of the Berlin Opera, propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels presided over the notorious book burning. The Hitler regime had drawn up lists of scholars and writers unacceptable to the New Order. Among them were Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Alfred Döblin, Erich Maria Remarque, Carl von Ossietzky, Kurt Tucholsky, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Erich Kästner, and Carl Zuckmayer. These authors were deemed to have created works that were decadent, materialistic, representative of "moral decline" or "cultural Bolshevism." For a translation and transcription please visit http://stevenlehrer.com/opernplatz.htm

 

[BobG]

So what we got here is one religious nutcase provoking a big bunch of religious nutcases, on the other side of the planet, to kill completely innocent people, whom were there to help them.

Maybe we need a new law preventing nutcases to hide behind a "tax-free religion", in their endeavor to spread crazy ideas and actions...?

I have no idea how this works in the U.S. – but what happens if you get more organized and dangerous biblioclasm over there??

Physically burning books is incidental to the issue. It's the sentiments behind the book burning that's a problem and, in that sense, we have already reached a more organized and dangerous level of bigotry.

The attitude expressed in post #75 isn't the exception to the rule - it's common enough to pervade our political systems, as mentioned in post #94.

And keep in mind that it was the President of Afghanistan that helped raise the Koran burning to the level of violent rioting.

When the problem goes beyond just a few nutcases to being part of the political system of two countries, then the problem has reached dangerous levels.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's see, a nutcase burns a book - the media hypes the incident, then nutcases across the globe are offended - and the media hypes the outrage, then people respond with a violent act - and the media hypes again, now back near the point of origin, people over-react and want a law passed - and the media hypes.

This sounds like a growth industry (or maybe a Bubble) for media - have they forgotten new laws prohibiting freedom of speech will affect them?

 

[drankin]

Even though Jones may be a bit of a zealot, I don't necessarily disagree with his antagonism though his reasoning ("the Quran on trial") is dumb. It does expose/exploit how idiotic and crazy some people get over something so stupid. I think a lot, if not a majority, of Americans share my sentiment.

I don't like that innocent people are being put at risk due to the fact that there are lunatics willing to kill them nearby but at the same time, I don't like the idea of accomodating the emotional or religious ignorance of these people.

Things need to come to head and the lines need to get defined IMO. Are we willing to shut up someone and remove their rights in order to not offend emotionally unstable people among us in this "world" community?

 

[cobalt124]

So you can read minds and you know what his intentions were...

Nobody needs to. All you need is a law against inciting religious hatred, charge him, and let a jury decide. From what I am reading in this thread this would not be easily achievable in the U.S.

Things need to come to head and the lines need to get defined IMO. Are we willing to shut up someone and remove their rights in order to not offend emotionally unstable people among us in this "world" community?

I think he needs to be held accountable for his actions and the reasons behind them. That is not equivalent to removing his rights. I also think the pastors actions, it's consequences, and the emotional state of anyone is secondary, and that the issue is whether he intended to incite religious hatred, and the best way to decide that IMO would be to let a jury decide in a court of law.

 

[drankin]

Nobody needs to. All you need is a law against inciting religious hatred, charge him, and let a jury decide. From what I am reading in this thread this would not be easily achievable in the U.S.



I think he needs to be held accountable for his actions and the reasons behind them. That is not equivalent to removing his rights. I also think the pastors actions, it's consequences, and the emotional state of anyone is secondary, and that the issue is whether he intended to incite religious hatred, and the best way to decide that IMO would be to let a jury decide in a court of law.

What does it mean to "incite religious hatred"? Piss off religious people? That doesn't make much sense to me. If you accommodate ignorance, ignorance will prevail.

 

[WhoWee]

I think he needs to be held accountable for his actions and the reasons behind them. That is not equivalent to removing his rights. I also think the pastors actions, it's consequences, and the emotional state of anyone is secondary, and that the issue is whether he intended to incite religious hatred, and the best way to decide that IMO would be to let a jury decide in a court of law.

If someone burns the US Flag on-camera in Iran and a protesting Iranian student is beat to death on Main St USA - would you prosecute the person in Iran that had "intent" to cause an emotional response or the person(s) that engaged in the violence?

 

[BobG]

Nobody needs to. All you need is a law against inciting religious hatred, charge him, and let a jury decide. From what I am reading in this thread this would not be easily achievable in the U.S.

What does it mean to "incite religious hatred"? Piss off religious people? That doesn't make much sense to me. If you accommodate ignorance, ignorance will prevail.

Good question. That term could have two completely different meanings.

Do you mean inciting a religious group to commit acts of hatred?

Or do you mean inciting the general public to commit acts of hatred against a particular religious group?

Or should both be equally prosecuted?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Physically burning books is incidental to the issue. It's the sentiments behind the book burning that's a problem and, in that sense, we have already reached a more organized and dangerous level of bigotry.

The attitude expressed in post #75 isn't the exception to the rule - it's common enough to pervade our political systems, as mentioned in post #94.

And keep in mind that it was the President of Afghanistan that helped raise the Koran burning to the level of violent rioting.

When the problem goes beyond just a few nutcases to being part of the political system of two countries, then the problem has reached dangerous levels.

Agree. Fundamentalism in any form is dangerous. When you are convinced that you are 100% right – The Holder of The Unquestionable Truth – things can get pretty problematic...

To complicate things even further – there are other guys out there who are 100% sure you are WRONG – and they have an old book that proves it!

This is what happens when http://www.aarondtaylor.com/Home.php" , an Irish Muslim convert and former leader of Al-Muhajiroun in Ireland, to discuss who is right or wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmLsoyfuOTk
(sound out of sync)

The episode is from the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014799/" on YouTube.

It’s hard to see any easy solution out of this... These guys see everything in black & white, right & wrong – and they are both deeply and emotionally convinced they have the right answer...

Personally I’m pretty sure the world is not perfectly black & white – more like 'brown'... That’s why I love science, whose main task is to question everything including itself.

But then again... I could be wrong...

Anyhow, how do you 'tackle' the First Amendment if this would 'generate' fundamentalists whom strive to restrict others rights?

In Sweden, Terry Jones or Goebbels couldn’t have burned these books without legal sanctions.

(I’m not saying our system is better, some parts are real 'messy'...)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... This sounds like a growth industry (or maybe a Bubble) for media - have they forgotten new laws prohibiting freedom of speech will affect them?

You are right WW, if media could keep their big mouth shut this would never have happened.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Things need to come to head and the lines need to get defined IMO. Are we willing to shut up someone and remove their rights in order to not offend emotionally unstable people among us in this "world" community?

To me, this seems like a giant problem, especially if there are large masses of people with dogmatic fundamentalism and diametrical views, deeply rooted in traditions, emotions and private life... including 'things' that are 'nonnegotiable'...

 

[cobalt124]

What does it mean to "incite religious hatred"? Piss off religious people? That doesn't make much sense to me. If you accommodate ignorance, ignorance will prevail.

The way I see it, this pastors ignorance is being accommodated. Ignorance is prevailing. I see it as similar to inciting racial hatred. If "incitement" was his imtent, he should be tried.

If someone burns the US Flag on-camera in Iran and a protesting Iranian student is beat to death on Main St USA - would you prosecute the person in Iran that had "intent" to cause an emotional response or the person(s) that engaged in the violence?

Intent to incite religious hatred, yes. But only his intent, not principally his action, it could be one of many, and not because of the response on Main St USA. I suppose Iranian law would take a different view.

Good question. That term could have two completely different meanings.

Do you mean inciting a religious group to commit acts of hatred?

Or do you mean inciting the general public to commit acts of hatred against a particular religious group?

Or should both be equally prosecuted?

I'm saying religious because that is the context of the thread. Racial would apply equally. So I see no difference in your examples and they should be equally prosecuted.

 

[BobG]

You are right WW, if media could keep their big mouth shut this would never have happened.

Usually.

In this case, the media didn't pay attention to the event when the burning actually occurred, so a video of the burning had to be posted to the internet. It still didn't get much in the way of media attention until Karzai in Afghanistan demanded that the US and/or UN take some sort of action. It was also Karzai's comments that brought the burning to the attention of Afghanistan residents.

I guess you could argue that if the media had also ignored the President of Afghanistan that this would never have happened, but I think it's safe to say the media wasn't responsible for the book burning resulting in violent protests.

There is no way to control distribution of any message that any person wants to put out. That's a huge strength in today's information age, but it also has some serious risks, as well.

 

[Roysun]

though the reptilian brain always wins i know that eventually logic and reasoning will develop in the human brain then will over ride emotion and mix in with instinct. it would be best if we start movin on now and not let what people say or do effect us. people can be kids forever but patience is inevitable and required no matter how anyone sees it. though i feel that disturbances such as constant ignorant remarks should be a crime.

 

[drankin]

The way I see it, this pastors ignorance is being accommodated. Ignorance is prevailing. I see it as similar to inciting racial hatred. If "incitement" was his imtent, he should be tried.



Intent to incite religious hatred, yes. But only his intent, not principally his action, it could be one of many, and not because of the response on Main St USA. I suppose Iranian law would take a different view.



I'm saying religious because that is the context of the thread. Racial would apply equally. So I see no difference in your examples and they should be equally prosecuted.

Ok then, this is where we disagree.

I don't think there should be laws regarding inciting religous anything. Particularly if there wasn't any violence involved in the "incitement". That shouldn't be the role of the US gov't anyway.

But I started the thread to see where people stood on free speech and why. I don't believe we have laws against speaking out against anything. Especially from ones own property behind closed doors. Even if the offending party is provoked to violence. Nor should there be IMO.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

It was also Karzai's comments that brought the burning to the attention of Afghanistan residents.

Agree. Karzai has BIG part in this.

(What was he thinking? He’s the first one the Taliban’s would kill if the west would leave in a hurry?? )

Did you see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3233042&postcount=112"?

 

[WhoWee]

i feel that disturbances such as constant ignorant remarks should be a crime.

Who will decide what constitutes "disturbances such as constant ignorant remarks"?