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

[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"?

 

[BobG]

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.

Except actually we do - specifically in instances where the offended party would be provoked to violence (See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire).

None the less, those limitations have been progressively narrowed ever since, to the point that the Ku Klux Klan advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government (Brandenburg v Ohio) and burning crosses (R.A.V. v City of St Paul) are considered speech protected under the First Amendment.

I think the crucial difference between today and even 1992 (when RAV v St Paul was heard) is that the distance between the speaker and his audience has been significantly reduced. You don't simply read about Jones burning a Koran a month or two after the fact - you get to personally witness it even when you're located halfway around the globe and even when the communicator is located on his own property behind closed doors.

In fact, you can personally witness a person being beheaded from your own home.

I'm not sure exactly how I stand on this, since my opinion on free speech has been mostly formed before the internet was created, but I think it is something that has to be considered.

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"?

Yes, but I can't view the video until I get home.

 

[cobalt124]

I don't think there should be laws regarding inciting religous anything.

Does that not create an inequality? Or wouldn't you want any laws of this kind, religious or otherwise.

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.

I agree if the intent to incite is not there. And if you mean the offending party is an individual that is a different issue that potentially greys my argument, which is why the best answer I can see is put it to a jury to decide. People should be able to speak out freely, I just wouldn't call burning the Koran speaking out.

 

[drankin]

The problem with putting someone before a jury is they need to be charged with a crime. That requires a law to be allegedly broken.

What would this law be exactly? How generally or narrowly is it to be written? How do we distinguish inciting hatred and simply expressing hatred? Hatred itself shouldn't be outlawed, should it?

If no one reacted to the burning of a bible, should the person that burned it be put before jury as well? Or is it contingent on someone else becoming offended and killing someone?

Your opinion brings about a lot of questions.

 

[Alfi]

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?

Nailed it.

( I have to read all the replies since ... but as of now ... bang on observation.)

 

[Alfi]

I just put a bunch of books in my fireplace. They were warming.
Kept one back for the outhouse... might be needed later.
(no - not really .. I like my books )

but ...It's a point. Without any media ..I could have burned anything at all. No harm No trouble. My business. Include the media frenzie ... oh Here we go.

IMHO - The Pastor went beyond a personal deed, He probably should be called on his intentions. Hate Speech laws?
? ..did he break a law? no.
Should there be a law? Hmmm ... no.
not unless someone in going to include burning effigies, flags, and etc... see the problem?
Slippery slope argument.

 

[alt]

I just put a bunch of books in my fireplace. They were warming.
Kept one back for the outhouse... might be needed later.
(no - not really .. I like my books )

but ...It's a point. Without any media ..I could have burned anything at all. No harm No trouble. My business. Include the media frenzie ... oh Here we go.

IMHO - The Pastor went beyond a personal deed, He probably should be called on his intentions. Hate Speech laws?
? ..did he break a law? no.
Should there be a law? Hmmm ... no.
not unless someone in going to include burning effigies, flags, and etc... see the problem?
Slippery slope argument.

That's a point I've tried to make several times. You can't have one law for us and another for them. Those who criticize the pastor but acquiesce to radical Muslims burning flags, inciting hatred against other religions, etc, need to explain why they take such a position. I've asked the question in many forms here.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The problem with putting someone before a jury is they need to be charged with a crime. That requires a law to be allegedly broken.

Let me explain how this works in Sweden (and I know some of you will lol). We have a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" which translate to "Incitement to racial hatred", which basically says:

Under Swedish law, hate speech is that

1. intentionally,
2. the statement or representation made,
3. threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or other such group of persons with allusion to race, color, national origin, ethnic origin, creed or sexual orientation.

The term ethnic group referred to as the Minister for Justice of each existing ethnicity other than the Swedish. The reason why Swedes are excluded the Minister for Justice explains by

ʺ the aim at the creation of the Penal on hate speech was to ensure minority groups of different compositions and adherents of various faiths a legal protection. The case that someone expresses criticism against the Swedes would not have been intended to meet the Penal ʺ

– The Minister for Justice​

Whoever is guilty of incitement to racial hatred under Chapter 16, § 8 of the Penal Code shall be sentenced in a Swedish court to imprisonment for up to two years or if the crime is minor, to a fine.​

http://translate.google.com/transla...ikipedia.org/wiki/Hets_mot_folkgrupp&act=url"


This works well in most cases, neo-Nazis cannot incite homosexuals and immigrants (in public).

But there are some peculiar 'side effects', e.g. a Muslim immigrant/refugee can in public TV, on prime time, say that "All Swedes are racists!" (it has happened), and this will be perfectly OK. No one can object on this.

This makes 'some' people rather upset (read; mostly extreme right-wings and neo-Nazis). The rest of us don’t take it too seriously because we know we have very liberal treatment of Arabic refugees; one city in Sweden (Södertälje) took in 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/world/europe/13sweden.html" .

But things can get more 'complicated' that this. In Malmö, a town in the south with the most immigrants per capita (30%), a large group of Muslims has started to terrorize a minor Jewish community in the town (bomb threats and sh*t)...

So how does the Minister for Justice handle this??

Well, so far the solution seems to be to 'ignore' the problem, hoping it will go away. Though personally I’m not convinced that this will work in the long run...

Everyone understands that "our solution" would be a "complete mess" in the diversity of the U.S., every "minority" would be allowed to pick on German Americans, and they could do nothing in defense...

It doesn’t work.

 

[pftest]

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?

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

I don't think there should be such laws. I see the violent reaction to the bookburning as a sort of "blackmail" to make the whole world submit to islamic law. I actually think it may be good that the pastor did the bookburning, because it could accustomise people to the idea that anything can be criticised and ridiculed, even religion.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think there should be such laws. I see the violent reaction to the bookburning as a sort of "blackmail" to make the whole world submit to islamic law. I actually think it may be good that the pastor did the bookburning, because it could accustomise people to the idea that anything can be criticised and ridiculed, even religion.

Religion has been ridiculed in the US routinely for decades - hasn't it?

 

[pftest]

Religion has been ridiculed in the US routinely for decades - hasn't it?

Yes but under threat of violence this could change. In europe it already has(i don't know how it is in the US), there is a great deal of self-censorship wrt islam. People do not dare publish cartoons about islam/mohammed, musea don't dare show works of artists that criticize islam, people go into hiding or have to live with bodyguards all day long, get attacked on the streets, get murdered, etc., and all just because they did something that is very ordinary in western society, but is unheard of in (some) islamic cultures.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't think there should be such laws. I see the violent reaction to the bookburning as a sort of "blackmail" to make the whole world submit to islamic law. I actually think it may be good that the pastor did the bookburning, because it could accustomise people to the idea that anything can be criticised and ridiculed, even religion.

i agree. there are not two sets of rules in the US, nor can there be. if people want to come and live here, then they must be the ones to accommodate.

Religion has been ridiculed in the US routinely for decades - hasn't it?

absolutely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Yes but under threat of violence this could change. In europe it already has(i don't know how it is in the US), there is a great deal of self-censorship wrt islam. People do not dare publish cartoons about islam/mohammed, musea don't dare show works of artists that criticize islam, people go into hiding or have to live with bodyguards all day long, get attacked on the streets, get murdered, etc., and all just because they did something that is very ordinary in western society, but is unheard of in (some) islamic cultures.

people here will not put up with islamic fundamentalist violence. news media may self-censor themselves out of concern for their own safety, but if there is an attack on this pastor who burned the koran, or his followers, or even something more random as in afghanistan, but on US soil... things could get very, very ugly.

 

[Alfi]

Ugly is an ugly word. ..but ..

if there is an attack on this pastor who burned the koran, or his followers, or even something more random as in afghanistan, but on US soil..

I agree, A physical attack ... on N. American soil, is covered in the 'laws of the land'
... as in assault.

Physical violence is a law thing.
Opinions.. and how they are demonstrated are.. Questionable.

The question of ...should burning books ( or a specific book ) be against a "law"
I think ... Not at all.
Unless it's tonnage, and then the EPA may get involved.

It's the reactive violence that is the key to this issue. Not the burning of the book.

 

[physicsdude30]

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?

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

The thing is, these Muslims who were offended don't understand that in the United States you can burn a U.S. flag because we have the freedom of speech. The government won't punish you for burning the nation's flag. It's not an issue of Islam, but rather freedom of speech.

As far as freedom of speech with religion, if someone wants to burn a Bible, the government can't stop it, even if most Americans are part of the world religion Christianity. If we were to forbid the burning of Islamic books, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be violating the Separation of Church and State?

 

[physicsdude30]

What I don't understand it's perfectly okay for there to be plenty of Internet porno because of the freedom of speech, but then people want it to be illegal to burn religious books or the United States flag. Although I think either of the latter two would be quite disgusting, what ever happened to the Founding Father's Freedom of Speech?

 

[Proton Soup]

As far as freedom of speech with religion, if someone wants to burn a Bible, the government can't stop it, even if most Americans are part of the world religion Christianity. If we were to forbid the burning of Islamic books, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be violating the Separation of Church and State?

yes, in the purest form, imo. it would literally be making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. somebody might try to avoid that by going at another angle, though. either banning burning the texts of any religion, or via prosecution as a civil rights violation or hate crime (yeah, yeah, i know...). but you'd still have to deal with the speech issue, i think.

currently, there are no klan-type lynchings going on against muslims, so it's difficult to go down a rights violation argument yet. and if violence only comes from muslims, it's difficult to outlaw their inflammatory speech because of where much of the oil comes from.

in any case, it is going to be interesting to see whether islamic temperament in the US is similar or very different than the temperament in europe.