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

[drankin]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

How does one determine if the burning of a book will incite a violent response outside of it's borbers?

 

[Evo]

Wouldn't it be considered a form of free speech?

 

[drankin]

How does one determine if the burning of a book will incite a violent response outside of it's borbers?

In this particular case it was a given.

 

[Evo]

I guess you are referring to this?

Afghans angry at Quran burning kill 7 at UN office

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110401/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Forum rules about religious discussions prevents me from saying what I think about religious violence.

 

[rootX]

I read a really good article today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11254419

The cancellation of a small Florida church's plans to burn Korans was not a result of government intervention. Nor was it the the product of a legal challenge.

"Generally the first amendment protects offensive, repugnant and even hateful speech," says David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington DC.

It was very convincing.

As the article suggests, it is not possible. In addition, article doesn't seem to suggest any political (legal) involvement in the pastor case.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

No. I can't see how such a thing could ever jive with the first amendment.

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

Who wants to hold him accountable and how? Link please.

 

[alt]

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.

OOPS ! Just posted on the other thread before I saw this one ..

Answer; Yes .. No .. But whatever, make sure it applies to both sides. But can you imagine - forcing Islamic radicals not to desecrate Western / Christian / Jewish books, flags, icons .. that'll work .. lol

 

[Proton Soup]

In this particular case it was a given.

if you give in, then it is given that violence is an acceptable way to get what you want.

so is it?

 

[waht]

The violent protests and extortion by death threats is inspired by the Quran which includes hundreds of references about violence and commands to kill those who oppose Islam and break its laws.

 

[Ken Natton]

Yes, book burning has a rather heavy history and that history tells us that usually, it doesn’t turn out very well. I know that some will find it too obvious to mention the famous Heinrich Heine quote, but the real point about that quote is that if someone is prepared to burn a book they are unlikely to have much compunction about the sanctity of human life. You may see it as an expression of free speech to burn a copy of the Koran, but a moment’s reflection has to tell you that it was a deliberate and calculated act of provocation whose awful consequences were not entirely unexpected. Yes there is an issue of proportionality of response, but arguing that it was an expression of free speech lends the act a dignity it does not warrant.

 

[Newai]

Am I also going to be held accountable for insulting a religion? I rather like being able to think what I want. Burning a book is not a crime. Violence against people for burning a book is.

 

[Antiphon]

Why limit my freedom when I'm not the primitive who riots every time there's a perceived insult?

First let's secure the the rights of Christians, Jews and Buddhists to stay alive and be equal citizens in the places where you're trying to keep me from setting off riots.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes there is an issue of proportionality of response, but arguing that it was an expression of free speech lends the act a dignity it does not warrant.

No it does not, in my opinion. I think burning the American flag is a hateful, childish act, but I feel it must be a protected act. I do not feel protecting it gives it any dignity whatsoever.

 

[rootX]

The violent protests and extortion by death threats is inspired by the Quran which includes hundreds of references about violence and commands to kill those who oppose Islam and break its laws.

...

Way to go filling this thread with garbage!

 

[Newai]

...

Way to go filling this thread with garbage!

That could be taken two different ways.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes, book burning has a rather heavy history and that history tells us that usually, it doesn’t turn out very well. I know that some will find it too obvious to mention the famous Heinrich Heine quote, but the real point about that quote is that if someone is prepared to burn a book they are unlikely to have much compunction about the sanctity of human life. You may see it as an expression of free speech to burn a copy of the Koran, but a moment’s reflection has to tell you that it was a deliberate and calculated act of provocation whose awful consequences were not entirely unexpected. Yes there is an issue of proportionality of response, but arguing that it was an expression of free speech lends the act a dignity it does not warrant.

a book was burned, but it was replaceable. the Taliban on the other hand has destroyed cultural artifacts from other religions that are not replaceable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

that is provocation on a grand scale, and it began long before now.

and something about this killing of UN workers seems more an excuse to attack them than an actual reaction to what some preacher in the US does. the more i think about it, the less i see the cause and effect.

 

[klimatos]

President Thomas Jefferson cut up the four gospels and pasted selected fragments together to form his own version of Jesus's life and sayings. He omitted all references to supernatural events and divinity.

Many Christians would consider this to be an act of blasphemy. I consider it to be a prime example of the U. S. tradition of freedom of speech and belief. To the best of my knowledge, this act incited no violence of any kind. Jefferson was trying to promote the moral teachings of Jesus apart from the religious connotations.

In contrast, I cannot see how burning the Koran advanced any moral teachings of any kind.

I think the Florida pastor just wanted the publicity.

 

[rootX]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12919646

Further reading revealed the Phelps clan itself was going through something strange. The father of a soldier whose funeral the Phelpses picketed had won a massive, multi-million dollar award against the church. The judgement had been overturned, but the case was now before the supreme court and the ensuing controversy had put the Phelpses centre-stage in America.

Another interesting case for consideration in this thread.

If you are willing to defend the right of OP pastor, I think we would also need to defend Phelps.

 

[Calrid]

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.

No, where else can I go if I want to burn the Quran? It's illegal to do it in public in my country if it is done with the purpose of inciting religious intolerance or hatred.

Nah burning books is a solid political statement. While I've never seen it done for a good reason I will defend a persons right to be a jackass.Didn't Voltaire say something like that.

What's next forbidding burning money? What would KLF do then?

 

[Pengwuino]

The more I think about this, the more I laugh at the idea that we're talking about holding the pastor accountable and not the animals who did the actual killing.

We would throw someone in jail in the western world if they even punched a person that disrespected their religion. I'm starting to think we need to just leave these countries in every form, economically, militarily, humanitarian and let them kill each other off until they decide they want to grow up and be civilized.

 

[Calrid]

The more I think about this, the more I laugh at the idea that we're talking about holding the pastor accountable and not the animals who did the actual killing.

We would throw someone in jail in the western world if they even punched a person that disrespected their religion. I'm starting to think we need to just leave these countries in every form, economically, militarily, humanitarian and let them kill each other off until they decide they want to grow up and be civilized.

I wouldn't define the way the West acts as civilised tbh, so if you mean aping us then let's hope not eh.

Even in the 20th century there is little worth aping in our history. I've yet to see much hope for the 21st either.

Perhaps we should all just grow the f up.

Warmongering: West wins
Religious intolerance: West wins
Terrorism: West wins

We're great at that **** historically although I will admit we stopped terrorising people illegally in the 20th century, and just started doing it "legally". Like dropping bombs on countries we aren't even at war with and killing civillians etc. Overthrowing democracies to institute dictatorships seems to be an ironically well practised vice of ours too.

I'd question the human race is all that civilised unless you define it as being about as well behaved as a pack of over excited baboons. Apologies to baboons who generally don't behave as bad as we do.

 

[waht]

I'm starting to think we need to just leave these countries in every form, economically, militarily, humanitarian and let them kill each other off until they decide they want to grow up and be civilized.

Wasn't it the case before 9/11?

 

[waht]

...

Way to go filling this thread with garbage!

Cool reaction. Can elaborate a little more as to why you think that is so?

 

[Jack21222]

Wasn't it the case before 9/11?

Umm, no?

It might have been the case before WWII.

 

[Pengwuino]

We're great at that **** historically although I will admit we stopped terrorising people illegally in the 20th century, and just started doing it "legally". Like dropping bombs on countries we aren't even at war with and killing civillians etc. Overthrowing democracies to institute dictatorships seems to be an ironically well practised vice of ours too.

Everyone does this and has been doing it for as long as countries have been able to go to war. This is nothing uniquely American or Western. And this is totally irrelevant. Should I feel compelled to stab my neighbor for going onto my wireless internet because NATO bombed Libya? What is the connection?

That's the difference between various societies. We don't see it as acceptable to kill people because of trivial matters some place else. Claiming you can look the other way because of something another country does is a red herring.

 

[Calrid]

Everyone does this and has been doing it for as long as countries have been able to go to war. This is nothing uniquely American or Western. And this is totally irrelevant. Should I feel compelled to stab my neighbor for going onto my wireless internet because NATO bombed Libya? What is the connection?

That's the difference between various societies. We don't see it as acceptable to kill people because of trivial matters some place else. Claiming you can look the other way because of something another country does is a red herring.

Everyone does this is a laughably bad justification for man kind being dicks.

I find it rather hypocritical is all. All our relative **** does stink. One man's murderer is another man's freedom fighter.

Technically what the government are doing in Libya atm is legal and what the rebels are doing is terrorism.

I don't give a crap what you would or what not do, I just think people judge everything as black and white because of there own inherent biases.

Ethics is a grey business.

I just find Daily Mail style polemics to be rather one sided is all.

Who are these people anyway do you mean every terrorist because then we'd have to kill a lot of Westerners too.

Yeah you're right state sponsored terrorism is as wrong as terrorism. We also have to accept responsibility for a lot of this **** too. Do you really think if there was no oil in the ME anyone would give a flying monkey for the area? Terrorism is what happens when two sides become disproportionately matched, hence the French resistance, Partisans, Arabs in WWI, us in WWI etc. It's an intrinsically human problem war and its causes. You can't just whine because one sides atrocities are legal and the other not. Man up and accept responsibility for your actions and stop blaming how ****ed up things are on one side.

 

[rootX]

That's the difference between various societies. We don't see it as acceptable to kill people because of trivial matters some place else. Claiming you can look the other way because of something another country does is a red herring.

Put Americans in poor economical and literacy conditions like in Afghanistan you wouldn't see a tiny difference between them and Americans.

These things like Americans are more civilized or this religion promotes more intolerance seem to be coming from ignorance if nothing else.

 

[Pengwuino]

I find it rather hypocritical is all. All our relative **** does stink. One man's murderer is another man's freedom fighter.

Technically what the government are doing in Libya atm is legal and what the rebels are doing is terrorism.

I don't necessarily agree with you but I do know there is an argument to be made there.

That's not the point I'm making however. States will go to war until the end of time and innocent people will die. My beef is just how members of societies act. If the President came on TV and burned the Quran, I can understand if someone in afghanistan would see that as a State feeling a certain religion is intolerable and needing to be destroyed and their reaction would make sense. However, this is just some idiot in florida doing it. When citizens of Iran or Iraq or whatever Middle Eastern nation you want to pick were burning American flags and cheering during 9/11, I didn't feel compelled to go find their embassies and start shooting.

States can do things that are at times deplorable, but when the actual populace does it something is very wrong.

 

[Calrid]

I don't necessarily agree with you but I do know there is an argument to be made there.

That's not the point I'm making however. States will go to war until the end of time and innocent people will die. My beef is just how members of societies act. If the President came on TV and burned the Quran, I can understand if someone in afghanistan would see that as a State feeling a certain religion is intolerable and needing to be destroyed and their reaction would make sense. However, this is just some idiot in florida doing it. When citizens of Iran or Iraq or whatever Middle Eastern nation you want to pick were burning American flags and cheering during 9/11, I didn't feel compelled to go find their embassies and start shooting.

States can do things that are at times deplorable, but when the actual populace does it something is very wrong.

What populace did what?

EDIT:

If you are talking about the flag burning after 9/11 most of that was staged by the TV. Very few people actually did that, the news papers and TV media just spun it like it looked like they did. 99.99% of people in the area when questioned later deplored the flag burning in light of 9/11. Various news stations did a report on it and it seems a lot of it was about getting a "good" story and not about the news. I'm not sure but I believe the BBC had to publicly apologise for misleading viewers, being as technically it is public owned.

That's another problem with all this **** the media can be so biased some times that its impossible to believe.

When citizens of Iran or Iraq or whatever Middle Eastern nation you want to pick were burning American flags and cheering during 9/11, I didn't feel compelled to go find their embassies and start shooting.

Yeah well you didn't need to really your forces were already committed to kicking bees nests "legally" in those countries.

You appear to be complaining about feeling powerless when really it was only the people in these countries that were truly powerless. Tiny minority of people burned flags, a tiny minority were in favour of burning the Quran what's the difference really? Neither really reflects the feelings of the whole.

 

[Pengwuino]

Put Americans in poor economical and literacy conditions like in Afghanistan you wouldn't see a tiny difference between them and Americans.

These things like Americans are more civilized or this religion promotes more intolerance seem to be coming from ignorance if nothing else.

Sure, but then what do you define as civilized? What causes a person to kill someone because someone burnt a book thousands of miles away? What about honor killings?

 

[Pengwuino]

What populace did what?

The killings in Afghanistan. And to clarify, I mean when individual people do this and the society doesn't put intense pressure on bringing them to justice.

 

[rootX]

Sure, but then what do you define as civilized? What causes a person to kill someone because someone burnt a book thousands of miles away? What about honor killings?

See post #28.

You will find abundance of those in America too while none in economically developed Afghanistan. Americans are not doing those crazy things not because they have something special in their bloods or something special in their culture but only because they have better living standards and education (which brings tolerance) unlike unfortunate people in Afghanistan.

 

[Calrid]

The killings in Afghanistan. And to clarify, I mean when individual people do this and the society doesn't put intense pressure on bringing them to justice.

Apologies: I edited perhaps you could answer my other questions too?

 

[Pengwuino]

See post #28.

You will find abundance of those in America too while none in economically developed Afghanistan. Americans are not doing those crazy things not because they have something special in their bloods or something special in their culture but only because they have better living standards unlike unfortunate people in Afghanistan.

There is nothing special about individual Americans but our country, as does any other nation considered civilized, takes action against people who do such things. We hold our poorer citizens accountable just like any others when it comes to things like this. If for some reason we had a state that all of a sudden decided to legalize murder under certain circumstances, the rest of the nation would pounce on them overnight.

 

[Pengwuino]

Apologies: I edited perhaps you could answer my other questions too?

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about what the countries do to other countries.

 

[Calrid]

There is nothing special about individual Americans but our country, as does any other nation considered civilized, takes action against people who do such things. We hold our poorer citizens accountable just like any others when it comes to things like this. If for some reason we had a state that all of a sudden decided to legalize murder under certain circumstances, the rest of the nation would pounce on them overnight.

If a government had the power to stop terrorist acts do you think they would? Because in a lot of these countries killing someone in a vigilante style attack is most certainly illegal, Afghanistan and Iraq being notable cases of where this was so before we invaded.

When its the government who are the terrorists, oh sorry I mean legal comabatants, then of course they are the one's doing it so it becomes legal, then it becomes mirkier. So if Hamas fire rockets into Israel that is legal of course because the two sides have never been at peace and the two sides are state sponsored and engaged in a war. But then we do the same thing and call it state sanctioned. It's often hard to see the difference between a conflicts side and the justification for actions morally IMO. Israel moves in and kills hundreds of people who had nothing to do with the conflict and we are meant to be on their side? Why?

The CIA overthrows Mossedeq a democratically elected PM in Iran, and institutes a pro Western dictatorship in order to secure oil concessions for both the UK and America, then supplies it with nuclear reactors so it can preserve its oil reserves. Then some idiot who is a potential president threatens to bomb them because of the natural **** up that came from this. Is that going to make you feel any respect for a country when you live in Iran?

The UK offers Trans Jordan Palestine to "Syria" ie Fiessel in return for aid against the Ottomans. Then it reneges on the treaty and pisses off leaving a two state agreement and a lot of pissed off Arabs who never had a chance at the right of self determination. Who betrayed who?

It only ever becomes easy to judge when you see it in terms of them and us, and not just us. We are all just dicks.

 

[Pengwuino]

If a government had the power to stop terrorist acts do you think they would? Because in a lot of these countries killing someone in a vigilante style attack is most certainly illegal.

In some countries murder is seen as illegal anyway. When its the government who are the terrorists, oh sorry I mean legal comabatants, then of course they are the one's doing it so it becomes legal.

Please refrain from trying to derail the thread with comments like these. I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[Calrid]

Please refrain from trying to derail the thread with comments like these. I'm not going to waste my time.

You mean you have no argument and your polemic style isn't playing well. Fine.

You are clearly just another product of your biased media. Which is fine but when you say things that sound like self righteous guff, don't be offended when you are called out on it.

This would never of happened under Hitler!

Derail the thread? What is it you want it to be about since you seem to be the thought police here?

EDIT: so its ok for you to attempt to derail the thread with honour killings but not ok to talk about the politics that caused the book to be almost burned in the first place. Ooooookay.

 

[Ken Natton]

Hmmm, this seems to have somewhat wandered away from the point at the heart of this topic. Trying to drag it back…

I’m entirely with you, Pengwuino that the American pastor who burned a copy of the Koran is not responsible for the deaths of UN workers. Those who actually killed the UN workers are responsible for that. But the American pastor is responsible for his act of provocation and attempting to defend that as an example of free speech comes across to me as disingenuous.

And talking about ‘perceived’ insults is a similar distortion of the truth. It might be valid to talk about a ‘perceived’ insult when discussing Danish cartoons that include a representation of the prophet, and there might be a case to talk about ‘perceived’ insult when discussing books by Salman Rushdie. But burning a copy of the Koran is quite clearly a genuine insult and is entirely intended as such. Otherwise the act would be completely pointless.

 

[cobalt124]

Yes, book burning has a rather heavy history and that history tells us that usually, it doesn’t turn out very well. I know that some will find it too obvious to mention the famous Heinrich Heine quote, but the real point about that quote is that if someone is prepared to burn a book they are unlikely to have much compunction about the sanctity of human life. You may see it as an expression of free speech to burn a copy of the Koran, but a moment’s reflection has to tell you that it was a deliberate and calculated act of provocation whose awful consequences were not entirely unexpected. Yes there is an issue of proportionality of response, but arguing that it was an expression of free speech lends the act a dignity it does not warrant.

It was nothing to do with freedom of speech IMO. They must have known it would cause offence, which makes the act, well, spiteful. I don't know whether U.S. law has an "incitement to racial/religious hatred law", if it does, this act should come under it. Having said that, the response should be by the law, and not by arbitrary executions, which cannot be condoned.

 

[Calrid]

It was nothing to do with freedom of speech IMO. They must have known it would cause offence, which makes the act, well, spiteful. I don't know whether U.S. law has an "incitement to racial/religious hatred law", if it does, this act should come under it. Having said that, the response should be by the law, and not by arbitrary executions, which cannot be condoned.

It doesn't sadly AFAIK anyway? It seems to think this is a good state of affairs though and there's no arguing with the constitution.

I mean globally, on a state by state basis there might be laws but I've never heard of race/religion laws like that personally, they would probably interfere with a persons right to be a total dick in public. American law is odd tbh, its playing catch up IMO and its not the only one other former colonies appear to have quite lenient laws on racial intolerance. There's a few things that should be self evident and that is everyone has the right to be free of racial, sexual, sexuality, religious/irreligous, agist discrimination or in this case free from acts that might lead to racial/religious intolerance or hatred. I suppose it depends where you draw the line.

Personally as I said in an earlier post I am fine with book burning in general but in this case I would probably say it was just very unChristian to say the least.

If a book is just rubbish then it pays to recycle it rather than burn it I think. Calrid: Eco Warrior!

 

[cobalt124]

Definitely unChristian, and if the U.S. does not have such a law, I think that is an omission that needs correcting.

 

[Calrid]

Definitely unChristian, and if the U.S. does not have such a law, I think that is an omission that needs correcting.

Yeah a move to secular humanist ethics couldn't do any harm imo. I have argued that before. I don't see why Fred Phelps for example is allowed to be that much of a jackass. I don't see what greater good it serves. Some things and some very few things just don't need to be said in public.

 

[Alfi]

Burning the book was a waste.
of Nice soft paper ...

... you can get a full years worth out of it in the outhouse.
( as per Granny Weatherwax, a character of Terry Prachett in the Disc World series of books)
( I think he was talking about the Farmers Almanac ... but .. close enough)

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle :)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Forum rules about religious discussions prevents me from saying what I think about religious violence.

Thanks Evo, there must be a big hole in my head, because I could never understand how to reconcile "The Message of Love" with violence and murder...

"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." -- Robert M. Pirsig​

 

[russ_watters]

But burning a copy of the Koran is quite clearly a genuine insult ...

So what?

 

[russ_watters]

It was nothing to do with freedom of speech IMO. They must have known it would cause offence, which makes the act, well, spiteful. I don't know whether U.S. law has an "incitement to racial/religious hatred law", if it does, this act should come under it. Having said that, the response should be by the law, and not by arbitrary executions, which cannot be condoned.

There's a few things that should be self evident and that is everyone has the right to be free of racial, sexual, sexuality, religious/irreligous, agist discrimination or in this case free from acts that might lead to racial/religious intolerance or hatred. I suppose it depends where you draw the line.

Where the line is drawn is an explicit incitement to violence by the speaker and for the speaker. Whipping up a crowd and then telling them to kill someone. The possibility of violence against the speaker can never be outlawed as it would be a direct contradiction of the concept of freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment exists precisely to protect guys like this pastor from local retribution.

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

 

[Calrid]

Where the line is drawn is an explicit incitement to violence by the speaker and for the speaker. Whipping up a crowd and then telling them to kill someone. The possibility of violence against the speaker can never be outlawed as it would be a direct contradiction of the concept of freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment exists precisely to protect guys like this pastor from local retribution.

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

What the idiot with odd views?

I don't see why he needs protecting, its usual minorities that are the subject of intolerance, if he is then his is also protected.

It's an ethics issue isn't it should a positive right have the possibility of infringing someone elses rights? I think we have it right, but meh its your country. I'm a pragmatist on this issue, that which causes the least harm. Sometimes a small number of things just don't nor ever will need to be said in public because their rights are self evident, and the very voicing of antithetical views is taken to be clearly not self evident: it is the 21st century, our laws enable people to move on. You're still allowed to say and believe whatever you like just so long as you don't do it to a crowd of the public. It's not like we're saying you can't mock fat people in public or people who steal, there are just 5 core truths here that are obvious to the secular humanist.

 

[Alfi]

a book is a bunch of pages with a language written on them.

is this an issue that some books are ,,' better ' .. than other books? Humans put the words on the books. Authors, editors, printers, money... ... etc.
When 'gods', put the words on books,,, I may change my opinions.
until then, A book is a book... It has a calorie value when burned, and nothing more.