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

[russ_watters]

There seems to be a Catch 22 situation in this.

What is the catch-22?

Sometimes (looking at it from a country with no fixed constitution at all, and almost no interest in inventing one) it seems as if the US Constitution is precisely "the government office to decide which opinions should be protected and which should be censored".

Then you misunderstand. It protects all ideas/opinions equally. That's the entire point of the First Amendment. The point is that if you don't protect all ideas equally, then you have to have the government decide which to protect and which not to protect, which means the government has control over people's speech and can decide based on political consideration what speech to allow and what not to allow.

It seems to be an Article of Faith that a written, unchangeable constitution is the One True Path to ... well, I'm not quite sure what, but it certainly seems it's something too important to express doubts about in public.

If you don't want to consider the First Amendment itself, fine. Then just consider the logic of it or the logic of your own position. Based on your above statement, you don't seem to understand how logic of how free speech in general works.

 

[FNL]

Well, very nice

One should take a whole picture inside the box first

 

[Ken Natton]

I'm trying to force you to examine the free speech implications of your position. I don't think you've thought it through to the conclusion. You're implicitly suggesting that insulting speech should not be protected.

Okay Russ, I’m not sure I accept that I failed to think the matter through to its logical conclusion, it is entirely possible that I have not correctly followed your logic. Let me try to unravel how I perceive it, and perhaps that will at least take the point forward.

Your position appears to be that there are no limitations to free speech and that to attempt to place any limitation whatever on free speech is tantamount to its complete removal. My position is that such a view is simplistic and unrealistic. I quite understand that there is a minefield of hypocrisy for anyone who presumes to judge where a less absolute line should be drawn. But I also understand that a situation that allows anyone to say whatever they want, regardless of the adverse consequences that the things they say might have, such a situation is unlikely to promote harmony and well being among the general populace. That does not mean that I advocate definitive restrictions to free speech. I don’t think that we can escape from the basic need to judge each situation on its merits by the appliance of some outright, unbending, absolute rules.

With an extraordinary piece of timing, I have just watched on British television a documentary programme about the Phelps family, the very ones referred to by rootx in post #58, which Evo responded to in post #68. I am entirely in accordance with Evo’s sensibilities about the behaviour of this family. Another of their idiotic and offensive beliefs is that breast cancer is a punishment from God. Evo’s point about the distinction between the circumstance of picketing a funeral and the circumstance of symbolically burning someone else’s sacred text might have some merit, but it is undeniable that the Phelps family are raising precisely the same questions about free speech and the first amendment. And I don’t agree with rootx that this merely constitutes cultural insensitivity. Both acts are not simply neglectful ones, they are actively and intentionally vindictive and provocative. This is what provides a basis for their restriction without any danger whatever to the open expression of a political opinion that is not based on hatred or contempt for others.

 

[alt]

Okay Russ, I’m not sure I accept that I failed to think the matter through to its logical conclusion, it is entirely possible that I have not correctly followed your logic. Let me try to unravel how I perceive it, and perhaps that will at least take the point forward.

Your position appears to be that there are no limitations to free speech and that to attempt to place any limitation whatever on free speech is tantamount to its complete removal. My position is that such a view is simplistic and unrealistic. I quite understand that there is a minefield of hypocrisy for anyone who presumes to judge where a less absolute line should be drawn. But I also understand that a situation that allows anyone to say whatever they want, regardless of the adverse consequences that the things they say might have, such a situation is unlikely to promote harmony and well being among the general populace. That does not mean that I advocate definitive restrictions to free speech. I don’t think that we can escape from the basic need to judge each situation on its merits by the appliance of some outright, unbending, absolute rules.

With an extraordinary piece of timing, I have just watched on British television a documentary programme about the Phelps family, the very ones referred to by rootx in post #58, which Evo responded to in post #68. I am entirely in accordance with Evo’s sensibilities about the behaviour of this family. Another of their idiotic and offensive beliefs is that breast cancer is a punishment from God. Evo’s point about the distinction between the circumstance of picketing a funeral and the circumstance of symbolically burning someone else’s sacred text might have some merit, but it is undeniable that the Phelps family are raising precisely the same questions about free speech and the first amendment. And I don’t agree with rootx that this merely constitutes cultural insensitivity. Both acts are not simply neglectful ones, they are actively and intentionally vindictive and provocative. This is what provides a basis for their restriction without any danger whatever to the open expression of a political opinion that is not based on hatred or contempt for others.

I don’t think that we can escape from the basic need to judge each situation on its merits by the appliance of some outright, unbending, absolute rules.

Very good. But you keep missing an important point. Is eveyone (radical Islamists too) going to follow those rules, or just us (the West) ?

 

[alt]

The Quran isn't just a normal religious text. The Quran directly commands its followers to kill infidels:


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm"

It goes on like that on and on...

That's why when the fundamentalists read too much into it and interpret it word for word, they must feel it's in their divine right to go on rampages and kill innocent people. It's perfectly OK. The fundamentalists are completely unaware they have done anything wrong.

So coming back to the OP, the Quran is pretty much the only book that will incite mass violence, and death when it's challenged. It all comes down to banning burning of all books or just one which just happens to be a document advocating the murder of other people.

(my underlined) Yes, this seems to be a very perceptive post. They (radical Islamists) see us as the infidel - the great wrong / evil doer. What we would call murder they would see as an act of piety.

These people are MAD ! Just look at their eyes and their facial expressions.

 

[Ken Natton]

I don’t think that we can escape from the basic need to judge each situation on its merits by the appliance of some outright, unbending, absolute rules.

Very good. But you keep missing an important point. Is eveyone (radical Islamists too) going to follow those rules, or just us (the West) ?

Yes, I did belatedly realize how that particular sentence was so strongly mis-readable. Quite apart from the obvious grammatical error that the word should have been application not appliance, I am not advocating the application of outright, unbending, absolute rules I am advocating judgement of each individual case on its merits, precisely because wherever the line is drawn, groups like the Phelps and like the pastor who burned a copy of the Koran will find ways to challenge that boundary.

And more generally, an attitude that says that the right way to respond to the bad behaviour of others is to behave just as badly yourself is similarly a route to conflict and a way to expose yourself to accusations of hypocrisy. There is an easy distinction between exercising a valid right to defend yourself, and making yourself no better than those you see fit to criticise.

I have to say alt, I have a more fundamental problem with the things you say in post #75, but to attempt to address those would tend to take this thread too far off topic.

 

[Calrid]

The Quran isn't just a normal religious text. The Quran directly commands its followers to kill infidels:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm"

It goes on like that on and on...

That's why when the fundamentalists read too much into it and interpret it word for word, they must feel it's in their divine right to go on rampages and kill innocent people. It's perfectly OK. The fundamentalists are completely unaware they have done anything wrong.

So coming back to the OP, the Quran is pretty much the only book that will incite mass violence, and death when it's challenged. It all comes down to banning burning of all books or just one which just happens to be a document advocating the murder of other people.

It all comes down to interpretation really.

The passages you cite are reserved for those who practice polytheism and ungodly religions, men of the book (Christians/Jews etc) are treated much more mercifully. For example it is forbidden to attack their temples, their priests, their old or their women/children ie innocents and they are accorded rights in wars that are very civilised. However fundamentalists choose to ignore these passages, but then its not the first or the millionth time people claiming to be pious have ignored troubling laws in their books.

Osamah Bin Laden when asked about the conflicts between his religion and his method of fighting said simply that it is not a religious war, it is a political one. He then went on to cite such acts as the breaking of treaties assuring Arbas of control of Trans-jordan Palestine (now Israel), the surprise bombing of Libya in peace time, The massacres of Sabra and Shatil when Israeli troops (headed by Sharon incidentally) controlling an area stood by and let wholesale massacre and slaughter of innocent men and women occur for two days etc, as having no real difference to the actions of his men. Nutbar or not he does have a point.Also have you read the Bible, surprising though it is our history has been far more bloody in the name of religion than Islam by several orders of magnitude. It tends to be like that until developing nations are developed.

But then you can cherry pick with the Bible too: Joshua mercilessly subjects an entire nation and 30 cities to genocide, killing every man woman and child? Product of the time I think?

Particularly passages from the OT, its not hard to corrupt religion to suit political agendas, after all how and why do you think the crusades happened? Was it just about taking the Holy land, or was it about preventing the incursions of Arabs into Europe?

JOSHUA 6:21-27 – Under God’s direction, Joshua destroyed the entire city of Jericho…men, women and children…with the edge of the sword. They pillaged the silver, gold, bronze and iron for God and burned the city.

With God’s approval, Joshua put the city of Makkedah“ to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors.”

JOSHUA 10:30 – The Lord gave the city of Libnah to Joshua. Everyone in the city was “put to the sword.”

JOSHUA 10:32-33 – God gave his approval as Joshua killed every man, woman and child in Lachish with the sword.

JOSHUA 10:34-35 – Everyone in the city of Eglon was killed by the sword of Joshua and his army.

JOSHUA 10:36-37 – God approved as Joshua killed the king of Hebron, its villages and every citizen. “They left no survivors.”

JOSHUA 10:38-39 – Joshua took Israel’s army to attack Debir. They killed everyone.

JOSHUA 11:6 – God commanded Joshua to defeat the enemy at the Waters of Merom. “You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots.”

JOSHUA 11:8-15 – Joshua’s army, under God’s command, did not spare “anyone that breathed.”

JUDGES 1:6 – Adoni-Bezek (of the Canaanites) fled, but Judah’s army chased him down and sliced off his thumbs and big toes.

JUDGES 1:8 – God approved the attack by Judah on Jerusalem. Judah’s army killed and set the city aflame.

JUDGES 1:17 – With God’s approval, Judah and Simeon utterly destroyed the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath.

JUDGES 3:29 – The Lord delivered the Moabites into the hands of the Israelites. “At that time they struck down about then thousand Moabites, all vigorous and strong; not a man escaped.”

JUDGES 4:21 – Jael drovea tent stakes through the head of Sisera.

JUDGES 7:19-25 – Under God’s direction, the Gideons defeated the Midianites. They killed and decapitated their princes and delivered the heads to Gideon.

JUDGES 8:15-21 – Gideon punisheed the men of Succoth with desert thorns and briers. He then “pulled down the tower of Peniel and killed the men of the town.”

JUDGES 9:5 – Abimalech murdered his own brothers.

JUDGES 9:45 – Abimalech and his men killed everyone in the city. Then he scattered salt over it.

JUDGES 9:53-54 – Abimelech was laying siege to the city of Thebez when a woman cracked his head with a stone. “Hurredly, he called to his armor-bearer, ‘Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can’t say “a woman killed him”.’ So his servant ran him through, and he died.”

JUDGES 11:29-39 – Jepthah sacrificed his beloved daughter on the altar after God gave him victory in battle.

JUDGES 20:43-48 – The Israelites killed 25,000 men. 600 men fled to the desert. The Israelites went and put everyone in the towns “to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found.” Then they burned the towns down.

JUDGES 21:10-12 – The assembly killed every male and non-virgin female in Jabesh Gilead. They found 400 virgins to bring back for themselves.

2 SAMUEL 11:14-27 – David coveted Uriah’s wife. So he had him killed in battle so David could have Bathsheba for himself.

2 KINGS 15:16 – Menahem attacked the city of Tiphsah. He destroyed the town and “ripped open all of the pregnant women.”

ISAIAH 13:18 – God’s punishment for Babylon was further described. “Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.”

ISAIAH 14:21-23 – “Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the Earth with their cities. ‘I will rise up against them,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”

ISAIAH 49:26 – God’s punishment on those who come against Israel. “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior…”

JEREMIAH 16:4 – The word of the Lord about the children born in this land says “They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like refuse lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the bests of the earth.”

EZEKIEL 20:26 – Israel rebelled, and God’s punishment was sobering. “I let them become defiled through their gifts- the sacrifice of every firstborn- that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.”

You can justify anything when you remove context from the passages.

 

[Calrid]

Who makes that decision then? Should we set up a government office to decide which opinions should be protected and which should be censored? Maybe we could call it the Federal Censorship Office?

Can you not see how that is a violation of everything the First Amendment is about?

Precedent law makes the decision, it is then up to the police to enforce it. It is rarely enforced over here and usually reserved for religious nuts, or the work place in cases of sexual discrimination. It's hardly a big deal and in fact most people wouldn't even know the laws existed. Attacks on homosexuals are up in the US, following recent increases in hate speeches against them. You only have to look at the effect allowing such pointless freedoms have to see that which is most useful. Clearly letting racist morons indulge in hate speech as you did historically caused a great deal of violence towards minorities and in turn lit the tinder that would spark widespread rioting, why not make it an offence to preach a few intolerances which patently are worthless, what harm could it do? A right that is liable to lead to infringing on the rights of others is not a morally justifiable right.

You have nothing like a freedom of speech in your country anyway, and you never will. A tiny little set of amendments which frankly are pretty much obvious is hardly going to upset your constitution. Hell you're headed that way anyway, it's just a matter of time before these evil liberal self evident truths are passed, so I'd get used to it frankly. It's just the way the wind is blowing.

 

[thorium1010]

It all comes down to interpretation really.

The passages you cite are reserved for those who practice polytheism and ungodly religions, men of the book (Christians/Jews etc) are treated much more mercifully. For example it is forbidden to attack their temples, their priests, their old or their women/children ie innocents and they are accorded rights in wars that are very civilised. However fundamentalists choose to ignore these passages, but then its not the first or the millionth time people claiming to be pious have ignored troubling laws in their books.
.

whats more troubling is the way you see this passage particularly the bolded part. you should know that there are religions that existed much before judaism, christianity or islam . Its troubling to see a fatalistic view is taken particularly from the religions of ME as alright as long it is not against other two (christainity or judaism )

 

[Calrid]

whats more troubling is the way you see this passage particularly the bolded part. you should know that there are religions that existed much before judaism, christianity or islam . Its troubling to see a fatalistic view is taken particularly from the religions of ME as alright as long it is not against other two (christainity or judaism )

Not really polytheists or other got just as bad or worst treatment from Judaism and Christianity. It's religion all over.

 

[thorium1010]

Not really polytheists or other got just as bad or worst treatment from Judaism and Christianity. It's religion all over.

All religions basically boils down to school of thought (theology). IMO theology of ME (all the three) have a kind of fatalistic view when it comes in contact with each other or other religions.

 

[Calrid]

All religions basically boils down to school of thought (theology). IMO theology of ME (all the three) have a kind of fatalistic view when it comes in contact with each other or other religions.

It depends there are a few sects and types of Muslim (although this too is forbidden by the Quran), there are liberals such as in Suffists, Sunnis, Sheas there are fundamentalists like wise although Suffism tends to be rather a minority and doesn't have much of a hard line element. It's only with the rise of interest in the ME, that some sects have become politically dominant, it's probably not best to judge Muslims as being a homogeneous mass any more than Christians are. The majority of Muslims when they come into contact with other religions are usually fairly tolerant, it's the extremists that tend to give the others a bad name. They also tend to be the most politically active, the most likely to be disturbed by outside ingress, and the most likely to end up in power. Hence the rise of Sharia, a law system that was fairly rare historically and usually subservient to the common law.

I agree though the Abrahamic religions tend to be the most likely to be aggressive because of the nature of their faith, and hence intolerant of other religions. Probably because of their insistence on monotheism and intolerance of those religions that worship false gods. Although the Jews seem to have taken the role of the persecuted historically, which is due to their vocal insistence that Jesus was not God and their perceived part in Jesus demise (yeah I know moronic stuff), the same contention that brought Islam into contention with Christianity. It's a rather handy thing to have in your arsenal as a politician though, hence the many wars in Gods name. Usually though even with religious conflicts between Cathollic and Protestant such as the 100 years wars (estimated to have killed 3 million people) it was usually about political power plays and the acquisition of land and resources in an ever shifting balance between nation states.

 

[alt]

Yes, I did belatedly realize how that particular sentence was so strongly mis-readable. Quite apart from the obvious grammatical error that the word should have been application not appliance, I am not advocating the application of outright, unbending, absolute rules I am advocating judgement of each individual case on its merits, precisely because wherever the line is drawn, groups like the Phelps and like the pastor who burned a copy of the Koran will find ways to challenge that boundary.

So you are advocating judgment of each case on it's merits. Who will do the judging ? What merits will apply ?

And more generally, an attitude that says that the right way to respond to the bad behaviour of others is to behave just as badly yourself is similarly a route to conflict and a way to expose yourself to accusations of hypocrisy.

Very true. What about then, an attitude that says the right way to respond is to emulate the GOOD behaviour of others ? That would be a better path, you agree ? The West does not maim and kill radical Islamists when they desecrate Western icons, holy books, etc. So that should be made the rule for them(the Islamists) too, no ?

I have to say alt, I have a more fundamental problem with the things you say in post #75, but to attempt to address those would tend to take this thread too far off topic.

I think it wouldn't be that far off topic. That Afghanistan mod did look quite insane .. to a man, as they were running around in a frenzy butchering innocent people.

 

[rootX]

Okay Russ, I’m not sure I accept that I failed to think the matter through to its logical conclusion, it is entirely possible that I have not correctly followed your logic. Let me try to unravel how I perceive it, and perhaps that will at least take the point forward.

Your position appears to be that there are no limitations to free speech and that to attempt to place any limitation whatever on free speech is tantamount to its complete removal. My position is that such a view is simplistic and unrealistic. I quite understand that there is a minefield of hypocrisy for anyone who presumes to judge where a less absolute line should be drawn. But I also understand that a situation that allows anyone to say whatever they want, regardless of the adverse consequences that the things they say might have, such a situation is unlikely to promote harmony and well being among the general populace. That does not mean that I advocate definitive restrictions to free speech. I don’t think that we can escape from the basic need to judge each situation on its merits by the appliance of some outright, unbending, absolute rules.

With an extraordinary piece of timing, I have just watched on British television a documentary programme about the Phelps family, the very ones referred to by rootx in post #58, which Evo responded to in post #68. I am entirely in accordance with Evo’s sensibilities about the behaviour of this family. Another of their idiotic and offensive beliefs is that breast cancer is a punishment from God. Evo’s point about the distinction between the circumstance of picketing a funeral and the circumstance of symbolically burning someone else’s sacred text might have some merit, but it is undeniable that the Phelps family are raising precisely the same questions about free speech and the first amendment. And I don’t agree with rootx that this merely constitutes cultural insensitivity. Both acts are not simply neglectful ones, they are actively and intentionally vindictive and provocative. This is what provides a basis for their restriction without any danger whatever to the open expression of a political opinion that is not based on hatred or contempt for others.

While you are recognizing the consequences of both events but you are failing to see the consequences of the solution you are proposing here. To properly address OP, you would have look at the consequences of (and challenges in) taking a legal actions against these pastors not alone the harm done by these pastors.

And I don’t agree with rootx that this merely constitutes cultural insensitivity.

Those were aimed at the statements of the person I replied to who was saying that it's just a book.

 

[rootX]

...

On the other side using google, I can pull similar nonsense links blaming science for causing more harm than anything else

Nonetheless, these religions bashing is not only unrelated to OP but also isn't supposed to be here as per the forum guidelines.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay Russ, I’m not sure I accept that I failed to think the matter through to its logical conclusion, it is entirely possible that I have not correctly followed your logic.

It's not my logic I'm concerned about, it is yours. You seem to be arguing a point that isn't being contested (the pastor intended to insult) while assuming instead of supporting the point that needs to be supported (insulting speech isn't/shouldn't be protected).

The reason I don't fully explain why I disagree with you is that I don't want to get into a burden-of-proof-shifting situation here. You've implicitly made the claim that insulting speech should not be protected so you need to explain, support and defend it: it is not the standard, internationally recognized view of how freedom of speech works/should work. To that end, I will not respond to the parts of your post where you speculate utterly without basis and completely wrongly, about what my position might be. You are making a claim here and you need to support it.

So I'll be explicit:
1. Why isn't/shouldn't insulting speech be supported?
2. Is there historical and legal precedent regarding this view?

I'll give a little hint: the UK has recently changed its view of freedom of speech to incorporate (among other restrictions) the idea that insulting speech should be banned and the issue has raised some controversy/criticism.

In addition:

Yes, I did belatedly realize how that particular sentence was so strongly mis-readable. Quite apart from the obvious grammatical error that the word should have been application not appliance, I am not advocating the application of outright, unbending, absolute rules I am advocating judgement of each individual case on its merits, precisely because wherever the line is drawn, groups like the Phelps and like the pastor who burned a copy of the Koran will find ways to challenge that boundary.

If a law is not clear, universal, and objective, then how can it be possible for people to make sure they follow it while still exercising their rights?

 

[russ_watters]

Precedent law makes the decision, it is then up to the police to enforce it. It is rarely enforced over here and usually reserved for religious nuts, or the work place in cases of sexual discrimination...

Where is "over here"? The UK? Are you aware that after 9/11 the laws regarding freedom of speech were tightened-up substantially and now it is possible to be arrested for posessing banned books or be prevented from entering the country for holding banned ideas?

The refusal to admit the oddball Dutch MP Geert Wilders to Britain yesterday marks a further retreat from this country's traditions of free speech. It stands in stark contrast to what happened exactly 20 years ago tomorrow, when Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie for insulting the Prophet Mohammed in his book The Satanic Verses.

In retrospect, that was a turning point in the country's history of free speech, an event that appeared to demonstrate indomitability, yet turned out to be a defeat. An unambiguous stand was taken on Rushdie's behalf by the government of the day, which denounced the threat to his life and broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. Sir Geoffrey Howe, then foreign secretary, told the Commons: "This action is taken in plain defence of the right within the law of freedom of speech and the right within the law of freedom of protest."

Despite mass book burnings, protests around the world, including in Bolton and Bradford, and threats of violence, the work continued to be published and sold. How could it be otherwise? This was Britain, after all, the citadel of free speech...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

It's hardly a big deal and in fact most people wouldn't even know the laws existed. Attacks on homosexuals are up in the US, following recent increases in hate speeches against them. You only have to look at the effect allowing such pointless freedoms have to see that which is most useful. Clearly letting racist morons indulge in hate speech as you did historically caused a great deal of violence towards minorities and in turn lit the tinder that would spark widespread rioting, why not make it an offence to preach a few intolerances which patently are worthless, what harm could it do?

I think you will have a very difficult time proving the cause-effect relationships you are claiming...

 

[Ken Natton]

It's not my logic I'm concerned about, it is yours. You seem to be arguing a point that isn't being contested (the pastor intended to insult) while assuming instead of supporting the point that needs to be supported (insulting speech isn't/shouldn't be protected).

The reason I don't fully explain why I disagree with you is that I don't want to get into a burden-of-proof-shifting situation here. You've implicitly made the claim that insulting speech should not be protected so you need to explain, support and defend it: it is not the standard, internationally recognized view of how freedom of speech works/should work. To that end, I will not respond to the parts of your post where you speculate utterly without basis and completely wrongly, about what my position might be. You are making a claim here and you need to support it.

So I'll be explicit:
1. Why isn't/shouldn't insulting speech be supported?
2. Is there historical and legal precedent regarding this view?

I'll give a little hint: the UK has recently changed its view of freedom of speech to incorporate (among other restrictions) the idea that insulting speech should be banned and the issue has raised some controversy/criticism.

In addition: If a law is not clear, universal, and objective, then how can it be possible for people to make sure they follow it while still exercising their rights?

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.

 

[Phrak]

I would burn a lot of books. There are so many that have home heating value exceeding the value of content. Usually I just trash the bad ones so no one else has to suffer the nonsense of the author. Given the motive, means, and opportunity, and time, I should severely trim the mass burden at the Library of Congress if it shouldn't accumulate faster than it could be reduced.

OK, so in reality I agonize over each one that I send the dump or recycling, and my bookshelves are rarely in order but overflowed to available surfaces. 99% of the time I can't throw out the garbage, thinking that one day I might find a seed of truth even in the worst of them. :p

 

[WhoWee]

Attacks on homosexuals are up in the US, following recent increases in hate speeches against them.

Source please?

 

[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.