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

[Alfi]

Reacting with violence over a burning book is what needs to be dealt with, not the book-burning.

we agree

 

[Calrid]

"that which causes the least harm."

You have this backwards. Reacting with violence over a burning book is what needs to be dealt with, not the book-burning. The greatest harm is in that reaction, in becoming a slave to the threat of violence over what is itself a harmless act before others decide to become murderously offended by it.

In Pakistan, Salmaan Taseer was murdered by his own bodyguard when he offered support to a woman charged with the capitol offense of blasphemy against Islam. People were so offended by his position that they celebrated his assassination. Is that where we're going here? Am I looking at a rule or law against my thoughts because some people will kill over my opinion? Do you know what kind of state that would be to live in?

Challenging our ardent reaction to ideals needs to be addressed how trite. We all have out beliefs, when people challenge them we are as human beings likely to get angry. Whether it is burning our symbol of democracy, our flag or burning our books we will fight over cherished ideas with all the vehemence of fanatics on paper or enshrined in our constitutions. It is human nature.

Let's stop trying to force ideals on others and find common ground, the right to self determination is self evident. This petty bickering over what wins out seems to be being resolved in politics (and heart warmingly in the exchange of ideas), not in silly demonstrations of faith on whatever side you are. I cannot help but feel that democracy as an idea is a good one, if not the best, better than those that have been tried. But the way we have gone about it has held back its progress in the world. We are idiots. Often we take ten steps forward and 1 thousand steps back. 1 total dick can stop the progress of the world by one silly childish act of petulance on both sides. We know this to be true.

I have it forwards playing childish games we know will provoke vehement reactions is stupid. Pragmatism will come from compromise not silly gestures of faith. Games without frontiers is what we need to play. Games that are couched in wisdom not silly child like disputes. You can't start rolling the dice when you never agree to the rules. The board will just be thrown up in the air and a inane bicker fest will result.

Meh he stole money from under the fricking board, I am so going to burn that now! Two wrongs make a right of course! Why not replace the money and start again? Why not allow that this is about politics and resolve it over a level table with levelling concessions. Why not it aint been tried yet? It couldn't hurt?

 

[rootX]

I have it forwards playing childish games we know will provoke vehement reactions is stupid. Pragmatism will come from compromise not silly gestures of faith. Games without frontiers is what we need to play. Games that are couched in wisdom not silly child like disputes. You can't start rolling the dice when you never agree to the rules. The board will just be thrown up in the air and a inane bicker fest will result.

Meh he stole money from under the fricking board, I am so going to burn that now! Two wrongs make a right of course! Why not replace the money and start again? Why not allow that this is about politics and resolve it over a level table with levelling concessions. Why not it aint been tried yet? It couldn't hurt?

Ignoring the main stream media and cultural/religious mocking posts in this thread, there are efforts to bring reforms in Afghanistan but they are not seem to be working well. With current state of Afghanistan, it is hardly surprising what is coming out of it.

http://www.peace-building.de/files/ipra_statebuilding_afghanistan_02.pdf

Since 2001 the country has received enormous amounts of development
funding and technical assistance from about 70 different countries...
Afghanistan ranks as number two ‘aid recipient’ of all Asian countries and received, with a
population of roughly 30 million about US $ 175 per capita in 2008. In some
sources even higher numbers are mentioned.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/country/notes/pdf/afghanistan.pdf

The IMF became involved in Afghanistan in 2002, sending staff teams to assist in rebuilding economic institutions and to provide advice to the government on economic policies and reforms. In addition to regular visits to Kabul by staff teams to discuss economic policies, the IMF has a permanent resident representative in Kabul, and has been providing substantial technical assistance to develop monetary instruments, strengthen the central bank and banking supervision, modernize foreign exchange regulations, revamp tax and customs administration, and enhance public financial management.

Going back to pastor, while he is doing something ignorant but it is not possible to take any legal action against him without challenging the principles America is built upon.

 

[russ_watters]

What [about] 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. [correction made]

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?

 

[waht]

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

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement

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.

 

[Ken Natton]

So what?

I must confess Russ that I am a little surprised by that comment from you and the attitude it seems to reflect. There are some contributors to this thread whom I think just need to think about the matter for a little longer. I have to face the reality that such is unlikely to be the problem in your case.

So, at the most straightforward level, the answer to your ‘so what?’ is this. In answer to my post #11, Antiphon responded in post #13 with a comment about ‘perceived’ insult. It seemed to me to be a prerequisite to considering the rights and wrongs of the pastor’s actions to establish that there is nothing merely ‘perceived’ about the insult inherent in burning a copy of the Koran, particularly in such a public and symbolic way.

But from your answer it would seem that you accept that the insult was real and intentional but are still prepared to defend it as a valid piece of free speech. Now that stance no longer comes across to me as disingenuousness. Now it comes across to me as, at best, indifference, and at worst, downright arrogance.

 

[AlephZero]

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?

There seems to be a Catch 22 situation in this.

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".

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.

 

[Evo]

That's more along the lines of cultural insensitivity. But sure if you don't like the book example, you can pick pastor showing up at funerals which I believe is a very similar case. Using the funeral example, might also get rid of these atheist/us vs them opinions which are unrelated to the OP.

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.

 

[rootX]

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.

Religions are personal beliefs so insulting religion is also at personal level aimed at millions of innocent people practicing that religions who have not done anything. Religions play a really important in the lives of people who practice them.

Whether you agree with above or not but in the end person who is demonstrating at a funeral is doing nothing different than someone who is burning sacred religious books. They both are practicing their right to freedom of speech.

 

[russ_watters]

But from your answer it would seem that you accept that the insult was real and intentional but are still prepared to defend it as a valid piece of free speech.

Correct. 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.

The point of the "so what" is to point out that you are arguing something that is irrelevant to the concept of free speech (or, rather, too get you to explain why you think it is/should be relevant).

 

[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?