[quote=“Slappy”]Here’s the wak fuk now.
Damn, this freedom of speech thing can be a bitter mistress, ya? Aren’t there prosecutable exceptions to this “freedom” when you are spewing hate? Can’t this clown be charged with a hate crime?
Or better yet…treason?[/quote]
LOL, How’s the weather in Florida been these days? Perhaps if it’s been dry enough the state forest service could issue a ban on open fires.
[quote=“Slappy”]
Damn, this freedom of speech thing can be a bitter mistress, ya? Aren’t there prosecutable exceptions to this “freedom” when you are spewing hate? Can’t this clown be charged with a hate crime?
Or better yet…treason?[/quote]
[quote=“Article 3 of the US Constitution”]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [/quote]
I’m making an assumption that your argument for treason is the “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” bit. If you only use that as your basis then automatically any protester against any war (including Code PINK, Cindy Sheehan, etc) would be guilty. Their actions in opposition to the war can be construed as improving the enemy’s chance of winning by degrading the morale of the troops and support for the war at home. In both cases that interpretation goes against the intended meaning and would only serve to limit other enumerated freedoms in the Constitution (Freedom of Speech, of Assembly, etc.).
As for spewing hate speech, there aren’t any exceptions and there shouldn’t be. Yes what they want to do is despicable and grandstanding for the cameras but they are still free to do so. Just as flag burning was ruled constitutional, Koran burning is also constitutional. A belief in the freedom of speech means that the other people who you don’t agree with also get the same freedom.
I agree with General Petraeus on the issue. I also find it odd how tolerance is demanded of the Koran and Islamic beliefs but the same is not granted towards other religions. Threaten to burn a Koran, or display an image of Mohammad, and people are in the streets rioting. Burn a bible and people get upset but that’s about it. Freedom of expression for me but not for thee.
[quote=“CNN”]
Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.
The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.[/quote]
[quote=“lbksig”]I also find it odd how tolerance is demanded of the Koran and Islamic beliefs but the same is not granted towards other religions. Threaten to burn a Koran, or display an image of Mohammad, and people are in the streets rioting. Burn a bible and people get upset but that’s about it. Freedom of expression for me but not for thee.
[quote=“CNN”]
Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.
The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.[/quote][/quote]
How is that odd? In the one case, you’re dealing with a public demonstration within the US. In the other, you’re dealing with unwanted property sent to a military base in a hostile country: property that will make the mission more difficult, and life more precarious, for the soldiers on the ground.
Your analogy would be better if you pointed at a group burning Bibles within the US, or maybe Dawkins et al purchasing advertising space on buses to denounce ‘the god delusion’.
Sorry, I’m wrong there. The analogy would be better if the book burning were taking place in a foreign land, by hostile persons, and the military forces of that foreign country posed a very serious existential threat. Hard to think of a recent example in the US. You may have to go back to the Protestant - Catholic battles of early modern England. That was decidedly serious shit.
[quote=“Chris”]
Best way to become an atheist: read the Bible in its entirety.[/quote]
I doubt that would happen to me. God has done too much in my life for me to walk away…
[quote=“Jaboney”]
How is that odd? In the one case, you’re dealing with a public demonstration within the US. In the other, you’re dealing with unwanted property sent to a military base in a hostile country: property that will make the mission more difficult, and life more precarious, for the soldiers on the ground.
Your analogy would be better if you pointed at a group burning Bibles within the US, or maybe Dawkins et al purchasing advertising space on buses to denounce ‘the god delusion’.
Sorry, I’m wrong there. The analogy would be better if the book burning were taking place in a foreign land, by hostile persons, and the military forces of that foreign country posed a very serious existential threat. Hard to think of a recent example in the US. You may have to go back to the Protestant - Catholic battles of early modern England. That was decidedly serious shit.[/quote]
That’s a good point. What I meant by that example was that the Bibles were burned by the US military without resulting in violent protest and death, even though burning the Bible could be regarded as desecrating it. I wasn’t trying to juxtapose the two situations as exactly equivalent. Here’s an example that might be more apropos to the “foreign lands by hostile persons”.
Islamic threats in church: bible burned, appeal to conversion
[quote]Faisalabad (AsiaNews) - Desecration at the church of St. Paul in the village ‘Chak 77-RB’, ‘Lohekay’, about 30 kilometers from Faisalabad: on December 17, suspects burned a bible and other sacred texts, leaving a letter threatening Christians that they will “burn in the fire of hell” if they do not convert to Islam.
Pervez Masih tells AsiaNews that on that day, he and others were whitewashing and decorating the little church for Christmas. They stopped at noon for lunch, leaving the church open. When they returned, they found the bible and other sacred texts reduced to ashes, and a handwritten letter telling them to convert to Islam if they wanted to “live in peace” and avoid hell. In Pakistan, there is significant controversy over the law on blasphemy, condemning even to death those who offend the sacred book of Islam, the Qur’an. But nothing is done against blasphemous acts toward the books of other religions.[/quote]
As long as you burn your own books and not someone else’s you’re well within your rights to express your fear and loathing of other peoples’ ideas and beliefs, in my opinion. If burning the Quran, in particular, increases the danger to U.S. troops engaged in nation building in Afghanistan then the real solution is to realize that that nation-building is probably doomed if it rests on such a precarious foundation rather than curtailing basic rights such as freedom of expression at home. Ironically the Church of the Holy Bigot could end up saving the lives of U.S. soldiers by bringing them home sooner rather than wasting them over the next twelve months in what will almost certainly be an exercise in futility.
The alternative would be to burn Afghanistan to the ground and kill everyone in it over the age of 15 and under the age of 60 who is capable of holding a rifle in one hand and a Quran in the other – as was essentially done in Japan and Germany during the Second World War. No need for such bestiality though of course but that’s the only realistic alternative the U.S. has to withdrawal.
Rogues gallery of book burning . . .
[quote]# 2.60 Jewish, anti-Nazi and “degenerate” books (by the Nazis)
[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“Slappy”]
Damn, this freedom of speech thing can be a bitter mistress, ya? Aren’t there prosecutable exceptions to this “freedom” when you are spewing hate? Can’t this clown be charged with a hate crime?
Or better yet…treason?[/quote]
[quote=“Article 3 of the US Constitution”]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [/quote]
As for spewing hate speech, there aren’t any exceptions and there shouldn’t be. Yes what they want to do is despicable and grandstanding for the cameras but they are still free to do so. Just as flag burning was ruled constitutional, Koran burning is also constitutional. A belief in the freedom of speech means that the other people who you don’t agree with also get the same freedom.[/quote]
It’s not true that all speech is protected. The most common example given, which I gave earlier, is that you can’t run into a movie theater and scream FIRE. You are right that speech can’t be stopped just because it is hateful, but it can be stopped if it presents a imminent lawless action (used to be clear and present danger). A riot is an example of this test, so I would say mobs of angry Muslims in the streets throwing rocks qualifies and the likelihood of danger to American troops certainly qualifies. We know the danger is imminent because there have been riots just at the suggestion they will do this. If something happens in these circumstances, he will not be able to hide behind the first amendment.
Here’s the thing: this guy has been warned by the general and by the embassy in Kabul. This guy has even acknowledged these concerns. These people are experts and if he ignores them and people get killed, I guarantee you this guy will be held responsible. He does not have the law on his side here, and I think a little bit of the backpedaling he did on CNN shows that he might be starting to get that.
At any rate, he does not have a permit for his little demonstration and I have a feeling the fire marshal will stop him before he can start.
Moreover, one would think that religions should try to foster love, compassion and understanding for fellow humans, so we can all live together peacefully and tranquilly. Or at least that’s how my religion would work. But book burning doesn’t seem to fit that thinking at all. It seems hostile, agressive and antagonist, completely unholy qualities. And check out the “church” that started this whole discussion. They seem to be more interested in spreading hate than love.
[quote]Terry published Islam is of the Devil, a polemic denouncing Islam as a violent faith.
In 2009, Dove World posted a sign on its lawn which stated in large red letters “Islam is of the Devil” … .
Also in 2009, members of the church sent their children to the new school year with t-shirts saying . . . “Islam is of the Devil”. The incident resulted in a 10-year-old being sent home from Talbot Elementary. . . and a student at Westwood Middle having to change clothes because of the shirt. …
Dove World posted a video which decried the possibility of an openly-gay mayor . . . It also posted a sign saying “No Homo Mayor”; after Americans United requested the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the sign as an undue participation of a non-political tax-exempt organization in the political process, the church then changed the sign to simply read “No Homo”. . .
members of the church participated in a joint protest with the Westboro Baptist Church against homosexuality. . .
Dove World member Fran Ingram published a blog post proclaiming the church’s endorsements of the Westboro Baptist Church’s protests against homosexuality and homosexuals. . .
In July 2010, the church announced that it would hold an “International Burn a Koran Day”. . .
As a result of its controversies. . . the Alachua County Property Appraiser commenced an investigation into the tax-exempt status of the church in March 2010. . .
mayor Craig Lowe. . . has referred to Dove World as a “tiny fringe group and an embarrassment to our community”[/quote]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove_World_Outreach_Center
Would YOU want to be photographed associating with this “church”? :loco:
[quote=“suiyuan31”]
It’s not true that all speech is protected. The most common example given, which I gave earlier, is that you can’t run into a movie theater and scream FIRE. You are right that speech can’t be stopped just because it is hateful, but it can be stopped if it presents a imminent lawless action (used to be clear and present danger). A riot is an example of this test, so I would say mobs of angry Muslims in the streets throwing rocks qualifies and the likelihood of danger to American troops certainly qualifies. We know the danger is imminent because there have been riots just at the suggestion they will do this. If something happens in these circumstances, he will not be able to hide behind the first amendment.
Here’s the thing: this guy has been warned by the general and by the embassy in Kabul. This guy has even acknowledged these concerns. These people are experts and if he ignores them and people get killed, I guarantee you this guy will be held responsible. He does not have the law on his side here, and I think a little bit of the backpedaling he did on CNN shows that he might be starting to get that.[/quote]
The fire situation and the imminent lawless action is, I believe, actually part of the law. But despite my disgust at this idiot doing it, your example of the Afghani reaction (“killing troops”) does not support legally stopping his right to burn the books. You can’t justify taking away his freedom because of the potential, irrational, violent reaction of people, in a different country during wartime. Your argument could be used to stop the Dutch cartoonist, or the Islamic Center in NYC. Just because evil fucks will react violently doesn’t justify taking away freedoms, that’s bowing to the enemy if ever there was a case, it doesn’t matter what Petraeus says - in fact, Petraeus is right to complain and warn, but he does not go so far as to say their rights should be taken away. Kind of like bob with the Islamic Center, I suppose.
I believe the comparison to fire in a theater is faulty, as we’re talking about war here, and just about anything that pisses off the enemy could be banned then if the military says “it’ll make the enemy madder”.
Nonsense. The fundamentalists are always looking for a reason to be offended and to riot. They see offenses everywhere. Should we all stop drawing cartoons of The Prophet? Should we all stop using The Lord’s name in vain? Should girls stop wearing bikinis? Should women cover themselves up completely? Should we outlaw the burning of the US flag? Burning the Koran may be a silly thing to do. But, I think its a far sillier thing to get mouth-foaming mad because someone burned a Koran. As Jerry Garcia used to frequently say, “fuck 'em if they can’t take a joke”.
[quote=“suiyuan31”]Here’s the thing: this guy has been warned by the general and by the embassy in Kabul. This guy has even acknowledged these concerns. These people are experts and if he ignores them and people get killed, I guarantee you this guy will be held responsible. He does not have the law on his side here, and I think a little bit of the backpedaling he did on CNN shows that he might be starting to get that.
At any rate, he does not have a permit for his little demonstration and I have a feeling the fire marshal will stop him before he can start.[/quote]
While I respect the General, I disagree with his notion that our troops will be in more danger as a result of the burning of a few Korans. How much more dangerous can it get? I’ve discussed this with my two cousins who recently returned from Afghanistan and they both agree that a little book burning isn’t going to make much difference.
How are the book-burners going to be held responsible? They disrespected Islam? So fucking what? People here everyday disrespect Christianity and Judaism and every other religion. And I sure agree that they are entitled to do so. And the fucking Muslims disrespect every other religion, too. Fuck 'em if they can’t take a joke. Free speech, however, ain’t no joke.
You ought to qualify that statement if you’re not referring to all Muslims.
You ought to qualify that statement if you’re not referring to all Muslims.[/quote]
It’s my understanding that free speech in America is actually about preventing the government from infringing on my rights…Not a bunch of fanatics being able to do what they want at my expense.
You ought to qualify that statement if you’re not referring to all Muslims.[/quote]
It’s my understanding that free speech in America is actually about preventing the government from infringing on my rights…Not a bunch of fanatics being able to do what they want at my expense.[/quote]
At your expense? How so?
[quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“suiyuan31”]
It’s not true that all speech is protected. The most common example given, which I gave earlier, is that you can’t run into a movie theater and scream FIRE. You are right that speech can’t be stopped just because it is hateful, but it can be stopped if it presents a imminent lawless action (used to be clear and present danger). A riot is an example of this test, so I would say mobs of angry Muslims in the streets throwing rocks qualifies and the likelihood of danger to American troops certainly qualifies. We know the danger is imminent because there have been riots just at the suggestion they will do this. If something happens in these circumstances, he will not be able to hide behind the first amendment.
Here’s the thing: this guy has been warned by the general and by the embassy in Kabul. This guy has even acknowledged these concerns. These people are experts and if he ignores them and people get killed, I guarantee you this guy will be held responsible. He does not have the law on his side here, and I think a little bit of the backpedaling he did on CNN shows that he might be starting to get that.[/quote]
The fire situation and the imminent lawless action is, I believe, actually part of the law. But despite my disgust at this idiot doing it, your example of the Afghani reaction (“killing troops”) does not support legally stopping his right to burn the books. You can’t justify taking away his freedom because of the potential, irrational, violent reaction of people, in a different country during wartime.[/quote]
Actually, I don’t know if they can stop him and I didn’t say they could use this to stop him-that very much depends on Florida’s laws and how they have interpreted the imminent lawless action. I think this is something that the law is not very clear on yet. How is imminent lawless action applied in a world where an action in one country is known across the world in minutes? Admittedly, what I said has never been tested, but it follows that your interpretation has not been either. I think skilled lawyers on both sides could make a case and how it all ended up being decided and the outcome would all depend on the interpretation of a judge. This circumstance is different in that the guy has acknowledged the potential for loss of life. If he goes ahead with his own acknowledgment, I think that puts him in a real legal bind. [color=#FF0000]Edit[/color] And I think the government could use his acknowledgment to stop him…imminent danger based on current facts. Whether that gets upheld or not is a completely different issue.
Everyone wants to talk about rights, but no one talks about responsibility anymore. Sure, you have the right to do and say whatever, but IMHO, he needs to be responsible for what he says. If people die, I say IN THIS CASE, given his acknowledgment, he is responsible.
My preference is still to drop him and his ‘followers’ in the middle of Kabul. Let them fight their own holy war. I agree that free speech needs to be protected, but the way I see it, this guy seems more than happy to USE the US troops to fight his holy war. I 100% support his right to go over there and do or say whatever he pleases. I would even donate for his plane fare 
You get got tagging an underpass with gang signs, you get nicked for destruction of property. Tag a business, they tack on trespassing. Tag a synagogue with nazi symbols and they add on hate crime, right? I could be wrong.
I have to say, I was surprised by all the other book burnings listed upthread. I think that is what offends me the most: Crimes against literature. I hated having to read Catcher in the Rye (goddamn crybaby), but burning it offends every sensibility I have. Maybe I loved F451 too much?
You’re right. The whole idea that freedom of speech is some absolute right, meaning we can do whatever we want, is not true. The law separates speech and action. It also states that we have to be aware of the consequences of our speech.
Wikipedia: See the sections on legal restrictions…it’s a good overview with lots of links to more detailed info.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of … _on_speech
First of all, in most cases you could not disentangle “normal” deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan or elsewhere from a targeted death because of Koran burning. Second, even if some nutjob actually grabs a serviceman and executes them in front of the world while shouting “this is in retaliation for the book burning”, you’re telling me the Florida dudes should be held responsible? So anytime an enemy of the US, or just someone who doesn’t like a US citizen, actually kills a US citizen after warning the US it would happen, then the object of the killer’s anger is responsible? That’s ludicrous. How about if Osama sent out a statement saying that if Palin-Beck are elected in 2012, he will “burn the cities of the infidels”. Does that mean voters can’t exercise their right to vote for the Two Headed Moron because they’ve been warned of the results and will be held responsible?
And that’s beside that fact that if you’re opinion were to hold true, the US government could curtail freedoms simply by warning against violent results and the violent results occurring.
Your suggestion “no one talks about responsibility anymore” sounds nice, but please provide some examples where this is the case, where someone said or did something offensive, that directly and intentionally resulted in a violent offense, and that person was not held partially responsible.
The full responsibility is with whoever intentionally kills someone in retaliation for the book burning. To blame the book burners (or flag burners or Mohammed cartoonists or Islamic Center picketers) for the violent reactions of evil bastards is a huge overreaction and, in my opinion, detracts from the responsibility of the murderers in the public view.
[quote=“suiyuan31”]
Everyone wants to talk about rights, but no one talks about responsibility anymore.[/quote]
There’s a flip side to that one, that might be worth thinking about. After 9/11 western leaders went out of their way to tell people Islam is a religion of peace, and the attack was carried out by terrorists, fanatics, extremists and we shouldn’t hold all Muslims accountable. This burning of the book has had generals, state leaders, religious leaders and the white house condemning the act.
So you would think Muslim leaders, religious leaders and so would be saying the same thing about this extremist pastor who wants to burn books, that this is not representative of Americans, that they too are fanatics and retaliatory action against all Americans is wrong. I mean they are doing that right? Remaining silent would almost seem like they condone retaliatory action for burning a Koran, which is not exactly being responsible either.
While I agree with you on your overall point that responsibility is the flip side of exercising a right. I don’t think its a fair point in this case. If some Muslim offended by this act goes out a kills a Christian sighting this incident they are solely responsible for that murder.
Does anyone else see the irony of a US general telling a private citizen that burning the Quaran will unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world? So invading a Muslim country for no cause does what exactly?
You’re right. The whole idea that freedom of speech is some absolute right, meaning we can do whatever we want, is not true. The law separates speech and action. It also states that we have to be aware of the consequences of our speech.
Wikipedia: See the sections on legal restrictions…it’s a good overview with lots of links to more detailed info.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of … _on_speech[/quote]
Hate Speech is a separate issue from the Afghanis retaliating by targeted killing of US servicemen. First of all, Nazis can paint all the symbols they want on their own houses. They can put up the Nazi flag on their doorstep and they can burn a cross in their own backyard (right in front of their car on blocks and their sister/wife). It’s when they do it on public property or on other’s private property that they get into illegal territory. Hate Crime is not a crime in and of itself (in the US - I believe Germany and Canada may be different), it is only something tacked on to an existing crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States
In that context, burning their own Korans on their own property is not a crime, and therefore can not be a Hate Crime.