Its not similar at all. Doesn’t matter what his intent was. I don’t know who Randi Rhodes is, but he/she doesn’t seem to understand the issue very well.
I’m very curious as to why you haven’t answered my question regarding gay pride parades. I’m willing to bet that if at a gay pride parade some gay person dressed up like a nun or a priest or Jesus and then acted in some way that some Christian fundie felt was lewd and offensive to him, and if that fundie Christian acted violently against that gay person or any gay person, you would be first to condemn the Christian fundie as an intolerant bigot and you’d stand up for the gays’ right to parade around in costumes that provoke fundie Christians. You’d be correct, and I’d be with you on that. So, why, if some nutter fundie Moslem who takes offense at some nut in Florida burning a Koran and then goes out and riots… why do you in this case blame the nutter burning the Koran rather than the fundie Muslim doing the violence?
Its not cause and effect. If I burn Korans in secret, there is no effect.
If the nutter in Florida burns the Koran and nobody knows about it, I guarantee that nobody feels any pain or slight or offense. Its not real harm, when you choose to be offended or harmed. If I shoot you in the back, even though you never see me or know that I’m going to shoot you… you will be harmed. The only way anyone gets harmed by the burning of some book or flag is if they choose to be offended and harmed. Since we all have a choice in whether we will feel insult and harm or offense, we all have a choice as to how we will respond to mere words or symbolic acts, and then the responsibility for our actions is our own.
We know damn well that some people will choose to be offended when a flag is burned, or when a Bible is mistreated. We do not, however, excuse the offended party for any act of violence he/she may take in response to a flag being burned or a Bible being mistreated.
That doesn’t mean that its the fault of the Koran burner.
Well you’ve still used it incorrectly but while we’re talking about gleaning knowledge from television, I saw some things on the Road Runner and Coyote show today that could change our understanding of physics.
Again: intent. The intent of the people at gay pride parades isn’t to provoke violence.[/quote]
Chris, I keep reading the media on this and I can’t find any thing this guy said or indicated that one of his goals was to provoke violence. Could you please provide me with a link to any news source that quotes him as doing so?
[quote=“Tigerman”]Doesn’t matter what his intent was.[/quote] You’re right. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that he’s too stupid to realize that his actions are putting people at risk, and as such, the legal system should have relevant provisions. He will burn the books if that is what he wants to do and we’ll let him do it because it’s his right. It doesn’t make it right. Rigid interpretation of the law such as what you are doing in this thread, Tigerman, isn’t always the most favorable course of action. The American legal system is far from perfect and cases like these are good reminders.
Tigerman, why do you are about the issue of free speech so much? It’s not like over the past 8 years you’ve ever been a champion of individual freedom, rule of law, or even due process. In every incidence where the Bush admin engaged in over-reach, or even pure illegality in the case of torture, you sided with the executive over the people and general principles or fairness.
So what’s with the fetish over the first amendment?
“Those kinds of images going out on Al Jazeera are killing us around the world.”
– Colin Powell, 2008
There’s little doubt that Al Jazeera’s unvarnished views of the U.S. and its policies, as Colin Powell notes, incite violence towards Americans. Should its viewpoint then be silenced?
[quote](Wikileaks founder) Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. [/quote]-- Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen
Should Wikileaks be shut down by the government because its leaks incite violence against U.S. soldiers?
[quote=“Tigerman”]You’ll note that I never attempted to stifle his enthusiasm. Rather, I was exercising my freedom of speech in disagreeing with his ideas. That is what free speech is really all about.[/quote] 19 Apr 2004
[quote=“Tigerman”]But then, how do we set a standard for appropriate, non-offensive statements? I mean, its fairly easy to agree on prohibitting hateful racist, sexist speech and posts that threaten violence.
But, how do you set a standard for other speech that might be offensive to some but not to others?
The essence of free speech is the freedom to both state opinions and rebut opinions.
As long as we are free to rebut (and or ignore), I think that should suffice.[/quote] 21 Apr 2004
[quote=“Tigerman”]My primary concern now and always is the protection of free political speech. [/quote] 30 May 2004
[quote=“Tigerman”]But, if it were/is political… what’s wrong with that? Free speech.[/quote] 16 Jul 2004
[quote=“Tigerman”]WTF!? She is permitted to make vulgar jokes about President Bush, but Republicans are not permitted to comment on her jokes or to hold opinions regarding the same? What is it about the concept of free speech and expression that so many liberals simply do not seem to understand?[/quote] 17 Jul 2004
[quote=“Tigerman”]Are you saying that insults are NOT covered by the general right to free speech? Are people not free to insult George Bush? John Kerry? Tony Blair? A Bian? Annette Lu?
That doesn’t seem like the free speech I know.[/quote] 24 Jul 2004
[quote=“Tigerman”]They [i.e., some of BroonAle’s posts] were crude, no doubt… but they nonetheless constituted political speech, which I believe is deserving of a high level of protection. Moreover, I do not understand the complaints that such posts destroy or harm the integrity of the threads. How so? When you come to such a post, it takes about a half of a second to read it and then you go on to the next post. 2) Obviously, my notion of free speech differs substantially with that of the administration. I have nothing but respect for the administration, and I consider Forumosa to be an excellent website, as good as any I’ve ever seen and far better than most. But, I believe that political speech is worthy of a much higher level of protection than are most other types of speech.[/quote] 25 Jul 2004
[quote]I favor free speech rights limited by the restrictions of Time, Place and Manner.
This site is not the “place” for such speech. If that ******* wants to call anyone a “***” in his own house or out on the street, that is his right, IMO. If he wants to do so in a school or other place, he can and should be restricted from doing so.
If he wants to shout the “***” word outside my window at 01:00 I would call for a restriction per Time and probably Manner". Shouting is not, IMO, an appropriate manner of expression at 01:00. If he wants to wear a shirt that says “I hate ***s”… that is his right, subject to reasonable Time, Place and Manner restrictions.[/quote] 01 Aug 2004
That’s right. But the US has probably the most liberal attitude toward permitting free speech.[/quote] 02 Aug 2004
I’m kind of tired (or lazy), so I’m gonna leave off finding free speech quotes from Tigerman. But this should do for now.
Intent does have relevance. In the Virginia v. Black cross burning case, Virginia’s statute against cross burning per se was struck down, but cross burning with an attempt to intimidate could still be prosecutable. “Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.”
[quote]Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, the Court argued, blurs the distinction between proscribable “threats of intimidation” and the Ku Klux Klan’s protected “messages of shared ideology.” However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.
[…]
In Virginia v. Black et al. the Court found that Virginia’s statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion stating, “a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the attempt to intimidate.” In so doing, the Court created a new area of constitutionally unprotected speech for “true threats.” Under that carve-out, “a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.”
The Court did, however, strike down the provision in Virginia’s statute which stated “Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons,” holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its “indiscriminate coverage.” The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.[/quote]
Chris where did you get your quote from, because after reading it, it sounds like the last line was part of the decision. Instead, that was part of the text that was struck down. The Klan can burn crosses on their own property and it’s protected speech, however disgusting their actions may be. They can’t burn a cross on someone else’s property though.
So does Florida have an anti-Quran-burning statute? Or are you still talking about inciting to riot, and trying to apply the intent in the cross-burning case to your inciting to riot case? And if so, where would you expect this riot to take place? If overseas, I don’t think there would be much of a case under the federal anti-riot statutes (18 USC §§ 2101 & 2102), for this reason:
[quote]It is a long-standing principle of American law “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[/quote]–U. S. Supreme Court, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co. (1991) law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1838.ZO.html
[quote][W]e have repeatedly held that even statutes that contain broad language in their definitions of “commerce” that expressly refer to “foreign commerce,” do not apply abroad.[/quote]–Ibid.
[quote]When a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.[/quote]–U. S. Supreme Court, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (June 24, 2010) law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1191.ZS.html
[quote][A] general reference to foreign commerce in the definition of “interstate commerce" . . . does not defeat the presumption against extraterritoriality.[/quote]–Ibid.
That’s setting aside whether a Quran-burning can be considered an incitement to riot.
[quote]Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, the Court argued, blurs the distinction between proscribable “threats of intimidation” and the Ku Klux Klan’s protected “messages of shared ideology.” However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.
[…]
In Virginia v. Black et al. the Court found that Virginia’s statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion stating, “a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the attempt to intimidate.” In so doing, the Court created a new area of constitutionally unprotected speech for “true threats.” Under that carve-out, “a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.”
The Court did, however, strike down the provision in Virginia’s statute which stated “Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons,” holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its “indiscriminate coverage.” The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.[/quote]
Chris where did you get your quote from, because after reading it, it sounds like the last line was part of the decision. Instead, that was part of the text that was struck down. The Klan can burn crosses on their own property and it’s protected speech, however disgusting their actions may be. They can’t burn a cross on someone else’s property though.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s what it looks like:
[quote]We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form. [/quote]–U. S. Supreme Court, Virginia v. Black (2003) law.umkc.edu/faculty/project … black.html
Nice work secretary.[/quote] Glad to be of service.
Well you’ve still used it incorrectly but while we’re talking about gleaning knowledge from television, I saw some things on the Road Runner and Coyote show today that could change our understanding of physics.[/quote] I missed this one earlier. Thanks for the endorphins.
You guys are really “clever” with what you chose to bold and quote. The part you didn’t bold (but hey, at least you left it there) reads: However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.
So to say, based on this, that cross burning is protected speech is just part of the law. To say it isn’t is just part of the law. Why pick and choose partial facts to prove your already held opinion?
[quote]Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, the Court argued, blurs the distinction between proscribable “threats of intimidation” and the Ku Klux Klan’s protected “messages of shared ideology.” However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.
[…]
In Virginia v. Black et al. the Court found that Virginia’s statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion stating, “a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the attempt to intimidate.” In so doing, the Court created a new area of constitutionally unprotected speech for “true threats.” Under that carve-out, “a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.”
The Court did, however, strike down the provision in Virginia’s statute which stated “Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons,” holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its “indiscriminate coverage.” The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.[/quote]
Chris where did you get your quote from, because after reading it, it sounds like the last line was part of the decision. Instead, that was part of the text that was struck down. The Klan can burn crosses on their own property and it’s protected speech, however disgusting their actions may be. They can’t burn a cross on someone else’s property though.[/quote]
[quote=“suiyuan31”]You guys are really “clever” with what you chose to bold and quote. The part you didn’t bold (but hey, at least you left it there) reads: However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.
So to say, based on this, that cross burning is protected speech is just part of the law. To say it isn’t is just part of the law. Why pick and choose partial facts to prove your already held opinion? [/quote]
Clever by bolding the decision rather than emphasizing the language that was struck down? Chris’s last sentence made it sound, unintentional I’m sure, that any burning of the a cross was de facto intent to intimidate. That line is from the VA statute and was struck down as being unconstitutional. The government has to prove that the intent of burning the cross was to intimidate. Just burning a cross isn’t enough to prove intent.
You can burn a cross in your own backyard if you like. You can’t burn it on someone else’s property. Perhaps if you spent more time reading and less time accusing others of being “clever” you would see the distinction.
That part looks right. The Court is certainly saying that a cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven. But the Virginia statute said that the mere burning of a cross, without more, made out a prima facie case for intent.
Dictionary.com has several dictionaries giving definitions for prima facie. One definition is “at first sight.” But the most useful one for us is the one from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, which is “sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved.”
That means that when a prima facie case is made out, the burden shifts to the other party to disprove the prima facie case. That would mean that if A is charged with burning a cross, and it’s proven that he burned it, it’s presumed that he had the intent to intimidate unless he can prove that he had no such intent. That’s the part that the court found objectionable. And without looking into the actual case again, I’ll give a little law off the top of my head: There’s a Supreme Court case called In Re Winship. In that case, the Court held that in order to convict a person of a crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of every element (pretty clever bolding, don’t you think?–I even put some italics in there :discodance: ) of the offense with which he is charged.
Intent is an element of many criminal offenses. What the State did in the cross-burning case was to imply that if the act was proven, the element of intent to intimidate would be presumed and the defendant would have to rebut the presumption, that is, prove that he did not have the intent to intimidate.
That means that the statute does not require the State to prove the defendant’s guilt of every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Now I think there are offenses where intent is implicit in the act. However, it appears that the Court was of the opinion that in the case of cross-burning, intent to intimidate was not implicit in the act and would have to be proven by the State.
Reading Chris’s argument in the best light I can come up with, he seemed to be saying that the burning of a Quran would make out a prima facie case for intent. But since he had been earlier discussing an element of intent in incitement to riot, he seemed to be saying that the burning of a Quran would make out a prima facie case for intent to incite a riot. But I don’t know, maybe he meant intent to intimidate. Or maybe he meant both.
I don’t quite know what to make of the above, but it doesn’t seem to work very well, to put it mildly. Horatio told Hamlet that to consider, as Hamlet did, whether Alexander the Great’s remains went into the clay that formed the ceramic plug for a beer barrel, was “to consider too curiously.” But I prefer characterize it by what folks around here say to their kids: Bu4 xing2!
I like Chris, though. I don’t know why , but I like him. Well, actually, I do know why I like him. He seems like a genuinely good guy. I just happen to disagree with him about some things.
Can we stop now? That preacher said he aint gon burn no Qurans.
I missed this one earlier. Thanks for the endorphins.