baldguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-01-11 07:45 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. "Fire!" in a crowded theater. |
| -So, does 'free speech' protect Terry Jones' koran burning? |
Danger Mouse |
Apr-01-11 07:42 PM |
#0 |
 -
Yes, it does. |
Faygo Kid |
Apr-01-11 07:45 PM |
#1 |
  -
no. he can say anything he wants but if there are dangerous and |
roguevalley |
Apr-01-11 10:02 PM |
#86 |
| -
No... |
MellowDem |
Apr-01-11 11:42 PM |
#95 |
| -
Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong |
intaglio |
Apr-02-11 07:05 AM |
#121 |
| -
"Fire!" in a crowded theater. |
baldguy |
Apr-01-11 07:45 PM |
#2 |
| -
People shouldn't have abortions either. |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 07:51 PM |
#12 |
| -
Posting abortion provider addresses on a anti-choice website is ok also. Right? |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 07:55 PM |
# |
| -
You seriously would ban the burning of the Quran in the United States of America? |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:01 PM |
#23 |
| -
I asked you a question and you don't answer. Gotcha. Where the fuck did you get that idea from? fail |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:03 PM |
#27 |
| -
LOL. It is the most ridiculous comparison I have seen on DU, |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:06 PM |
#30 |
| -
Point out where I claimed what you assert I do. Point it out. WHERE do I claim that? |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:07 PM |
#32 |
| -
BS. That is a lie. "You are the one claiming that there should be legal prohibitions on burning one" |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:08 PM |
#33 |
| -
Don't be disingenuous. If you aren't arguing that, then what ARE you arguing? |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:19 PM |
#43 |
| -
You responded with a ridiculous comparison "People shouldn't have abortions either." |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:23 PM |
#48 |
| -
Ah my dear uppityperson, |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:53 PM |
#76 |
| -
Or, to rephrase the question: |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 08:27 PM |
#56 |
| -
To answer your question, no. |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:34 PM |
#61 |
| -
Finally! |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:53 PM |
#77 |
| -
I don't think it should be illegal either but if twelve people are |
roguevalley |
Apr-01-11 10:06 PM |
#88 |
| -
no. if it's not a crime then why should you be subject to legal penalties? |
cali |
Apr-02-11 04:57 AM |
#107 |
| -
he caused 12 people to die. he was told this would happen and |
roguevalley |
Apr-02-11 10:31 AM |
#129 |
| -
aaarh, not under our laws. he has the right to burn |
cali |
Apr-02-11 11:51 AM |
#132 |
| -
Negotiate with terrorist? |
Alchem13 |
Apr-03-11 01:05 PM |
#153 |
| -
Strongly disagree. The only ones accountable for the deaths are those who did the killing. |
cleanhippie |
Apr-02-11 12:16 PM |
#136 |
| -
Exactly. nt |
frogmarch |
Apr-02-11 01:50 PM |
#142 |
| -
I agree with you here |
Bryn |
Apr-04-11 09:21 PM |
#159 |
| -
Why is it a fail? |
haikugal |
Apr-01-11 08:27 PM |
#55 |
| -
Go to the beginning of the subthread "People shouldn't have abortions either." |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:33 PM |
#60 |
| -
Don't worry. |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:56 PM |
#78 |
| -
It is a fail to claim I support banning burning a quran because I asked a question |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:35 PM |
#64 |
| -
Thanks for the information |
haikugal |
Apr-01-11 11:34 PM |
#94 |
| -
do what you want, say what you want but pay the piper if you |
roguevalley |
Apr-01-11 10:04 PM |
#87 |
| -
and they wouldn't be dead if a fucking bloody mob hadn't slaughtered them |
cali |
Apr-02-11 04:59 AM |
#108 |
| -
Banning book burning and *holding people liable |
northernlights |
Apr-02-11 06:25 AM |
#116 |
| -
That is totally and completely different n/t |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 08:06 PM |
#31 |
| -
How? |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:09 PM |
#35 |
| -
So they ARE the same? |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:22 PM |
#45 |
| -
I am asking arcane how "That is totally and completely different". |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:25 PM |
#50 |
| -
How??? Really??? I can't believe you're really asking that... |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 08:34 PM |
#62 |
| -
Thank you and as I answered you elsewhere already, no. |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:37 PM |
#66 |
| -
I can totally relate to that. |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 08:39 PM |
#69 |
| -
and guess what I did earlier this week. |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:41 PM |
#70 |
| -
I'm a huge advocate of giving certain emotional states their own standardized font |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 08:43 PM |
#71 |
| -
I can only envision one way in which he could be responsible: |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 08:38 PM |
#67 |
| -
A problem with extremist fundies of all sorts is they need little excuse to be assholes |
uppityperson |
Apr-01-11 08:39 PM |
#68 |
| -
Publishing the addresses of "Abortion Providers" is fine |
intaglio |
Apr-02-11 07:18 AM |
#123 |
| -
Thought about this over night and figured out what my issue with this comparison is |
uppityperson |
Apr-02-11 12:12 PM |
#134 |
| -
See above n/t |
intaglio |
Apr-02-11 07:08 AM |
#122 |
| -
You're referring to the to the workers in Afghanistan that were killed? |
krispos42 |
Apr-01-11 07:45 PM |
#3 |
| -
Indeed it does, racist scumbaggery notwithstanding. n/t |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 07:45 PM |
#4 |
| -
Of course. (NT) |
Tesha |
Apr-01-11 07:46 PM |
#5 |
| -
yes it is free speech. nt |
boston bean |
Apr-01-11 07:46 PM |
#6 |
| -
Free speech? Yes. |
devils chaplain |
Apr-01-11 07:46 PM |
#7 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Apr-01-11 07:47 PM |
#8 |
| -
what about the fucking assholes that did the killing? Jones didn't force them to murder... |
boston bean |
Apr-01-11 08:02 PM |
#25 |
| -
nobody said the killers are not guilty of murder |
northernlights |
Apr-01-11 08:09 PM |
#36 |
| -
he is not in control, nor make people do things. that is silly. |
boston bean |
Apr-01-11 08:10 PM |
#37 |
| -
nope. he is not equally guitly, scumbag that he is. |
cali |
Apr-01-11 08:23 PM |
#47 |
| -
Murder by proxy? |
MellowDem |
Apr-01-11 11:48 PM |
# |
| -
I'll take that to mean that you believe bullies can harrass their targets with words |
northernlights |
Apr-02-11 06:20 AM |
#115 |
| -
If a group of muslims burned the bible |
onenote |
Apr-02-11 08:40 AM |
#127 |
| -
So by that rationale, what other activities should be banned due to the possible actions |
cleanhippie |
Apr-02-11 12:18 PM |
#137 |
| -
I live 45 minutes down the road from that fuckstick. Talk me down |
NightWatcher |
Apr-01-11 07:48 PM |
#9 |
| -
You are welcome to your response |
Aerows |
Apr-01-11 08:01 PM |
#24 |
| -
if this country is so full of violent Muslims, why hasnt one taken him out by now? |
NightWatcher |
Apr-01-11 08:11 PM |
#38 |
| -
It wasn't just what he did |
atreides1 |
Apr-01-11 07:49 PM |
#10 |
| -
This is more like |
Turbineguy |
Apr-01-11 07:50 PM |
#11 |
| -
The "Fire in a Theatre" trope is past it's sell by date. |
intaglio |
Apr-02-11 07:26 AM |
#126 |
| -
In Canada he would probably be charged |
Canuckistanian |
Apr-01-11 07:52 PM |
#13 |
| -
Charged with what? "Inciting an international crime"?? |
WinkyDink |
Apr-01-11 07:54 PM |
# |
| -
Hate speech. Just like this guy. |
Canuckistanian |
Apr-01-11 08:12 PM |
#39 |
| -
The KKK busted their bank on the same Keegstra lie. |
Mojeoux |
Apr-01-11 08:25 PM |
#51 |
| -
So by Canadian Law, if Jones is a liar and his lies promote violent hate |
Mojeoux |
Apr-01-11 08:31 PM |
#58 |
| -
I doubt he would be charged or convicted |
Bragi |
Apr-02-11 06:33 AM |
#118 |
| -
really? he'd be charged with???? |
cali |
Apr-01-11 08:25 PM |
#49 |
| -
No minority groups in the US were 'greatly injured' by Jones' actions |
RZM |
Apr-01-11 10:48 PM |
#92 |
| -
Why weren't those cartoonists... |
MellowDem |
Apr-01-11 11:50 PM |
#97 |
| -
OK, let me ask this |
DonCoquixote |
Apr-02-11 05:19 AM |
#110 |
| -
you have it backwards |
onenote |
Apr-02-11 08:51 AM |
#128 |
| -
Exactly how does some |
pipoman |
Apr-03-11 12:01 AM |
#147 |
| -
Is this an April Fool's query? A book made of paper and printed in a plant and sold in a store? |
WinkyDink |
Apr-01-11 07:53 PM |
#14 |
| -
Apparently some DU-ers have difficulty with that concept. nt |
woo me with science |
Apr-01-11 08:04 PM |
#28 |
| -
It's free speech, but we have EVERY right to condemn him and shame him. |
Zynx |
Apr-01-11 07:54 PM |
#15 |
| -
As long as your condemnation is consistant |
pipoman |
Apr-03-11 12:07 AM |
#148 |
| -
If it was for the purpose of inflaming people, which this was, then yes. |
Zynx |
Apr-03-11 02:38 AM |
#149 |
| -
Of course it does. |
Bunny |
Apr-01-11 07:55 PM |
#16 |
| -
Exactly. And what is the alternative? |
arcane1 |
Apr-01-11 08:05 PM |
#29 |
| -
My response from another thread: |
Spider Jerusalem |
Apr-01-11 07:55 PM |
#17 |
| -
Interesting answer, thanks. |
Danger Mouse |
Apr-01-11 07:59 PM |
#22 |
| -
Sounds very interesting |
Bluenorthwest |
Apr-01-11 08:15 PM |
#41 |
| -
I'm an American, I don't need these things pointed out. Thanks though. |
Spider Jerusalem |
Apr-01-11 08:26 PM |
#53 |
| -
I am also American and assumed you were as well. |
Bluenorthwest |
Apr-01-11 08:49 PM |
#75 |
| -
The question is whether an absolutist position on freedom of expression is a good thing. |
Spider Jerusalem |
Apr-01-11 09:23 PM |
#83 |
| -
That's not the question... |
MellowDem |
Apr-02-11 12:03 AM |
#100 |
| -
A rational person would realize that killing several people in retaliation |
Obamanaut |
Apr-01-11 07:56 PM |
#18 |
| -
Yes. |
aquart |
Apr-01-11 07:56 PM |
#19 |
| -
Categorically, yes. |
Aerows |
Apr-01-11 07:57 PM |
#20 |
| -
From legal consequences - yes, he is protected. From the consequences of his actions - no. |
kenny blankenship |
Apr-01-11 07:58 PM |
#21 |
| -
yes, unequivocally |
ReggieVeggie |
Apr-01-11 08:02 PM |
#26 |
| -
It also defends my right to use Bibles for a hot dog weenie roast. |
roamer65 |
Apr-01-11 08:09 PM |
#34 |
| -
Perhaps it is time to do just that. |
Skidmore |
Apr-01-11 08:14 PM |
#40 |
| -
No, he did not directly kill those people. |
Rex |
Apr-01-11 08:18 PM |
#42 |
| -
uh, the direct result of a muderous mob |
cali |
Apr-01-11 08:20 PM |
#44 |
| -
I don't think it is equal to yelling fire either. One thing to note, specficially about book burning |
howard112211 |
Apr-02-11 04:22 AM |
#104 |
| -
Yes but |
moondust |
Apr-01-11 08:22 PM |
#46 |
| -
That is a great idea. I hope the victims families sue his ass off. |
roamer65 |
Apr-01-11 08:26 PM |
#54 |
| -
I'm sure it would be easy to prove intent of the murderers, but proving that he |
Rex |
Apr-01-11 08:33 PM |
#59 |
| -
The 1st Amendment allows any idiot to destroy his or her own private property |
The Northerner |
Apr-01-11 08:25 PM |
#52 |
| -
yes it does and that it all it protects |
madrchsod |
Apr-01-11 08:27 PM |
#57 |
| -
the same free speech that allows muslims to promote that book allows the idiot to burn it nt |
msongs |
Apr-01-11 08:35 PM |
#63 |
| -
Yes it does |
Raine |
Apr-01-11 08:36 PM |
#65 |
| -
Yes. Any more questions? (And to compare yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater ... |
11 Bravo |
Apr-01-11 08:45 PM |
#72 |
| -
+1 |
Rhythm |
Apr-01-11 10:14 PM |
#91 |
| -
er um...... Bravo Bravo |
Saboburns |
Apr-02-11 12:02 AM |
#99 |
| -
The mullah in Afghanistan provoked his followers to violence. |
riderinthestorm |
Apr-01-11 08:47 PM |
#73 |
| -
Terry Jones? |
Keith Bee |
Apr-01-11 08:47 PM |
#74 |
| -
Yep and it also protects your right to burn a Bible or flag or whatever you choose - |
lynne |
Apr-01-11 09:04 PM |
#79 |
| -
Yes it is. |
Puregonzo1188 |
Apr-01-11 09:07 PM |
#80 |
| -
OK. Burning a Qua ran is not protected. What if your casual conversation |
Old Troop |
Apr-01-11 09:16 PM |
#81 |
| -
Yes |
WatsonT |
Apr-01-11 09:19 PM |
#82 |
| -
Yes. |
snot |
Apr-01-11 09:23 PM |
#84 |
| -
Yes. And yes, he is. n/t |
EFerrari |
Apr-01-11 09:25 PM |
#85 |
| -
if the Koran he burned belonged to him of course it's free speech |
TorchTheWitch |
Apr-01-11 10:11 PM |
#89 |
| -
Terry Jones IS a 'first rate scumbag', but what he did is perfectly Constitutional |
Rhythm |
Apr-01-11 10:13 PM |
#90 |
| -
This rationale for curbing speech was called the "heckler's veto" by Harry Kalven. |
Jim Lane |
Apr-01-11 11:34 PM |
#93 |
| -
Yes. Of course it does. |
Saboburns |
Apr-01-11 11:48 PM |
#96 |
| -
Yes, but the consequences ... |
GeorgeGist |
Apr-01-11 11:53 PM |
#98 |
| -
More than one thing can be true at the same time. |
Solly Mack |
Apr-02-11 03:08 AM |
#101 |
| -
And some people will think this reply is OP worthy. |
Turborama |
Apr-03-11 04:08 AM |
#150 |
| -
From a legal standpoint, your argument holds no water. |
Paradoxical |
Apr-02-11 03:12 AM |
#102 |
| -
Of course it does, in every thread about him. |
darkstar3 |
Apr-02-11 03:19 AM |
#103 |
| -
damn straight it does |
melm00se |
Apr-02-11 04:28 AM |
#105 |
| -
Victims' families are free to sue Jones for his irresponsible behavior. |
eppur_se_muova |
Apr-02-11 04:56 AM |
#106 |
| -
I doubt he'll get one |
cali |
Apr-02-11 05:21 AM |
#111 |
| -
No one has brought up Bill O'Reilly |
AsahinaKimi |
Apr-02-11 05:01 AM |
#109 |
| -
that's a clearer example of speech that incites |
cali |
Apr-02-11 05:23 AM |
#112 |
| -
I agree with you. |
Rhiannon12866 |
Apr-02-11 05:24 AM |
#113 |
| -
well, he didn't say "Kill Tiller the baby killer" |
ReggieVeggie |
Apr-02-11 06:36 AM |
#119 |
| -
Jones is protected |
Taitertots |
Apr-02-11 05:51 AM |
#114 |
| -
a reasonable person does not deliberately provoke irrational people |
northernlights |
Apr-02-11 11:46 AM |
#131 |
| -
Sure they do. Being irrational is not a protected right. |
cleanhippie |
Apr-02-11 01:32 PM |
#139 |
| -
A reasonable person avoids things that would provoke reasonable people |
Taitertots |
Apr-02-11 11:39 PM |
#146 |
| -
jones's church is actually a furniture showroom. it has 50 members who |
Hannah Bell |
Apr-02-11 06:25 AM |
#117 |
| -
nobody would know anything about some guy in a phony church of 50 people |
Hannah Bell |
Apr-02-11 06:39 AM |
#120 |
| -
Yes |
JustAnotherGen |
Apr-02-11 07:18 AM |
#124 |
| -
That |
JonLP24 |
Apr-02-11 07:21 AM |
#125 |
| -
I'm not so sure about the "free speech" argument. |
mistertrickster |
Apr-02-11 10:56 AM |
#130 |
| -
burning the koran "may not be protected speech" in some countries |
onenote |
Apr-02-11 01:44 PM |
#141 |
| -
You can make that argument. I just think it's not a slam dunk. |
mistertrickster |
Apr-03-11 11:14 PM |
#154 |
| -
I suggest you read the recent Supreme Court decision involving the Phelps |
onenote |
Apr-04-11 07:04 AM |
#156 |
| -
The same Supreme Court that installed GWBush president? Nah. No thanks. nt |
mistertrickster |
Apr-04-11 09:15 PM |
#158 |
| -
What would prompt Jones to believe that there would be violence as a result? |
Morning Dew |
Apr-02-11 12:10 PM |
#133 |
| -
Unfortunately, yes, it does. |
cleanhippie |
Apr-02-11 12:13 PM |
#135 |
| -
Yes. I think the provocation of easily offended people should be MANDATORY. |
Modern_Matthew |
Apr-02-11 12:21 PM |
#138 |
| -
Yes. nt |
hack89 |
Apr-02-11 01:34 PM |
#140 |
| -
Yes. If it does not then it protects NOTHING. |
Chris_Texas |
Apr-02-11 02:18 PM |
#143 |
| -
Yes, I think he does have the right to burn a book if wants to. |
Quantess |
Apr-02-11 02:24 PM |
#144 |
| -
So I guess.. |
SnakeEyes |
Apr-02-11 02:42 PM |
#145 |
| -
Koran burning = cross burning? |
pampango |
Apr-03-11 05:01 AM |
#151 |
| -
Koran burning = flag burning? (nt) |
The Straight Story |
Apr-03-11 05:04 AM |
#152 |
| -
Yes |
rollin74 |
Apr-03-11 11:22 PM |
#155 |
| -
When you yell fire and people get hurt, it is OK? |
DainBramaged |
Apr-04-11 07:10 AM |
#157 |
| -
Yes it does. It also protects the publishing of his church and home address. |
Taverner |
Apr-04-11 09:22 PM |
#160 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread