Six UK men arrested for Youtube video of Koran burning

[cowcommander]

Source: Daily Mail

A gang of men have been arrested after filming themselves burning a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 - and posting it on YouTube.

Six suspects were seized after allegedly setting fire to the Muslim holy book in the backyard of a pub.

The men, who hid their faces, then posted the video of the burning on the popular website.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314534/Arrests-burning-Koran-9-11-posted-online.html

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[NoNothing]

2. well i'm sure this will change their minds

[herbm]

46. WHO cares if they change tier minds? All they have to do is resist the behavior.

[NoNothing]

62. Because

If they can't express their opinions through speech, they may find other, much more harmful ways to do so.

[Ter]

3. Arrested for what?

It's against the law there?

[Enrique]

5. suspicion of stirring racial hatred

Two men were arrested on suspicion of stirring racial hatred, and have since been released on bail.

No first amendment in UK.

[slackmaster]

9. Article 10 of the UK's Human Rights Act

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[Bragi]

18. Free speech limits must be "prescribed by law"

I don't believe there is any law in the UK that makes it illegal to criticize Islam or or offend its adherents.

So again, what exactly are they being charged with?

[customerserviceguy]

44. Looks like paragraph 2

can be used to negate any freedom in paragraph 1.

[slackmaster]

56. Which is really no different that what we have in effect in the USA

All rights are subject to "reasonable" regulation in order to facilitate the operation of an orderly, safe society.

I still don't get how burning someone's favorite fairy tale book, er religious text translates to incitement of racial hatred.

[customerserviceguy]

63. But we have a body of established law

that looks nothing like the vagueness of paragraph 2.

I'm with you, burning a dusty old book of BS is protected free speech. This prosecution will just usher the right wing back into power in the UK, one of the European nations needs to be the first one to tell the Islamists that they need to get with Western notions of freedom if they want to live in our society.

[KurtNYC]

96. seems like burning a book is not the crime; posting on YouTube is

posting the video to reach a wider audience and incite generalised hatred and unrest is not helpful for Britain or the "WOT".

[CJvR]

10. HOW?

How can despising a religion be racism?

[Enrique]

19. maybe most Muslims in the UK are North African

i'm guessing, I don't know if that's true or if that's the reason, but it could be. Maybe anti-Muslim sentiment is in fact racist there.

[RZM]

35. I think France has more N. African Muslims

In Britain I imagine many Muslims are of S. Asian (India/Pakistan) descent -- but you're right, there are clear ties between religion and racial/ethnic/linguistic identity issues in Europe. I think the connection is more salient there because many immigrants are from predominantly Muslim regions, while here a good portion of our immigrants come from Catholic Latin America -- hence the European fixation on 'creeping Sharia law.'

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. how many white muslims do you know? its probably why when it comes to islam

people use racism interchangeably with religious bigotry

technically its religious bigotry

[dipsydoodle]

66. Your constitution

has no meaning or merit outside of the USA. A US citizen couldn't use anything associated with it as a defence here in the UK where our own laws apply.

[AngryAmish]

116. Blasphemy

Literally.

[hlthe2b]

4. Chickenshits masked and totally concealed their identities...

apparently... That said, it isn't clear at all what they were charged with...

[Bragi]

20. Maybe they wanted to avoid a fatwa

Seems to me that anonymity is perfectly legitimate -- even necessary -- if you think that your exercise in lawful free speech may result in crazy people issuing death threats and inflicting harm on you.

[hlthe2b]

30. Interesting that you defend their hate-filled actions.

No one--absolutely NO ONE would defend violence... but your defending these chicken shits in their hateful actions? :puke:

Arguably they are as afraid to face the recriminations of their more sane citizenry (as well as any legal implications... Still defending them?

[Bragi]

31. I defend their right to free speech

This includes defending the expression of free speech even when I do not agree with the content of that speech.

In fact, I make it a point to defend lawful free speech *especially* when it is seen to be odious and offensive.

if we only defend free speech we agree with, then we are no defender of free speech.

[hlthe2b]

33. Hate Crimes extend to threats, and inciteful hate speech..

That is not what is meant by free speech. I'm not saying they should be prosecuted. I don't know the laws that apply in G. Britain. But, I certainly would not be defending their cowardly hateful actions. That disgusts me.

You might consider how this is different from the intimidation intended by those who would burn crosses in a black family's yard. The Supreme Court ruled on April 7, 2003, that a state does have the right to ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, but it cannot write a law that stipulates that any cross burning is evidence of an intent to intimidate.

Thus, it is not at all clear that burning Korans would always be construed as legally protected "free speech." Even in the US>.

[Bragi]

36. What "threat"? What "incitement"?

I see no reason why someone burning a book behind a pub "threatens" anyone in particular, or "incites" anyone to do anything.

Anyone who feels they can't control themselves and must engage in violence because a book was burned behind a pub should seek help before they hurt themselves or someone else.

[hlthe2b]

42. Then I'm sure you don't mind

those who brought the nooses to class to intimidate their African American classmates or the crosses burned in yard. I won't respond again. I just can not abide by those who defend such hate.

[Bragi]

45. How is that like burning paper behind a pub?

If they burned the Koran on the front lawn of a Muslim's house, then I can see how this might be intimidation.

But desecration of a book nowhere near the vicinity of any targeted "victim" is quite a different matter.

[hlthe2b]

53. to you, it is burning paper...

to them, it is burning their most holy symbol. By posting on YouTUBE they essentially DID burn it on the front lawn of every Muslim's house.

I'm not religious, but I am respectful of others. To take such a meaningful symbol-- a book that a billion Muslims find holy-- and burn it on video to be dispatched publicly throughout the world is not "just burning paper behind a pub."

[cleanhippie]

88. Again you fail to see the difference.

those who brought the nooses to class to intimidate their African American classmates or the crosses burned in yard.

Yes, I agree, but again, doing it in your OWN yard IS free speech.

[Regret My New Name]

97. I think a more apt comparison would be putting a video of nooses hanging from a tree on youtube

[cleanhippie]

117. Perhaps inapproprate and disgusting, yes

but free expression must be allowed. Its the foundation of our principles, no matter how distasteful that expression is.

[U4ikLefty]

43. Do you see where burning a cross may "threaten" somone?

This shit is hate-speech just like a cross burning.

...but maybe you defend cross burnings as well.

[Bragi]

48. Quite different

The cross burnings that the SC ruled as being not protected free speech took place in the vicinity of actual African-American people, and had no point other than to intimidate them. I think that was a good ruling.

This is vastly different, however, than me deciding to burn a book behind a pub as a protest against a specific religion, nowhere near anyone who might be part of that religion.

That may be offensive to some, but free speech means people have a right to offend. Anyone offended has a right to respond non-violently in kind.

[U4ikLefty]

55. So you are for cross-burnings to be done behind bars & shown on YouTube?

This wouldn't have gone anywhere if some fool didn't decide to display their hate-speech on YouTube.

You are pretending that this was done in private...it was not.

The SC did not rule that only cross-burning done in front of blacks was not protected...nice try

BTW, like the other poster I am done with you. I know a defender of hate when I see one. Bet you can't resist getting in the last word.

[NoNothing]

64. Are we allowed to be against something

And still think it should be legally permitted?

And if so, why are you conflating the two?

[Bragi]

74. No one expressed support for cross burnings that I can see

But you aren't so good at this debating thing, so have a nice day.

[cleanhippie]

87. Ahh, but see, you have confused the two...

You might consider how this is different from the intimidation intended by those who would burn crosses in a black family's yard.

Burning a cross is someone else's yard IS a hate crime INTENDED to intimidate, yes. But the same person can burn a cross is their OWN yard and it is not. The SCOTUS ruled that the burden of proving whether a cross burning was intimidation is on the state.

Burning a koran that you purchased on your own property or during a legal protest IS free speech, no matter how distasteful.

[Abq_Sarah]

111. I'm pretty sure

You're allowed to burn a cross in your own yard. It's when you do it in someone elses yard that it becomes a problem.

If you burn a bible or koran on your own property, you're not intimidating or threatening anyone. If you do it in a church or a mosque, it can then be argued there is an implied threat.

[cleanhippie]

86. Hold on a sec.

I do not think anyone is defending "these chickenshits in their hateful actions", I know I certainly am not, but if this were to happen here in the US, I most positively would be defending their RIGHT to do it, however "chickenshit" it may be.

I would hope you would too.

[slackmaster]

57. Keep your intake of fats and carbs down, and you won't have a problem with fatwa

:hi:

[dipsydoodle]

101. Maybe it was

ending a sentence with a preposition.

Other than that I guess it comes under : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

[sakabatou]

6. Although it was awful for them to do it

I don't like how they were arrested. Here it would've been regarded as free speech.

[The Northerner]

12. +1

[harun]

24. I for one am glad not every nation on Earth has the same laws

as the United States. Different strokes for different folks.

For example there are only a few countries on Earth that would allow a Fox News. In the UK the media outlets can spin, but they cannot flat out lie about people. Fox News sits there and lies all day. Allowed in U.S. illegal in UK.

[bossy22]

26. lets be honest

fox news doesnt outright lie all day- no they spin; just like all other major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC...). We just disagree with their view.

I for one would not want to live in a country which would ban such a thing- who determines what the "truth" is? The government regulators? If its the regulators couldnt they call whats true a lie and vice versa? Sounds orwellian to me. I don't want a law telling me what i can and cannot view when it comes to opinions. Let me make up my own decision in regard to who's telling the truth.

Freedom of speech rights are there to make sure that government can't do what you are advocating now

[Dappleganger]

28. Fox News doctors tapes to fit their own agenda.

Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. do it regularly.

[loudsue]

54. Totally disagree. Fox news went to the supreme court to be ruled

an "entertainment" business SO THEY DID NOT HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH. They were being challenged because they had LIED, and the supreme court said it was ok.

First
they declared bush president of the u.s., then they legalized propaganda with this ruling on fox news, then they legalized unlimited campaigning by corporations. Anybody that doesn't see a pattern there is as stupid as any republican.

[harun]

81. They absolutely lie all day. That is some extreme rationalizing to say they don't.

And I am not advocating anything, just saying the way it is.

[RZM]

47. Different strokes indeed . . . but . . . .

Which 'strokes' are ok and which are not? What can be considered acceptable and what not? It's a dicey question and gets into complicated issues of international standards of human rights. What about Saudi Arabia, where in parts of the country it's illegal to practice any religion other than Islam? Or the recent Ugandan laws regarding homosexuality and AIDS? Or Russian laws attempting to curb historical writing that impugns 'the reputation of Russia?' Not to mention many other places where women's rights are proscribed and/or it's against the law to criticize the (often unelected) government? These are all 'strokes' that I feel unfairly violate basic rights (as a true-blue American, I guess I consider free expression a basic right). To complicate the issue further, I think a lot of these laws have fairly broad support among the people that live under them -- which probably is fine for most people, but not the ones who are adversely impacted by them.

Europe isn't America and I'm not saying that it should be, but like America, I do feel that European countries should serve as examples to the rest of the world when it comes to basic rights issues. I support the basic principles of our bill of rights here and everywhere else as well. If that makes me a 'neo-imperialist' or whatever, so be it. I'd rather take that label than disingenuously claim that think your average citizen of 'x' country shouldn't necessarily have the same basic rights of expression that I enjoy. Though I am troubled to a degree by Western arrogance in this regard, I can't deny my core beliefs.

As an aside, I'm not so sure that some of the stuff you see in UK tabloids comes off all that well when compared to what you see on Fox News here -- but I don't read them, so I'm no expert.

[harun]

80. Classic orientalist approach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

a pervasive Western tradition, both academic and artistic, of prejudiced outsider interpretations of the East, shaped by the attitudes of European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Clean up your own back yard before you think others need your help.

[RZM]

85. I'm quite familiar with the late Edward Said's seminal work

He raised some interesting issues and it's a valuable text. But it's a point of view -- not a proclamation from the heavens. I don't know about you, but I'm all for basic standards of human rights. In many places, those simply aren't respected -- and it's fairly common for those who violate them to bring up colonial legacies, as if that excuses violations. Are you against basic standards for human rights in all cases or just when advocated by westerners?

[bossy22]

25. what many posters here don't realize is

how much more freedoms like this we compared with our european bretheran. Many international legal scholars recognize that the U.S. has a "concrete" form of free speech; in which all speech- short of directly physically hurting someone (yelling fire in a crowded theatre) is protected. That is not the case in many other countries; even those which have free speech rights written into their laws. Many of these countries have laws against "racist" speech or "extremist" speech.

[svan81]

52. No

The USA doesn't even use that "clear and present danger" standard anymore. I don't know why you brought up that you can't yell fire in a theatre.

The new standard expands on the old "clear and present danger" standard as it says that obscenities, fighting words and libel are the unprotected forms of speech.

Burning a Koran would likely be considered a "fighting word" in the USA and therefore, it wouldn't be protected.

[NoNothing]

61. Not in this context it wouldn't be fighting words

And it would be an awfully contrived scenario in which it would be. To be "fighting words" it has to be likely to incite an *immediate* breach of the peace, as well as be *personally* abusive.

[Bragi]

83. Thanks

The idea that the inferred threat must be "immediate", and directed at someone "personally", seem like reasonable criteria to me for exempting any speech from first amendment protection as free speech.

In British law, desecrating a religious object in a relatively intimate and private setting, and even then putting it on YouTube, such as these Gateshead louts have done, is not illegal. It is, I am convinced, protected free speech, going way back.

The thing I most don't understand here is what the cops and town council think they are doing with these 6 arrests.

Why do they want this in their midst? The rest of the world to be able to marginalize these kind of events, even when they show up on YouTube. Who exactly is calling the shots here? And do they have a clue?

[slackmaster]

7. "suspicion of stirring racial hatred"?!?

I was under the impression that Islam is a religion, not a race.

[rayofreason]

38. Genetically Muslim...

gives a whole new twist to the phrase "GM foods"

[glen123098]

8. I do not support this arrest,

Freedom of speech should also mean freedom of unpopular speech. As long as they owned the koran they burned, they should have the right to do it. Freedom of speech is one of the few privileges of living in the USA.

[savalez]

11. This was in the UK.

[glen123098]

13. i know....

i still don't support the arrest.

[The Northerner]

14. It seems the laws are different in the UK

[sakabatou]

17. They are

I don't think they have protected free speech.

[Dogtown]

15. self delete.

[MineralMan]

16. The UK has different laws than we do. Some may recall that

we declared our independence from England over some of those laws. The UK still has different laws than we do.

[Bragi]

21. If their names are published they will likely get death threats

I see all this ending badly for everyone. Arresting these punks, however offensive they may be, and publishing their names, could be a death sentence for them.

[frylock]

22. something to take under consideration before doing stupid shit and posting it on the web

[Bragi]

23. You might want to think that through a bit

Free speech includes the right to say things that others might find offensive.

Anyone who feels offended has a right to respond in kind.

They do *not* have the right to threaten or inflict harm in retaliation.

If they do have a legal right to inflict harm, then free speech no longer exists.

And if people in any society refuse to protect someone from threats and harm from offended parties, then free speech will soon cease to exist in that society.

[frylock]

27. it's in the UK..

so feel free to link me to their first amendment kplzthx. and i am in NO WAY advocating violence against these stupid fucks for trying to make a misguided statement. alls i'm saying is people should probably stop and think before they do something that may only serve to incite violence, because that is EXACTLY what they're doing when they pull this shit.

[Bragi]

29. See post 9 above

Any infringement of free speech must be specified in law.

My general comments about the importance of free speech stand.

Should people self-censor their lawful speech out of fear that an offended party may kill them?

The answer to that should be: "No, not in a free society."

In reality, however, as the Molly Norris case makes clear, even in the U.S it is now necessary that people self-censor their free speech if it may give offense to violent religious extremists.

[frylock]

34. perhaps their barrister will utilize that defence

[DeSwiss]

37. "...people should probably stop and think.....

...before they do something that may only serve to incite violence..."



- Riiiiight.....

[Bragi]

40. Exactly!

[frylock]

70. i just took a shit on the koran! i'm just like the freedom riders!!1

you're a real piece of work mang.

[U4ikLefty]

49. Yeah, a bunch of assholes behind a bar are just like the Civil Right Movement.

:eyes:

[Bragi]

51. I find it amazing how little support there is for free speech @DU

[DeSwiss]

60. I'm sure some thought the civil rights demonstrators...

...were assholes too. I participated in my first civil rights march with my mother back in 1961 when I was 9 years old. We were protesting against having to learn from the antiquated books -- some from before WWII -- in my elementary school.

- But I was probably thought of as an asshole to somebody......

"If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you dislike. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." ~ Noam Chomsky

[frylock]

69. the lengths some people will go to defend vile, racist, piece of shit mofos

comparing this act to the civil rights movement is absolutey disgusting.

[Bragi]

75. So you're in favour of free speech, provided you agree with it?

Otherwise, I note that free speech seems to fill you with anger and adjectives.

[frylock]

77. i learned all i need to know about you today..

comparing a bunch of drunk fucking cowardly hooligans acting with the sole purpose of stirring shit to the people who participated in the civil rights movement is fucking pathetic. i've got nothing further to discuss with you. feel free to rebut, but you'll not recieve a response from me. you're free to laud these fuckwads just as i am free to call them out as the asshole racist piece of shite that they are.

[Bragi]

79. Actually, it wasn't me that made that comparison

But I agreed with the point, so I'm happy to blamed for it.

No-one in a society that respects free speech has a right not be offended by the lawful free speech of others. This includes adherents to any religion who may feel offended by the free speech of others.

As always, in a free society, enemies of free speech just have to live with that.

[Bragi]

76. You missed the point

But I suspect you know that.

[frylock]

68. apples

oranges. try harder.

[DeSwiss]

71. Okay then....

...how about this?

[frylock]

78. how about wtf?

???

[rayofreason]

39. Hey Christian Fundamentalists!!!!

Beheading Works!!!!!!!

[dipsydoodle]

67. Their names will be read out at the Magistrates

Tough if they don't like it.

[Bragi]

73. You're okay with them being harmed or killed?

[dipsydoodle]

82. Our laws are for the overall good

They chose to break the law. Fuck 'em.

[Bragi]

84. Do the people that harm them not bear any responsibility?

You seem to side with the person who believes as a matter of religious faith that because these louts offended Islam, that they have an obligation to harm or kill one or more of them. (As in the case of former Seattle cartoonist and now in-hiding Molly Norris.)

Or am I misreading you? Would you charge the person who acted on the fatwa with a crime, or would you absolve them of responsibility?

[Nihil]

100. Of course they do.

> Do the people that harm them not bear any responsibility?

The people who performed that deliberately provocative action bear
the full responsibility for their actions.

Any people who choose to act upon the above in turn bear the full
responsibility for their own actions.

Two separate groups of people committing two separate crimes and
each being held fully responsible for their own crime.

Why is it that so many people here seem to be confused by a remarkably
simple situation?

:shrug:

It would appear that people are suggesting that the first group
should not bear any responsibility yet the second set should?
Isn't that called "discrimination"?

[Bragi]

102. Apples and oranges compared

What i think you miss is this:

Deliberately provocative speech is not illegal in a country where free speech is protected.

Harming someone because you don't approve of what they say when they lawfully express their views is illegal in most free societies.

The two actions are not equivalent.

[Nihil]

104. Only by *you* ...

As I said before,
>> Two separate groups of people committing two separate crimes and
>> each being held fully responsible for their own crime.

Your observation that, in the US, "deliberately provocative speech
is not illegal" has no bearing upon the situation which was reported
(and which I commented upon) for the simple reason that it didn't
take place in the US.

*I* didn't miss anything.
*You* chose to mix up the apples & oranges (and then complain about it ...
gosh, isn't that a "strawman"?).


To assist your more fruitful understanding:
1) Any apples who perform a deliberately provocative action bear the full responsibility for their actions.

2) Any oranges who choose to act upon the above apple-ied behaviour bear the full
responsibility for their own actions.

Two separate groups of fruit (1 & 2) commit two separate crimes (1 & 2) and each
are being held fully responsible only for their own crime (1 for 1 & 2 for 2).

[Throd]

89. "I've heard it called that before, but not by you"...

[dipsydoodle]

93. Heard what before ?

But not by me ? :shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

99. Do you think burning a Quran and posting it on Youtube when they did is an okay thing to do?

It's just that you do appear to be supporting the fucking wankers in the OP and now seem to be wanting them to remain anonymous. I'm wondering if those idiots are BNP types...

[Bragi]

103. It isn't something I would do or endorse, BUT...

It does seem to me that what they were doing was not illegal. They harmed no-one, they burned an object they owned, they were exercising their right to free speech.

And yes, the Koran-burners were BNP types. I support their right to free speech as much as I support the right to free speech of Nazis who want to parade about.

In neither case does this mean I support the content of what they are saying, but I rigorously support their right to say it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. If revealing their names puts them at risk of attack, it seems they have stirred up religious hatred

If they remain anonymous, but the attack was well known (because they put it on YouTube, to get as many people to see it as possible), then their message is "Englishmen hate Muslims enough to burn the Koran". If this action cannot be pinned down to being by specific individuals, it will have the effect of increasing the hatred of Englishmen by many Muslims (whether or not the Muslims decide to take any illegal action as a result, some will hate Englishmen more).

If their names become public, then the rest of England can disown them, saying "it was their decision to do this; this is their personal view". If you do something like this openly, then the chances of increasing hatred of the large gropu you belong to are much less.

So, yes, I think the publishing of their names may be a good thing, overall. If they think they are 'sending a message', they should be willing to say who the message come from, since they do not speak for the populace as a whole.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

41. Glad these fucks were arrested

As for the people here going on about 'free speech' and how we should have the right to say any old shit not matter the consequence's, well all I can do do is think of the fucking wars we had to live through in the last century in the UK.

If I could go back in time, I'd put a fucking bullet through Hilter's evil head and say, "Fuck your so called right to free speech".

[Bragi]

50. As one who does go on about free speech

I will give you some points for monumentally bad logic.

Also, under Godwin's law, your Hitler reference means you lose the debate anyway.

[slackmaster]

58. Great example of moral relativism

You oppose burning one book, but given your willingness to perform an extrajudicial execution I suspect you'd have no problem with someone burning a copy of Mein Kampf.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

108. You are comparing Mein Kampf with a religious book?

Bloody hell!

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RZM]

59. Any decent person today

would of course have no problem with going back in time and neutralizing Hitler. Like you, I would be fine with pulling the trigger myself. But it's a little disingenuous to frame that as a free speech issue. I guess some of his stump speeches and Nazi propaganda might be considered protected speech in the US, but not his 1923 coup attempt nor his use of the SA as street enforcers, both of which happened before he was even in power. Once in power, his suspension of civil liberties, anti-Semitic legislation, purges of rivals/followers and wars of aggression/brutal occupation regimes/genocides also do not at all fall under the purview of free speech -- they would be violations of the law in many countries around the world (many were certainly violations of Weimar law).

These jackasses that burned the Qu'ran are, as far as I can tell, not modern-day Hitlers. They are anti-Muslim and mean-spirited, but I don't see much evidence of them being much else. Though I don't like what they did and would never participate in anything like it myself, my belief in free speech trumps my personal antipathy toward their actions.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

107. No the 'behind the pub burners'

had nothing to do with Hitler. I was just saying how one mouth fucker can lead to the death of millions.

[rayofreason]

65. So I suppose...

...you would support also support arresting assholes who piss on a Koran and post the video on Youtube. How about a crucifix?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Or do you only support the arrest of people who might offend crazy SOBs who like to chop off heads? There are many types of people I do not care for, such as "transgressive artists" who exhibit hypocritical cowardice when they proclaim Serrano right to free expression but who are silent when it comes to Danish cartoons (not suggesting that you are an artist of any type). I also view with disgust those who gratuitously insult what other consider sacred just to cause trouble. But I do not want any of them arrested. People should be free to be nonviolent assholes if they like, though in the case of both Serrano and the Danish cartoons there was far more than simple gratuitous insult involved - both had important points to make, and the Danes (or more appropriately fundamentalist Muslims) sure did make their point.

Regarding Hitler, with 20/20 hindsight all is clear. But put yourself in context. Say 1922, before the beer-hall putsch. Are you saying that you would be willing to shoot him just because he was going on with pro-violent, anti-semetic rants? Then why are you not shooting people now with whom you violently disagree?

Well, you may not like the first amendment much, but you sure have taken a liking to the second.

[DeSwiss]

72. +1 Excellent. n/t

[Boudica the Lyoness]

106. I believe in common sense laws

There's not much common sense here sometimes.

[rayofreason]

109. I believe in common sense as well...

...but not in capitulating to groups who threaten death to those who mock them.

[proteus_lives]

90. And you become him.

When will you get your BUF card?

[Nye Bevan]

91. The Founding Fathers also said quite a lot of "shit not matter the consequence's"

to the great displeasure of many Brits like yourself. I have a feeling that along with Hitler you wouldn't mind putting a "fucking bullet" through the heads of Washington and Jefferson while on your time-traveling assassination spree.

[Regret My New Name]

98. I think I saw that movie.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

105. lol

Right now I'll just concentrate on taking out Hilter.
Really though, if you could go back in time wouldn't you cap the fucker?

Err...weren't the founding fathers all British?

[alp227]

92. C'mon, this kind of stuff is "stupid but legal" in my book.

I mean, who's being harmed besides the books? (If these guys burned Qurans in the middle of, let's say an Arab-owned food market, that'd be real trouble.)

That's why PZ Myers titled his blog about this incident: "Grow Up, Gateshead". BBC reported (h/t PZ) that the men "were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and released on bail pending further inquiries." So does free speech end, when a certain group gets offended? Under that logic shouldn't gangsta rap music that uses the N-word and "faggot" be banned? (I can name numerous rap songs by black performers using that N-word, but as far as the anti-gay slur goes I'll say..."Straight Outta Compton" and "Fuck Tha Police" by NWA as far as I recall.)

Meanwhile the US Supreme Court has ruled (Virginia v. Black, 2003) that cross-burning is only illegal if the state can prove that the burner intended to intimidate. To me it seems that the guys who posted their little Quran-burning event had some degree of animosity towards Islam. But towards any specific residents of the town? Prosecutors should prove it.

[dipsydoodle]

94. They're locals at the Bugle pub, Leam Lane, Gateshead

If anyone did want to find them.

[Nye Bevan]

95. Allah thanks you for helping out with the fatwa (nt)

[merqz]

110. Yet another example of the fact that free speech is far less free in the UK

whether you think that is good or bad is a question. I think it's bad. But it's inarguable that they have less free speech. It's a tradeoff. Do you want more freedom? If so, you will necessarily be exposed to more offensive speech. The UK, etc. have criminalized "hate speech". We don't, and can't - because of the 1st amendment.

I am sure somebody will yell "fire in a crowded theatre" or some other bogus analogy. What we have here is speech that is incredibly offensive to some people. Burning crosses, dipping crosses in urine, and burning Qurans are all examples of speech that creates great offense, but is LEGAL here. (yes, cross burning can be criminalized, but only if it is done with the intent to intimidate, that intent CANNOT be assumed - it must be proved, etc. and that's because cross burnign has a history of being immediately followed by the burners engaging in physical violence, which is not the case with flag or Quran burning).

I prefer a system that protects offensive and hateful speech. Others prefer less freedom, but more "civility".

Note: some people will invariably claim that I am "defending" the Quran burners, which is dumb. I do not defend Quran burners, cross burners, or crucifix dippers. I defend their rights. Huge difference. I don't defend accused murderers. I do defend their right to a trial by jury, an attorney without cost, etc. Same thing

[mitchum]

114. It makes a fitting companion to all of the UK "security" cameras

[merqz]

115. One nation, under govt. surveillance

with blood pudding and fish and chips for all. (LOVE blood pudding)

[milou]

112. I'm going to burn a religious book myself tonight...

Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard.

Somehow I don't think the anti-free-speech crowd will be calling for my head. Though the scientologists might sue me, so maybe I won't.