So, does 'free speech' protect Terry Jones' koran burning?

[Danger Mouse]

Especially since people died as a direct result of it? Would that fall under the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' exception to free speech? I'm not sure either way.

Either way, Terry Jones is a first-rate scumbag.

[Faygo Kid]

1. Yes, it does.

And Muslims can burn the Bible here.

Beheading is out by all parties, and a plague on all those who abuse religion in the name of their fanaticism.

[roguevalley]

86. no. he can say anything he wants but if there are dangerous and

murderous consequences he's liable. I can say anything i want but if someone dies because of what I said I think there is a consequence to bear. Don't care what you say. Care about what happens because of it. FIRE!

Of course, I could be full of it. The speech is your choice. people dying because of your mouth isn't. that should be the part with consequences. hiding behind the first amendment would allow people who stalk abortion providers and kill them a loophole.

[MellowDem]

95. No...

that's a bad analogy. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre can lead to a stampede and therefore you would be liable. Yelling fire is not high value speech. Banning such speech doesn't hurt our democracy and doesn't have a chilling effect on free speech. Also, deaths resulting from the stampede would be accidental, based on your speech though. In this case, this was intentional murder, not a stampede where people are crushed. People can be held liable for speech that causes the former in certain cases, but in the latter case, it is entirely the murderer's own choice to kill.

Political or religious speech is high value speech. Therefore, it is accorded more protection, as it is considred vital to democracy.

Under your logic, the cartoonists that drew Mohammed should be held liable for the murders and attacks that resulted.

Actually, a lot of the stuff you have said in your life would be illegal. Remember, any controversial thing you say that could lead someone to kill means you are liable for it, no matter how crazy that person is or unreasonable.

[intaglio]

121. Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong

Holmes' opinion in the case where he used that analogy was that free speech was curtailed by a test of "clear and present danger." That test came back to bite him on the butt when later he found himself in the minority regarding the test "clear and present danger and so the rights of people to protest were curtailed as well.

Christopher Hitchens once, memorably, opened his part of a debate by shouting "Fire!" in a lecture hall and then proceeded to destroy Holmes' analogy.

Debate on Free Speech. part 1

This entire series is one of the best defenses of free speech I know and a great incitement to actually think. Note that he does not defend as right the views of holocaust deniers, racists or homophobes, just that if you remove their right to free speech you also remove your own right to free speech. Pastor Jones was foolish, ignorant and prejudiced to do what he did but the actions of the imams and their followers were worse - even allowing for their comparative ignorance.

That does not mean that incitement to violence cannot be punished, just that it must be proved that it is an incitement to violence. Crying out that homosexuals must be killed is hateful, but so is calling for the death of homophobes; but if a hater just says that they hate and do not lie about the thing hated or call for violence or give approval to the violence that results they must, unfortunately, be allowed to do so.

The laws of libel, slander and copyright have long been used by Scientology to defend itself from examination and prosecution. How much more would a law banning the defaming of religion or damage to religious texts defend that nasty little cult? Indeed imagine that such a law was in effect back in the 60's when Mormonism was still, exclusively white because of Book of Mormon said that blacks were a lesser race.

Debate on Free Speech. part 2
Debate on Free Speech. part 3

[baldguy]

2. "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[woo me with science]

12. People shouldn't have abortions either.

It might cause someone to shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic.

And homosexuals shouldn't hold hands in public. It might incite a gay beating.

There is no need to protect speech that doesn't offend people. We have a first amendment specifically to protect expression that other people DO find offensive. Burning a book is not the same thing as burning a person.

[uppityperson]

Posting abortion provider addresses on a anti-choice website is ok also. Right?

[woo me with science]

23. You seriously would ban the burning of the Quran in the United States of America?

Would you ban the burning of the Bible, too? :rofl:

[uppityperson]

27. I asked you a question and you don't answer. Gotcha. Where the fuck did you get that idea from? fail

:eyes: To answer your questions, no. And I never said that. Now, can you answer my question?

[woo me with science]

30. LOL. It is the most ridiculous comparison I have seen on DU,

and there are a lot of ridiculous comparisons on DU.

You are the one claiming that there should be legal prohibitions on burning one's own private book, and that is the topic of this thread.

How would you write such a law? Would you ban the burning of the Bible, too? What is your justification?

This is a fascinating argument!

[uppityperson]

32. Point out where I claimed what you assert I do. Point it out. WHERE do I claim that?

I asked a question about posting medical providers addresses. Good grief.

[uppityperson]

33. BS. That is a lie. "You are the one claiming that there should be legal prohibitions on burning one"

Point on where I claim that or edit to take out that disgusting accusation.

[woo me with science]

43. Don't be disingenuous. If you aren't arguing that, then what ARE you arguing?

I responded to a post about fire in a crowded theater, the example most often used to describe speech that is NOT legally protected by our Constitution. Whether or not burning a Quran is protected speech is the entire topic of this thread.

Do you think burning a Quran is protected speech or not?

[uppityperson]

48. You responded with a ridiculous comparison "People shouldn't have abortions either."

Then you accuse me of bullshit. You still haven't answered my question yet. Is posting abortion providers addresses on an anti-choice website protected free speech?

I am simply playing off your "People shouldn't have abortions either" line which veered way out from the question of is burning a quran protected or not.

Again, point out where I assert it is ok or edit that accusation.

[woo me with science]

76. Ah my dear uppityperson,

you get a gold star for noticing that abortion is not a perfect parallel. I will even add that it's not SPEECH. My comment was, in fact, a rhetorical device meant to illustrate the absurdity of using "what could happen" as a justification for outlawing what should clearly be protected.

This is such a fun conversation.

Now, back to YOUR comparison. You implied that they are the same below--burning a Quran and posting the names of abortion providers. Do you mean that they are both Constitutionally protected or both unprotected? I don't see them as the same at all, so I am fascinated to hear your reasoning.

Remember, the topic of this conversation is whether burning a Quran is protected speech. I am still on pins and needles waiting to hear your answer!

[arcane1]

56. Or, to rephrase the question:

Do you think it should be illegal to burn a Quran?

My answer is "Hell no!"

[uppityperson]

61. To answer your question, no.

[woo me with science]

77. Finally!

Thank you! :hi:

[roguevalley]

88. I don't think it should be illegal either but if twelve people are

murdered because you did knowing full well that this could happen because everyone in the slagging world said so, then you owe consequences and penalties to the crime.

[cali]

107. no. if it's not a crime then why should you be subject to legal penalties?

[roguevalley]

129. he caused 12 people to die. he was told this would happen and

he did it anyway. that is a crime.

[cali]

132. aaarh, not under our laws. he has the right to burn

a koran even though he was warned of what might happen

[Alchem13]

153. Negotiate with terrorist?

Sounds to me if they say " do not burn our koran or else", then compliance to that is the same as negotiating with terrorist. I believe in the bible, but if someone wants to burn it, that is fine by me. It is their RIGHT to do so. Personally, I could not find a book more offensive than the Koran if so many people are being slaughtered in its name.

[cleanhippie]

136. Strongly disagree. The only ones accountable for the deaths are those who did the killing.

[frogmarch]

142. Exactly. nt

[Bryn]

159. I agree with you here

He knew it would cause murder, but he didn't care. He was just being an asshole.

someone tweeted this:

WomensWorkUSA tweeted:
The faux Christian minister who burned the Korans should be put in prison for inciting violence. It was + always will be hate crime

[haikugal]

55. Why is it a fail?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Burning a Koran vs publishing personal information with intent...explain how it's the same.

[uppityperson]

60. Go to the beginning of the subthread "People shouldn't have abortions either."

I was posting off that comment. Burning quran and getting an abortion seemed apples and oranges to me. Unless that poster truly believes that they are the same. In which case I am rather flabbergasted.

The "fail" part was claiming I'd ban the burning of a quran.

[woo me with science]

78. Don't worry.

I really don't think people shouldn't have abortions. :hug:

[uppityperson]

64. It is a fail to claim I support banning burning a quran because I asked a question

leading off that poster's "People shouldn't have abortions either" comment. THAT is a fail. A question is seeking someone else's input, not saying what my beliefs are. Got it?

[haikugal]

94. Thanks for the information

uppity as it was...like you I just asked a question.

[roguevalley]

87. do what you want, say what you want but pay the piper if you

create a death or crime. This man killed twelve people who wouldn't be dead without him. That has to have consequences or anyone can say fire in the theater.

Man, are my comments ever dropping down thread way far. :)

[cali]

108. and they wouldn't be dead if a fucking bloody mob hadn't slaughtered them

asshole that he is, Jones didn't kill anyone.

[northernlights]

116. Banning book burning and *holding people liable

for the consequences of their actions* when they *know* that they are inciting violence, and are doing so with intent, are two different things.

How different is it, really, to hold a bully liable for driving an irrational person to murder than holding bullies liable for driving their victims to suicide?

If somebody is standing on a window ledge preparing to jump, and a crowd of people below taunts that person, yelling "Go ahead, jump! Everybody hates you anyway!" is that really protected speech? Should it be protected?

How far is that from yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?

[arcane1]

31. That is totally and completely different n/t

[uppityperson]

35. How?

[woo me with science]

45. So they ARE the same?

Are you saying they are both protected, or unprotected?

[uppityperson]

50. I am asking arcane how "That is totally and completely different".

Again you try and claim I am saying something when I am asking someone a question. Odd.

[arcane1]

62. How??? Really??? I can't believe you're really asking that...

but I'll try to answer.

One is a group of people who believe that abortion providers are murderers of children who must be stopped at any cost. A member of that group posts the info of those murderers, so that "justice" can find and identify them easily. It's an act of giving out specific personal information to people who think those victims should die.

The other is an inbred pastor who says "Look at me! I'm going to burn a book that is a blasphemy to my religious beliefs!"

Should that be against the law, in the Land of the Free? :shrug:

[uppityperson]

66. Thank you and as I answered you elsewhere already, no.

thank you for your answer. Yes, I do ask people to CLARIFY what they mean rather than ASSUMING I know. I am odd that way I guess.

[arcane1]

69. I can totally relate to that.

Hell, sometimes I find myself playing devil's advocate, especially if I'm still making up my mind, and Oh to the assumptions fly! :)

[uppityperson]

70. and guess what I did earlier this week.

went back and deleted a couple posts and apologized after reacting to a wrong assumption.

Talking with people live and on the internets takes different strategies to make sure we know wtf the other is meaning.

[arcane1]

71. I'm a huge advocate of giving certain emotional states their own standardized font

:)

[arcane1]

67. I can only envision one way in which he could be responsible:

If he had gone on tv and said "I'm gonna burn this book. If any of you muslims out there have a problem with it, you can take it up with the UN employees. Here is their address."

[uppityperson]

68. A problem with extremist fundies of all sorts is they need little excuse to be assholes

I am in agreement with you.

[intaglio]

123. Publishing the addresses of "Abortion Providers" is fine

Publishing the addresses of the workers at those clinics is an infringement if privacy, probably an incitement to violence and therefore wrong on 2 counts.

If you wish to curtail free speech you do so at your own risk. See my post above "Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong" because OWH's own judgment was used against his belief in freedom the very next year.

[uppityperson]

134. Thought about this over night and figured out what my issue with this comparison is

Doing something with the intent of making people upset is different than doing something that makes people upset. I am NOT saying banning book burning is ok, simply trying to clarify why I reacted to this comparison.

In the first case, Jones burnt the Quran simply to piss people off, to incite violence. In the second, a woman get health care which upset some people. It is the intent that makes this an invalid comparison.

[intaglio]

122. See above n/t

Post 121 "Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong"

/Edit to guide to post referenced.

[krispos42]

3. You're referring to the to the workers in Afghanistan that were killed?

And they say the reason was the burning?


Probably too nebulous for an infringement on the right of Jones to burn his private property as he wishes.

[arcane1]

4. Indeed it does, racist scumbaggery notwithstanding. n/t

[Tesha]

5. Of course. (NT)

[boston bean]

6. yes it is free speech. nt

[devils chaplain]

7. Free speech? Yes.

A horrible thing to do given its foreseeable results? Yes.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[boston bean]

25. what about the fucking assholes that did the killing? Jones didn't force them to murder...

[northernlights]

36. nobody said the killers are not guilty of murder

But Jones is equally guilty. He *knew* his actions would provoke them to kill. He was warned that it would. He deliberately provoked irrational people to do what he *knew* in advance they would do.

He was not exercising free speech. He was commiting murder by proxy.

[boston bean]

37. he is not in control, nor make people do things. that is silly.

they murdered all by themselves.

[cali]

47. nope. he is not equally guitly, scumbag that he is.

and of course he wss fucking well exercising free speech.

Murder by proxy my ass. you don't have a clue.

[MellowDem]

Murder by proxy?

For one, it's impossible that he "knew" a random mob would kill someone. Maybe he thought it was probable, who knows. But it's protected speech, and really, not a big deal. Burning the Koran, big whoop, right? The only people making this a big deal are the ones killing people over it.

Maybe you could say he was reckless... but that gets into dangerous territory if you are to ban any speech deemed "reckless".

[northernlights]

115. I'll take that to mean that you believe bullies can harrass their targets with words

and drive them to suicide, and they are not somehow liable for their harrassment.

And when the Rush Limbaughs of the world announce to their audience that they should go shoot or kill a liberal or an abortion provider, and incite some nutcase to go out and start shooting, they are not somehow liable for their incitement to violence.

How many times on this board have DUers been outraged and called for prosecution of a radio shockjock because of the murder of, say, Dr. Tillman?

How many times have DUers shed tears when a young gay man committed suicide over harrassment or videos of him, and called for the prosecution of his harrassers?

Or is it only a violation of freedom of speech when the victim is from a favored group?

[onenote]

127. If a group of muslims burned the bible

and some fundie yahoos broke into a mosque and killed some people in response, would you say that they group that burned the bible were "equally guilty" as the fundie mob? I'm not talking in terms of legal guilt (and neither are you since as a purely legal matter, under the Constitution as interpreted by the courts there is no question that Jones has not violated any law).

[cleanhippie]

137. So by that rationale, what other activities should be banned due to the possible actions

of "irrational people"?

[NightWatcher]

9. I live 45 minutes down the road from that fuckstick. Talk me down

(deleted to keep everyone out of trouble)

Breathe in with the good air, out with the bad air. Om Mani Padme Hum...........

[Aerows]

24. You are welcome to your response

just as he is welcome to make the utterances that piss you off. That's how society governs itself. If he gets the hell beaten out of him, well, he courted it.

Note that I am not advocating it, and I think he should be able to live his life however he chooses to live it, but if consequences show up at his door, I wouldn't be surprised. Or feeling too sorry for him.

Zealots that attempt to drag the rest of humanity into holy wars are not my favorite class of people, and if they get called on their bullshit, I'm not particularly inclined to be upset, no matter which religion they act as a zealot for, including Christianity - which is my faith.

[NightWatcher]

38. if this country is so full of violent Muslims, why hasnt one taken him out by now?

Instead they have meetings and talks at libraries and churches in the name of "public outreach" and dialogue. Yet some redneck tried to detonate a pipe bomb at the Muslim house of worship down the street a few miles from my house just last year or so.

[atreides1]

10. It wasn't just what he did

The mob that attacked and murdered those people were also stirred up because of Afghan civilian casualties caused by the "coalition" forces military operations and the US Army self appointed "kill team", who murdered several Afghans to include a 12 year old boy and then took pictures and souvenirs!

The Koran burning might have been the final straw, and the instigators used it to their advantage.

Sort of the same way that the Republicans in Congress used Obama's being "different" to take control of the House...they got the mob riled up.

[Turbineguy]

11. This is more like

yelling "FIRE!" in front of the theater with your getaway car running. There's not much chance you'll get caught up in the stampede.

Now if he had gone to Afghanistan and done this, it would be something. I might consider buying him a ticket. One way and he would not need a hotel either.

[intaglio]

126. The "Fire in a Theatre" trope is past it's sell by date.

Hitchens destroys it and Oliver Wendell Holmes found that his analogy was false the actual test he applied to define the wrongness was used against him. The actual legal test attached to the "Fire in a Theatre" analogy was the "Clear and Present Danger" test and it was used to reduce or remove the right to free assembly in time of war a year later - OWH dissenting.

[Canuckistanian]

13. In Canada he would probably be charged

As he would in MANY developed countries.

Only America allows this unrestricted view of personal freedom, even though it greatly offends the majority view of tolerance and greatly injures certain minority groups.

Oh, well, carry on. I imagine I'll have some detractors. As usual.

[WinkyDink]

Charged with what? "Inciting an international crime"??

[Canuckistanian]

39. Hate speech. Just like this guy.

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

[Mojeoux]

51. The KKK busted their bank on the same Keegstra lie.

One of the KKK chapters in the south claimed it would pay a million dollars to anyone who could prove the Holocaust was real.
They were finally sued by a group with the proof. They tried to appeal, but they had to pay.

[Mojeoux]

58. So by Canadian Law, if Jones is a liar and his lies promote violent hate

he would be arrested in Canada? A lie can be a deadly dangerous thing. Are hateful lies protected?

Truly, the guy should be able to burn whatever he wants.
But what would he do about somebody burning the bible next door?

[Bragi]

118. I doubt he would be charged or convicted

Canada has a charter of rights that includes free speech and freedom of religion.

I don't believe anyone would be charged in Canada for burning anything.

[cali]

49. really? he'd be charged with????

yes, the U.S. has freedom of speech. Something a lot of us believe in.

[RZM]

92. No minority groups in the US were 'greatly injured' by Jones' actions

Only their sensibilities. I really don't have much sympathy for sensibilities. They'll get over it, I'm sure.

[MellowDem]

97. Why weren't those cartoonists...

that drew Mohammed charged then in those other "developed" nations? Hmm.

Sorry, this is one where the US has the sane and correct idea.

If Canada's idea is that burning books should be restricted if it offends extremists half a world away enough to kill, then that is one dumbass country.

[DonCoquixote]

110. OK, let me ask this

I understand that Canada has a different view, but what prevents the more violent types from using scenarios like this to stifle speech? In other words, if all a group that wants to avoid being criticized has to say is "they are being bigots" there would be no way any religion could be touched, as all of them could say they are offended, with perfect coordination!

[onenote]

128. you have it backwards

The first amendment protects minority groups. Without the first amendment, the majority could selectively ban and/or punish the speech of groups that they don't like. Civil rights boycotts? Protected. Antiwar protests? Protected. The right to criticize the majority party in government? Protected. The right to say outlandish things that offend the majority? Protected.

[pipoman]

147. Exactly how does some

nutsack burning a book "greatly injures certain minority groups"? That, sir or ma'am, is nonsense. "In Canada he would probably be charged", Charged with what?

[WinkyDink]

14. Is this an April Fool's query? A book made of paper and printed in a plant and sold in a store?

Uh, yeah; an American is free to burn it.

[woo me with science]

28. Apparently some DU-ers have difficulty with that concept. nt

[Zynx]

15. It's free speech, but we have EVERY right to condemn him and shame him.

[pipoman]

148. As long as your condemnation is consistant

would you condemn him for burning a bible? a US flag?

[Zynx]

149. If it was for the purpose of inflaming people, which this was, then yes.

The burning of holy books serves no legitimate purpose except to inflame other people.

[Bunny]

16. Of course it does.

If religiously insane douchebags in Afghanistan decide to kill completely uninvolved people because a religiously insane douchebag in Florida burns their book, the responsibility for that atrocity lies with the d-bags in Afghanistan.

[arcane1]

29. Exactly. And what is the alternative?

The alternative is making blasphemy illegal, one of the slipperiest of slippery slopes!!

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. My response from another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=789983&mesg_id=792565

[Danger Mouse]

22. Interesting answer, thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Sounds very interesting

I'd like to point out to you that 'ministers' in the US have been known to urge war on gay people, to urge no restraint, and that there are many attacks on gay people after these sermons. Do you think those 'ministers' should be held responsible for inciting violence? When they accuse us of crimes and say 'this is war' what do you think should happen to them? What should happen to those who write checks to them and pay them to make these presentations of invective?
Just wondering.

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. I'm an American, I don't need these things pointed out. Thanks though.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. I am also American and assumed you were as well.

I'm not pointing things out, I asked you a question in an attempt to understand your thinking. Not sure why that is a problem.

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. The question is whether an absolutist position on freedom of expression is a good thing.

In a civilised society it's recognised that there are certain public-interest limitations on the absolute freedom of speech; does freedom of speech include the freedom to incite hatred and violence? Should it? Or does there exist some sort of reasonable standard for drawing a line?

(Note that I live in the UK, where Terry Jones was barred from entering by the Home Secretary on the grounds that his presence was likely to lead to incitement of religious and racial hatred and thus be prejudicial to public order.)

[MellowDem]

100. That's not the question...

since the US doesn't have an absolutist position. The US test is just much less stringent.

[Obamanaut]

18. A rational person would realize that killing several people in retaliation

to a book being burned is a bit extreme. A rational person would have burned a bible - eye for an eye, tooth for...and so on.

Religious nutbags are nutbags regardless of the religion they embrace.

[aquart]

19. Yes.

Please give some responsibility to the people who decided that because of something one group of idiots did thousands of miles away, they were entitled to murder strangers who never had a thing to do with it.

PLEASE GIVE THEM SOME RESPONSIBILITY for violating the tenets of their own religion.

A young Egyptian student at Hiroshima University went to the Sendai mosque and accompanied some Pakistanis in distributing food, water, and other necessities to the tsunami victims. Below is what he thinks HIS religion is. Please remember that it's the same religion as the people who massacred in defense of the Koran:

"I wish I could speak Japanese to tell them to believe in allah, he is
the only one who can protect them.
They told us one week ago no one come to bring them food. When I
enter the place they store the food. It was only water there. One
person can get only 1 meal per day.
The people in this area love each other so much. When we go one
shelter, they reject to take all the food. They take some and ask us
to go to the second shelter because they know that the second shelter
also has no food. This is a manner of islam. Nothing in the life
better than the people loves each other.
I wish I had enough money to bring them food everyday. I wish I could
live with them. Although the life is very poor but it is very happy
because people love each other."

Burning the Koran sucked. But murder because of it? Because they're such good Muslims?

[Aerows]

20. Categorically, yes.

If you don't protect the speech of those who you find vile, you don't protect free speech, only an echo chamber.

[kenny blankenship]

21. From legal consequences - yes, he is protected. From the consequences of his actions - no.

He may wish to invest in Kevlar underoos and a new identity, starting with that face.

[ReggieVeggie]

26. yes, unequivocally

and, no, those people did not die as a direct result

[roamer65]

34. It also defends my right to use Bibles for a hot dog weenie roast.

[Skidmore]

40. Perhaps it is time to do just that.

[Rex]

42. No, he did not directly kill those people.

You can say he should not have burned the book all you want to, he is indirectly responsible imo. Should he burn for this? Yes, but I'm not partial when it comes to Terry Jones...I think he is festering scum and can't believe he is still respirating at this time.

[cali]

44. uh, the direct result of a muderous mob

yes, he's a first rate scumbag and no way would burning a book constitute yelling fire. Nor should it. Ever.

[howard112211]

104. I don't think it is equal to yelling fire either. One thing to note, specficially about book burning

however is its historical context. I agree this is not so much an issue in the United States. In Germany, which is where I currently live, actually close to where I live there is one of several plaques on the ground at a site of a book burning that occured in the third Reich, with the famous quote of Heinrich Heine: "Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." which means translated "This was a prelude only. Where books are burned, in the end also people are burned."

In Germany the authorities would have probably prevented the book burning from happening, with the reasoning, not that it is equal to yelling "Fire" but that it is equal to saying to someone "You are next.", so the implied threat would have constituted grounds for interfering. But I suppose this is something very specific to Germany. There are tough laws here with regards to anything connected to the third Reich. You have total freedom of speech here, except invoking the "ghost of christmas past", which can get you in trouble. The German constitution guarantees freedom of press, but has a special paragraph concerning symbology of the third Reich.

Regardless, I have no doubt that many of the people who show up for book burnings in the US also, are not making some academic point about freedom of speech, but would also rather burn actual people.

[moondust]

46. Yes but

there may be some grounds for a civil suit. The SPLC would be a good place to start looking into it.

[roamer65]

54. That is a great idea. I hope the victims families sue his ass off.

[Rex]

59. I'm sure it would be easy to prove intent of the murderers, but proving that he

knowingly burnt the book with knowledge it would lead to someone dying over the act would take a lot more work imo. Don't know if that can be done.

I hope he ends up broke and in the gutter, it would serve him right.

[The Northerner]

52. The 1st Amendment allows any idiot to destroy his or her own private property

Yes, Jones's deplorable book burnings are protected under the 1st Amendment.

[madrchsod]

57. yes it does and that it all it protects

[msongs]

63. the same free speech that allows muslims to promote that book allows the idiot to burn it nt

[Raine]

65. Yes it does

whether the speech itself is repulsive or not.

[11 Bravo]

72. Yes. Any more questions? (And to compare yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater ...

an act which clearly would lead people to believe that their lives are in danger and they must react; to burning a Koran, an act which took place thousands of miles away from the offended parties and in no way could be construed as a threat to their safety is ... well ... fucking stupid.)

[Rhythm]

91. +1

[Saboburns]

99. er um...... Bravo Bravo

Well played Sir!!

[riderinthestorm]

73. The mullah in Afghanistan provoked his followers to violence.

Yes, Terry Jones played his part but to bypass the religious leaders at the mosques for doing their part to incite that kind of violence paints an incomplete picture at best. I think it's interesting how many DUers persist in overlooking the instigators in Afghanistan.....

Terry Jones' actions are protected under our free speech laws. I suspect he may have opened himself up to a lawsuit by the families of the UN folks who were murdered. I doubt they'd win but perhaps they can bankrupt his ass for eternity.

[Keith Bee]

74. Terry Jones?

Wasn't he a member of Monty Python?

[lynne]

79. Yep and it also protects your right to burn a Bible or flag or whatever you choose -

- Yes, Jones is an idiot but those who would kill innocents because someone continents away burned some paper make Jones look like a choir boy.

[Puregonzo1188]

80. Yes it is.

[Old Troop]

81. OK. Burning a Qua ran is not protected. What if your casual conversation

with a Muslim friend causes them to leave Islam and become atheist like you or Christian or Hindu or anything else and they are killed. We all know apostasy is punishable by death. Is your conversation impermissible too?

[WatsonT]

82. Yes

And doesn't banning any free speech in the face of violence encourage such acts?

[snot]

84. Yes.

[EFerrari]

85. Yes. And yes, he is. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

89. if the Koran he burned belonged to him of course it's free speech

And it would be free speech if it was a Bible or a flag or a draft card or anything else that belonged to him.

Those UN workers that were brutally murdered was a direct result of digusting murderous thugs so warped by religion that they actually believed murdering innocent UN workers was justifiable because some dude in Flordia burned a Koran. It's revolting religious persecution taken out on innocent people who didn't even have a thing to do with the Koran burning at all.

"For every man there is a purpose which he sets up for his life and which he pursues. Let yours be the doing of all good deeds."
~ Koran

Seems to me such murderous thugs should spend their time more wisely in purusing what their holy book instructs... I'm not seeing how murdering a bunch of innocent UN workers because of something someone else did and completely unconnected to them is considered to be in the same universe as a "good deed".

[Rhythm]

90. Terry Jones IS a 'first rate scumbag', but what he did is perfectly Constitutional

In as much as i think people like Terry Jones and his merry congregation of bigots are a bunch of attention-whore assholes, we as a nation cannot live our lives here worrying about what militant groups on the other side of the planet will do if we exercise our Constitutional liberties in ways that they don't like, but have no direct connection with them.

These assholes in Afghanistan are murderous thugs that, if they didn't have that 'oh, they burned a Koran!' bullshit to use as an excuse for their bloodthirsty displays, would simply find something else to blame it on.

[Jim Lane]

93. This rationale for curbing speech was called the "heckler's veto" by Harry Kalven.

The speaker has an opinion. In response to the nonviolent expression of that opinion, the agitated heckler conveys his or her opposition in disorderly or violent ways. This reaction creates a basis for suppressing the original speech because allowing it will lead to a threat to public order.

The practical effect, as conveyed by Kalven's brilliant coinage, is that a heckler who's willing to get violent can bring about the repression of speech with which he or she disagrees.

The repression could be immediate silencing (a police officer tells the speaker to stop, or even arrests the speaker). It could also be indirect, as through the suggestion in this thread that Jones might be liable, whether civilly or criminally, for deaths directly caused by people who disagree with him. Either way, allowing the heckler's veto would be a serious abridgment of the freedom of speech.

Consider: The Koch brothers announce that, if there's one more pro-union anti-Walker demonstration in Madison, they're going to hire some nutjob, buy him guns and ammo, and send him to the nearest school to kill some overpaid unionized teachers. If the demonstration is held and the teachers are killed, obviously the killer has committed a crime, and obviously the Koch brothers have committed a crime, but have the pro-union demonstrators committed a crime? Even absent a criminal prosecution, should they be subject to a civil action by teachers injured or by next-of-kin of teachers killed? After all, it could be argued that those teachers "died as a direct result of" the demonstration.

If you would not approve of legal action against the Madison demonstrators, then you should not approve of legal action against Jones.

Of course, we're free to say that Jones is a scumbag, just as the Koch brothers are free to say that public employees are scumbags.

As to "fire in a crowded theater": A false fire alarm foreseeably leads to injury, without anyone else committing a tort. (A tort is an act that violates someone else's legal rights, other than rights arising under a contract.) In the cases of Jones and the Madison demonstrators, there would be no injury if not for someone else's tort (the Afghan religious zealots or the Koch brothers). Another person's tort is generally considered a superseding cause of the injury, so that the first actor cannot be held liable.

[Saboburns]

96. Yes. Of course it does.

I am continually saddened that a liberal/progressive website like this one still doesn't get Free Speech. And that a largish majority of posters here attempt to limit somoeone else's speech because they do not agree with it. Or that the person whom they oppose is a 'scumbag' as posited in the OP.

It is that speech which you vehemently oppose that you must strive to protect.

Thank you for letting me have my say.

[GeorgeGist]

98. Yes, but the consequences ...

are something else. Terry might chose to watch his backside.

[Solly Mack]

101. More than one thing can be true at the same time.

Yes, the act is protected as speech.

The motive for the act wasn't to exercise that right so much as it was to promote hate.

Murder isn't an acceptable (or even rational) response to another person's ignorance or their hate.

Hate isn't rational.

From time to time most people feel moments of hate flare within them - for one reason or another. The majority of people allow reason to prevail. It happens more frequently when we are younger and lessens as we mature and learn more about ourselves and others.

Some people never mature and remain in a state of arrested development - for various reasons.

Some people actively seek to limit prejudice in their own lives and strive to make themselves and the world better because of it. They fight against hate wherever they see it.

The murders only serve to fuel the hate. Feeding upon itself in a cycle that has long been established and in evidence throughout history - extremists want those they hate to meet hate with more hate...it is then used as 'proof' of everything they claim about each other. Extremists then feel justified in their actions - and the cycle continues.

You can't curtail a freedom simply because a threat exist. America seems to have forgotten that in many ways.

Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.

Many kindnesses are part of the teachings of religions.

Religion is often used to stir up hate.

Religion is also used to counter it...through the promotion of kindness.

Religion is all too often used to play on the ignorance and hate of its adherents.

Not everyone who practices a religion is ignorant or hate-filled.

The history of religion contains a lot of ugly.

There are also acts of goodness that adherents attribute to their religion.

You shouldn't judge an entire group by the actions of some.

There are many factors behind the creation of religious extremists.

There are many reasons why people follow religious extremists...those reasons almost always begin with ignorance.

What happened was tragic.

The entire story, from start to whatever finish, is the direct result of ignorance and hate - on all sides.

Good people see it for what it is and are appalled.

Had the Qur'an been burned on the lawn of an muslim family in America it would have been investigated as a hate crime. (and rightly so)

It wasn't burned on the lawn of a muslim family.

That doesn't make it any less an act of hate.

The Qur'an is just a book. The Bible is just a book. The Torah is just a book.

All 3 are books that some people revere.

Burning a book is often an attempt at burning the ideas the book contains.

You can't kill an idea by burning a book.

Extremists all too often take the next step...if you can't kill the idea by destroying the book, then you destroy the people who embrace the ideas. Some skip the book burning stage and go right to the killing.

Reacting won't stop the cycle of hate.

Knowledge and facts (often found in books) can turn the tide on ignorance.

Books can contain ideas that are dangerous to extremists because those ideas weaken the hold extremists have on their followers.

Not all books contain facts.

Poverty is often a breeding ground for ignorance. Lack of opportunity, lack of education...makes one easy prey for the hatemongers who would use the ignorance to advance their own cause. A hungry belly just wants food.

Education and riches are no guarantee against being ignorant.

Ignorance can be nurtured with fear and prejudice which then coalesces into hate.

Ignorance by itself is not the cause.

Poverty by itself is not the cause.

Fear by itself is not the cause.

Combine the 3, however, and you have fertile soil ripe for exploiting. Introduce a power-hungry person into the mix and you have a movement.

All too often the 'leaders' of extemists groups are wealthy (comparatively) and better educated than their followers.

They are still just as ignorant. Just as dangerous (even more so).

Hate is equal opportunity. (and isn't that ironic?)

This post will piss some people off - in whole or in part.

Some people will be OK with it.

[Turborama]

150. And some people will think this reply is OP worthy.

Me being one of them.

:hi:

[Paradoxical]

102. From a legal standpoint, your argument holds no water.

They didn't die as a direct result of Jones' actions.

But even if they did, that doesn't necessitate liability.

The types of speech that are not protected are very narrow and occur vary rarely.

[darkstar3]

103. Of course it does, in every thread about him.

[melm00se]

105. damn straight it does

[eppur_se_muova]

106. Victims' families are free to sue Jones for his irresponsible behavior.

You are free to say what you want, but you are not free from the consequences of what you choose to say. cf Near vs Minnesota: http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/classes/comm4303/section3/nearvsminnesota.html

Jones is doing everything he can to bring on a lawsuit; he's bound to get one now.

[cali]

111. I doubt he'll get one

and if he did it would go no where. If I burn a flag and a bunch of tea partiers murder someone over it? Am I responsible?

[AsahinaKimi]

109. No one has brought up Bill O'Reilly

His Tiller the Baby Killer rants, I believe got Tiller killed. Nothing ever happened to Bill over it other then bad press, which he has survived from without a scratch. The thing is..someone could equally say.. that Bill O'Reilly didn't plead for someone to kill Tiller on the radio or TV... but they certainly did insight someone to take action.

[cali]

112. that's a clearer example of speech that incites

but still, I believe, below the legal bar.

[Rhiannon12866]

113. I agree with you.

There were no repercussions and I feel there should have been. He was intentionally inciting violence. x(

[ReggieVeggie]

119. well, he didn't say "Kill Tiller the baby killer"

I would say O'Reilly should be held accountable for his lying and propaganda, but he didn't actually say to go out and kill Tiller. Apparently, these Mullahs told their followers to revenge the burning of that Quran.

[Taitertots]

114. Jones is protected

Restrictions are based on reasonable reactions to speech.

A reasonable person is going to respond to "fire" by attempting to flee creating the risk of injury.
A reasonable person is not going to murder people when holy books are burned.

The same with fighting words.
A reasonable person doesn't start a fight because someone burned a copy of a holy book.

[northernlights]

131. a reasonable person does not deliberately provoke irrational people

And a reasonable person, in response to being advised that certain actions are likely to provoke violence and likely murder, would not engage in those actions.

Jones was advised repeatedly that exercising his "freedom of expression" would provoke irrational people to violence and that innocent people would likely die as a result.

Jones responded to the advise by deliberately provoking irrational people. A reasonable person does not deliberately start a fight with irrational people. Jones incited violence; he did so knowingly and intentionally. He's laughing all the way to the bank, and innocent are dying in large part due to his unreasonable response to advise.

[cleanhippie]

139. Sure they do. Being irrational is not a protected right.

In fact, irrational people NEED to be challenged on their irrationality.

[Taitertots]

146. A reasonable person avoids things that would provoke reasonable people

Not things that would provoke the religiously insane. Insane people don't get to dictate to the world what actions are acceptable.

If people are offended by reasonable actions than it is their problem, not ours. Innocent people are dying because people need to stand up to religious extremists, not because they should capitulate to them.

[Hannah Bell]

117. jones's church is actually a furniture showroom. it has 50 members who

run the pastor's furniture import business.

the sanctuary has furniture stored in it.

they hold services twice a week.

the fact that this bogus little church gets global press is never questioned.

psyops.

the people screaming about the japanese press hiding the truth about radiation levels eat this kind of stuff up with big spoons.

[Hannah Bell]

120. nobody would know anything about some guy in a phony church of 50 people

that's actually a front for a furniture business (sanctuary is full of stored furniture) -- nobody would know a thing about them burning a koran until our media made it "news" far & wide.

you have to ask yourself, why is it global news if some phony miniscule church burns a koran?

why is it news? why does this get so much press, while the fact that the "church" stores furniture in its sanctuary only makes the local gainesville paper?

it's not even a fucking church. he's not even a real pastor.

it's bullshit & its psyops. wake up & smell the dead people.

[JustAnotherGen]

124. Yes

If others choose to lose their dang minds over his 'Freedom of Speech' - that's their own ignorance/stupidity in response to this jack asses ignorance and stupidity.

Now I saw up thread that someone made points on abortion, gays/lesbians holding hands in public, etc. etc. Looking at it from a U.S. Citizen being ignorant in response to another US citizen's activity. Take it global . . .

American women going topless on foreign beaches - should the religious fanatics of Islam or Christianity take it out on an American woman walking around in Arizona or Saudi Arabia? The woman hanging on the beach in St. Tropez - should she step and fetch and cater to EITHER of these religions?

Can I not say: Hey - I want to do a cartoon about the insanity of the Big Three? Does that warrant my death by extremists in any of these groups? Or - should I step and fetch to make sure I don't give someone in Afghanistan the vapors?

Hey - I own Tarot cards. Does that give some Born Again Christian the right to burn me at the stake? Since I'm disrespecting Jesus?

At what point does an ignorant Jesus Freak in Florida HAVE to step and fetch and cater to some guy far far away in a remote village of Pakistan? And that's what we are talking about.

I don't agree with the so-called Christian Pastor. He was being hateful for the sake of being hateful. But a LOT of people in America are and I don't exactly see the folks in Afghanistan losing their shit and killing people in response to our horrible treatment of illegal aliens in America. Their actions were self-centered, self-absorbed, and they lose credibility about 'American Injustice' when they don't react as strongly to the REAL injustices that harm HUMAN beings in America.

[JonLP24]

125. That

"yelling fire in a crowded theater" quote is so over-used. It is from a Supreme Court case where one of the Justices said that in opinion against a group that was protesting US involvement in WWI. That case was overturned years later and rightfully so.

[mistertrickster]

130. I'm not so sure about the "free speech" argument.

Calling for someone's murder is not free speech.

Setting up a "I hate gays" website is not free speech--it's hate speech.

Burning a Koran knowing that it will provoke people to violence may not be protected speech.

[onenote]

141. burning the koran "may not be protected speech" in some countries

But its unquestionably protected speech in the United States.

[mistertrickster]

154. You can make that argument. I just think it's not a slam dunk.

I'm trying to see the difference between burning a Quran and Fox News asking who will stop the baby-killers?

[onenote]

156. I suggest you read the recent Supreme Court decision involving the Phelps

the situation with jones really is a slam dunk.

[mistertrickster]

158. The same Supreme Court that installed GWBush president? Nah. No thanks. nt

[Morning Dew]

133. What would prompt Jones to believe that there would be violence as a result?

Last fall when the brouhaha over his non-burning of the Koran took place, the Westboro Baptist Church went ahead and burned a Koran.

http://cjonline.com/news/local/2010-09-11/wbcs_flames_produce_little_heat

President Barack Obama didn't weigh in like he did when a pastor in Florida threatened to burn the Quran. And Defense Secretary Robert Gates didn't make a personal phone call urging the same minister to call it off.

The burning of a Quran and an American flag Saturday by members of Westboro Baptist Church drew little visible interest. Instead of the hoards of media representatives that descended on Florida, only a handful of area reporters turned out at noon for Westboro's burning.

"I'm glad it didn't get a lot of publicity and it didn't draw a lot of people to the church," said Imam Omar Hazim, of the Islamic Center of Topeka. "It seemed people in Topeka ignored what they were doing."

Members of Topeka's Islamic community were absent from the event. Hazim said that was by design.

No one seemed to notice. No UN workers were killed.

[cleanhippie]

135. Unfortunately, yes, it does.

Words alone are not enough to justify violent actions. His words and actions are vile, yes, but the ability to express ones self is paramount to a free society.

[Modern_Matthew]

138. Yes. I think the provocation of easily offended people should be MANDATORY.

I am as liberal as the next guy when it comes to economic, environmental, and civil liberty issues...but I am so sick of everyone having to tiptoe around religious, racial, and other social groups out of fear of offending or provoking them. That's why I love South Park, Family Guy, shock jocks, and other people that make a career out of offending these people and giving people like me a laugh out of it. I will defend anyone's right to be as provocative as possible, even when it's humorless, and I will stand by the judicial system when those groups commit acts of violence and get thrown in jail. It's that simple.

[hack89]

140. Yes. nt

[Chris_Texas]

143. Yes. If it does not then it protects NOTHING.

[Quantess]

144. Yes, I think he does have the right to burn a book if wants to.

I blame the media for drawing attention to it, just as much as I blame Jones himself. But still, burning a book doesn't justify murder or violence.

[SnakeEyes]

145. So I guess..

If you spoke out against the flaws of the country and then burned a flag and then some crazy "patriotic" right ringer killed people involved in the event then you should be responsible for the murders because you incited them, right? Or least liable for a lawsuit from the victims families

Think about things for a second....

[pampango]

151. Koran burning = cross burning?

Meant to inflame/intimidate rather than merely express an opinion.

[The Straight Story]

152. Koran burning = flag burning? (nt)

[rollin74]

155. Yes

burning a religious book is not illegal nor should it be

the rights and freedoms of people are more important than books

[DainBramaged]

157. When you yell fire and people get hurt, it is OK?

this scumbag knew PERFECTLY WELL that his yelling of 'fire' would have consequences in the World theater, and he should be held accountable.


Do we tell the parents and children of those killed it was OK because we need to protect our right to say whatever the fuck we want without consequence OUTSIDE of our borders?


We may have free speech, but much of the World doesn't, and with that, I hope that fuck Jones gets his one day in this life or the hereafter because he is a murderer.

[Taverner]

160. Yes it does. It also protects the publishing of his church and home address.

It also protects the translation of it into Arabic