Is Koran Burning Protected by Free Speech?

[RabidMongoose]

PokerGuy, I disagree. I never opposed speech and opinions against the general viewpoints. Societial values should be protected, not be the latter of the law, but by common sensibilities and adhering to the spririt of the right to free speech. If everyone went with your opinion, there would be no such thing as "hate speech".

You seem to have a very strange definition of 'spirit'...if the very point of the right to freedom of speech is to protect speech that is against whatever the social value or opinion is, then what else is the spirit?

The point of the right...the reason for the right...the very foundation of that right is to protect speech that is against whatever people deem as the social value at the time. That's the spirit of the right, too.

 

[bfdd]

PokerGuy, I disagree. I never opposed speech and opinions against the general viewpoints. Societial values should be protected, not be the latter of the law, but by common sensibilities and adhering to the spririt of the right to free speech. If everyone went with your opinion, there would be no such thing as "hate speech".

uh... there are those of us that believe "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are stupid.

 

[routan]

uh... there are those of us that believe "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are stupid.

and there are those who dont believe it to be stupid. I would tend to think those who dont believe it to be stupid to be more sensible.

 

[child of wonder]

Why is this thread so long?

Is burning the Koran protected by Free Speech?

YES.

Muslims have the right to be offended by it, but they have no right to commit or threaten violence because of it.

No one is required to respect someone's religious beliefs, whether those beliefs be Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, etc. and it is the right of everyone to burn their own property for whatever reason so long as no one else is put in bodily danger or their property put in danger.

 

[routan]

You seem to have a very strange definition of 'spirit'...if the very point of the right to freedom of speech is to protect speech that is against whatever the social value or opinion is, then what else is the spirit?

The point of the right...the reason for the right...the very foundation of that right is to protect speech that is against whatever people deem as the social value at the time. That's the spirit of the right, too.

RabidMongoose, on the contrary, my definition is not strange in the least. While some can choose to use inappropriate phrases, words, adjectives, etc, and claim to be in the right because of the right to free speech, it is not a sensible thing to do. That sensibility is what I refer to as the "spirit" of free speech.

I think the VAST majority of people exercise this sensibility in every day life. I am pretty sure you dont go around using derogatory or crass language. In fact, when I do use crass language with someone in a heated moment, I apologize to that person, and not defer to "my rights under the constitution". Pretty common sensibility.

 

[BoberFett]

and there are those who dont believe it to be stupid. I would tend to think those who dont believe it to be stupid to be more sensible.

You also believe in a magical sky man. Are you really going to claim to be the sensible one?

 

[bfdd]

and there are those who dont believe it to be stupid. I would tend to think those who dont believe it to be stupid to be more sensible.

So would you say you hate hate? Rofl, what is wrong with having hate anyways? How does that justify a larger sentence? It doesn't. Hate crimes and hate speech are fucking stupid and do nothing else but try to police thought. You're a joke. Done responding to you and your threads. If you're honestly ok with policing thought you're fucking hopeless.

 

[RabidMongoose]

RabidMongoose, on the contrary, my definition is not strange in the least. While some can choose to use inappropriate phrases, words, adjectives, etc, and claim to be in the right because of the right to free speech, it is not a sensible thing to do. That sensibility is what I refer to as the "spirit" of free speech.

I think the VAST majority of people exercise this sensibility in every day life. I am pretty sure you dont go around using derogatory or crass language. In fact, when I do use crass language with someone in a heated moment, I apologize to that person, and not defer to "my rights under the constitution". Pretty common sensibility.

Um, yeah, that's a bizarre definition. You shouldn't refer to your point as the "spirit" of free speech when the very foundation, purpose, and use of free speech goes against your point.

You're talking more about using a right in a decent way, not about the very spirit of the right...which was designed to protect speech that are against social values.

The foundation, purpose, use, and spirit of free speech has nothing to do with sensibility, unless you want to use 'spirit' to refer to something that is completely unrelated to the foundation, purpose, and use of that thing.

 

[routan]

Um, yeah, that's a bizarre definition. You shouldn't refer to your point as the "spirit" of free speech when the very foundation, purpose, and use of free speech goes against your point.

You're talking more about using a right in a decent way, not about the very spirit of the right...which was designed to protect speech that are against social values.

The foundation, purpose, use, and spirit of free speech has nothing to do with sensibility, unless you want to use 'spirit' to refer to something that is completely unrelated to the foundation, purpose, and use of that thing.

RabidMongoose, as long as I get my message across... no reason to quibble over semantics.

 

[routan]

You also believe in a magical sky man. Are you really going to claim to be the sensible one?

BoberFett, this is a poor analogy. A belief system is not comparable to common sense. I can argue that it is not sensible to believe that an Almighty does not exist, and we can go on and on on this side topic. Hate speech does exist. Derogatory terms do exist. Denying that is not sensible in my opinion.

 

[RabidMongoose]

RabidMongoose, as long as I get my message across... no reason to quibble over semantics.

It's kind of weird because in some constitutional jurisprudence, the reason behind something is pretty important. So when you talk about the 'spirit' of a constitutional doctrine, it also has some constitutional implications.

But anyways, carry on.

 

[woolfe9999]

Routan may I make a suggestion? By saying that this or that isn't in the "spirit of free speech" I think you are confusing some posters here into thinking that you support banning certain kinds of speech even though I am fairly certain you do not. As I understand it, when you criticize speech as not being in the "spirit of free speech" you are simply expressing your personal disapproval of the speech in question, and are not intimating that the speech should be banned? Your use of the word "spirit" may be confusing because believe it or not, sometimes violating the so-called "spirit" of a law is used as an argument that the law itself has been violated in a literal sense.

- wolf

 

[routan]

Routan may I make a suggestion? By saying that this or that isn't in the "spirit of free speech" I think you are confusing some posters here into thinking that you support banning certain kinds of speech even though I am fairly certain you do not. As I understand it, when you criticize speech as not being in the "spirit of free speech" you are simply expressing your personal disapproval of the speech in question, and are not intimating that the speech should be banned? Your use of the word "spirit" may be confusing because believe it or not, sometimes violating the so-called "spirit" of a law is used as an argument that the law itself has been violated in a literal sense.

- wolf

woolfe9999, I believe you are correct. I may be confusing some members. Seems like I will have to word my posts as if defending a PhD thesis.

To clarify to the AT community at large, I am NOT supporting or referring to banning any kinds of speech. Any post which may convey that impression is superceded by this post, where I am explicity stating I support the right to free speech.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Of course it should be protected speech and of course all soldiers are prepared to fight for it.

Should burning an American flag at a Nascar race be free speech? Should the soldiers vote on that? Should the soldiers be there to protect some nimrod doing it?

Just shut the fuck up.

Wow, you're a dick.

 

[Jaskalas]

In a series of cases arising out of civil rights demonstrations, the Supreme Court explicitly held that free expression cannot be limited “simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

An alternative rule, would reward bad behavior creating what First Amendment experts call a “heckler’s veto.” Dunlap v. City of Chicago illustrates the extent of this principle. Officials had denied demonstrators a permit to march in a predominantly white area because every prior similar protest in the vicinity had resulted in violence. When they sued, the district court not only ordered the city to permit the parade, it also demanded officials provide policemen “in such numbers as … are required to afford adequate protection” to the marchers. When the violence officials feared materialized, the court allowed a suit against the city for providing insufficient police protection.

The argument that speech should be censored to prevent violence was rejected in the civil rights context and it should not be accepted now.

This is quite a point to be making. A standard was set. We will not bow down to an angry mob. Or will we?

 

[actuarial]

So would you say you hate hate? Rofl, what is wrong with having hate anyways? How does that justify a larger sentence? It doesn't. Hate crimes and hate speech are fucking stupid and do nothing else but try to police thought. You're a joke. Done responding to you and your threads. If you're honestly ok with policing thought you're fucking hopeless.

Doing something to prove you can is juvenile, but sometimes it sends an appropriate message. Either way, burning the Koran should not be restricted, but you are a dick if you burn one.

Do you agree that someone who kills someone for the thrill should get a longer sentence than someone who kills someone accidentally? Intent and the reason for killing dictates the harm on society and the chances of the crime happening again. If your motivation for murder was the colour of their skin, hair, eyes, their gender, sexual orientation that shows a greater level of harm to society, and threat to society, then killing someone over money or for banging your wife.

 

[Binarycow]

I do discourage the act of burning ANY book, but you have no right to physically attack me or utilize IEDs against me for burning your sacred text. Allah/God/Supreme Deity will judge me for my actions in the after life. Not you.

That just sounds so fucking retarded. No body needs rights to do shits that they are able and willing to do. Murderers don't have rights to kill and that doesn't stop them from doing it. Anyone who is willing to kill over bullshits written long ago by a bunch of old men is either himself mentally fucked up or is worshiping a fucked up deity that allows the followers to kill.

 

[Binarycow]

Wow, you're a dick.

how so, how is that different? Not that I'm condoning the burning ban of any book.

 

[Madwand1]

Now if you argue that some fanatics will come out and shout "death to America" is the reason why such acts will continue, that is like saying the girl was right to be raped because she was dressed like a skank.

Wait, are you trying to provoke me by imputing this bizarre and offensive idea to me? If so, bravo! I love it! Welcome to America, where you can say what the hell you want with any stretch of imagination, and can even make a good buck in the process.

 

[actuarial]

One other thing to add:those against the notion that terrorism is caused by oppression, because the US doesn't oppress these people, are missing the point.

Most serial killers were abused as children. That is a 'cause' combined with biological effects and some trigger. The people they kill are rarely the original abusers.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

how so, how is that different? Not that I'm condoning the burning ban of any book.

I think there's a difference between just being a dick and showing some 1 billion self-righteous people that we have free speech here. It's not about offending muslims to me. It's about showing the rest of the world that we can do what we want in this country without fear of persecution.

 

[Dekasa]

Our military's job is to fight to protect the freedom of this country, by soldiers dying if need be. If burning the Koran gets soldiers killed, then they're doing their job.

Cold, I know, but it makes no sense to protect them by giving up what they're fighting for.

 

[piasabird]

People are also free to be biggots and hang up monkeys on their white only construction sites. However, public opinion has caused many people to lose their job for just a casual reference on the radio. Sure you have freedom of speech, but be careful what you ask for! Soundbites can come back to haunt many politicians.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I think there's a difference between just being a dick and showing some 1 billion self-righteous people that we have free speech here. It's not about offending muslims to me. It's about showing the rest of the world that we can do what we want in this country without fear of persecution.

For fucks sakes, you aren't standing up to anyone, go do that shit right here and stand up to them right fucking here, don't do it in a safe place and ask others to stand up for it in another fucking nation.

Which would be the more threatening situation, AKA the proper place to actually protest? Burning a Quaran in a highly protected area surrounded by police that will protect you or burning an American flag at a Nascar rally?

People talk about how they need to protect their freedoms by engaging in "unpopular speech" yet no one wants to protect their speech when it comes to actual situations where they would get beaten to death.

I dub you sir weak arsed twat of the "free speech only applies to protesting Muslims" order.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

For fucks sakes, you aren't standing up to anyone, go do that shit right here and stand up to them right fucking here, don't do it in a safe place and ask others to stand up for it in another fucking nation.

Which would be the more threatening situation, AKA the proper place to actually protest? Burning a Quaran in a highly protected area surrounded by police that will protect you or burning an American flag at a Nascar rally?

People talk about how they need to protect their freedoms by engaging in "unpopular speech" yet no one wants to protect their speech when it comes to actual situations where they would get beaten to death.

I dub you sir weak arsed twat of the "free speech only applies to protesting Muslims" order.

Where did I ever say that? People can burn the flag too. Are you saying that in order for me to have free speech, I need to do it in the midst of a mob surrounded by riot police, or in the midst of a bunch of pissed-off muslims while I burn the Koran?

You aren't making any sense. You're implying that in order for me to defend free speech, I have to go overseas and fight. I have no problem with defending my country, but I have things to do here at home.