Is Koran Burning Protected by Free Speech?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tinker2141

Previously Banned Chickenshit Jackass
Sep 10, 2010
113
0
0
Look Routan is defending the peaceful religion again. Why I am not surprised. Good thing this is still America were we can burn flags, bibles or Korans without worry of retribution. Don’t you have a violent, ooops peaceful riot to go participate in?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I am addressing a specific point in your post...you are obviously disagreeing with free speech/expression if you don't understand why it is okay to burn anything (your Quran, the American flag, etc)...you did question why does it need to burned, didnt you???

it seems to me you have problems with people who don't share your viewpoints...you assume that they are anti-muslim...instead of trying to understand why we do what we do here and embrace it, you question our motives instead...

I was defending the Constitution when most here were pissing their pants, and I don't get why it needs to be burned. It's like saying "I have a right to be a huge prick, and therefore for freedom's sake I need to be one". Well, you have the freedom to be a big dick, but that has nothing to do with freedom.

When I was a little tyke we weren't taught that rights were things free from responsibilities. That one could swing their fist as far as anothers nose didn't mean we had to. We had the rights to do many things, but it was incumbent on those exercising them to not do so in a way which was childish.

I've been reading along in these threads and not once has the claim been made by routan that no one has the right, but he's asking that some consideration for others who aren't terrorists be taken into account. His asking doesn't mean he's against the First and if you can't understand that, then you don't understand it either.

I am not asking for a ban on burning anything, but I also feel that a few understand that when the Constitution was created it was felt that the people had the native intelligence to act wisely. Obviously that's not true.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,004
136
I know a way to solve this:

Have the troops complete an anonymous survey with a single question that asks if koran burning should be protected speech while they are abroad, while bearing in mind that such practices could increase their risk of harm.

I believe that it should be protected speech. But if the soldiers aren't willing to fight for it, openly hostile demonstrations could be made unprotected.

Include with that another survey. Ask them if they'd rather be in the desert killing Muslims or at home with their family. Soldiers do not decide if they are willing to fight. They decide if they are soldiers, and then the government tells them what to do.

Whether our freedom puts them in jeopardy is not for them to decide.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
I was defending the Constitution when most here were pissing their pants, and I don't get why it needs to be burned. It's like saying "I have a right to be a huge prick, and therefore for freedom's sake I need to be one". Well, you have the freedom to be a big dick, but that has nothing to do with freedom.

When I was a little tyke we weren't taught that rights were things free from responsibilities. That one could swing their fist as far as anothers nose didn't mean we had to. We had the rights to do many things, but it was incumbent on those exercising them to not do so in a way which was childish.

I've been reading along in these threads and not once has the claim been made by routan that no one has the right, but he's asking that some consideration for others who aren't terrorists be taken into account. His asking doesn't mean he's against the First and if you can't understand that, then you don't understand it either.

I am not asking for a ban on burning anything, but I also feel that a few understand that when the Constitution was created it was felt that the people had the native intelligence to act wisely. Obviously that's not true.

of course we are 'supposed' to be responsible with our behavior...and I truly believe that many of us are...however, that still give the right for those to act irresponsibly whether we agree or disagree with them...That is what is supposed to make this country great...

I posted earlier..."i disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" not sure if that is the exact quote or not, but that is why neo-nazi groups and the KKK are still here....They are a bunch of idiots in my opinion but the consitution gives them the right to assemble...

If someone wants to be a huge douche bag prick, they are allowed to....most of us just ignore them and move on...this is the part that routan doesn't understand when it comes to 'douche bags' who disagree with his point of view. Instead of just accepting that they are allowed to be like this (which he cannot relate to because that is a foreign concept to him), he automatically labels them as anti-muslim.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,004
136
I am not asking for a ban on burning anything, but I also feel that a few understand that when the Constitution was created it was felt that the people had the native intelligence to act wisely. Obviously that's not true.

When a freedom is brought under threat of death, acting wisely could be quite unwise. Lest you wish to hand it over.

It is a matter of provocation. Yes, we're provoking them. Did they not also provoke us?
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,226
146
I was defending the Constitution when most here were pissing their pants, and I don't get why it needs to be burned. It's like saying "I have a right to be a huge prick, and therefore for freedom's sake I need to be one". Well, you have the freedom to be a big dick, but that has nothing to do with freedom.

When I was a little tyke we weren't taught that rights were things free from responsibilities. That one could swing their fist as far as anothers nose didn't mean we had to. We had the rights to do many things, but it was incumbent on those exercising them to not do so in a way which was childish.

I've been reading along in these threads and not once has the claim been made by routan that no one has the right, but he's asking that some consideration for others who aren't terrorists be taken into account. His asking doesn't mean he's against the First and if you can't understand that, then you don't understand it either.

I am not asking for a ban on burning anything, but I also feel that a few understand that when the Constitution was created it was felt that the people had the native intelligence to act wisely. Obviously that's not true.

As my commentary in the OP points out, normally I would never think of doing something so tasteless... until that freedom to be tasteless is threatened... then that's pretty much all I want to do.

I appreciate Routan's feelings. I know he has never advocated a ban and that's why I'm not debating him.

My point is this: If I see something is hurtful to others, I will avoid doing that thing. The Golden Rule is what I live by.

But when these people tell me I CAN'T do it, and they threaten to kill me if I do. Fuck em! That will probably lead me to go out of my way to do it now.

That was my point in this thread.

Routan should spend his energy addressing the violent and threatening radicalism in his own religion and culture, before wasting energy addressing the obvious rebellious response to that threatening radicalism.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
As my commentary in the OP points out, normally I would never think of doing something so tasteless... until that freedom to be tasteless is threatened... then that's pretty much all I want to do.

I appreciate Routan's feelings. I know he has never advocated a ban and that's why I'm not debating him.

My point is this: If I see something is hurtful to others, I will avoid doing that thing. The Golden Rule is what I live by.

But when these people tell me I CAN'T do it, and they threaten to kill me if I do. Fuck em! That will probably lead me to go out of my way to do it now.

That was my point in this thread.

Routan should spend his energy addressing the violent and threatening radicalism in his own religion and culture, before wasting energy addressing the obvious rebellious response to that threatening radicalism.

Yeah I agree with you in the main, and with Hayabusa. We Americans have a tendency to be an ornery and defiant bunch. We may choose not to offend you, but tell us we aren't allow to on pain of death, then we will react the way we usually do to bullies. Routan is right about many things, but I don't think he gets that.

OTOH, I would point out that while the rebellious act makes sense as a form of communication with the crazies making the death threats, it will also offend the majority of Muslims who aren't making any death threats, and indeed many who are even condemning the ones who are. Which is why in the end, I would never do it, even if I understand why some people are tempted to do so purely as an act of defiance.

- wolf
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
The contradictory thoughts are strong in this poster.

One act is considered hateful speech and attitude. The other is a "protest for the defense of liberties" and a "symbolic act" :rolleyes:

There is a difference between contradiction and distinction. I made a distinction.

Can a protest not be made without burning the Quran? Apparently not according to the intellect of most AT Users.

Was the act predicated with the notion of "freedom of speech" or a "symbolic protest for the defense of liberties"? Not to my knowledge. It was obviously, by far, a symbolic attack on Islam and Muslims. The simple fact that such was planned on 9/11 does not just warrant a presumption of hatred, but an acceptance of the hatred of the organizers.

Once you presume attack and hatred on the motive of the opponent, it become easy to respond in like. It is certain that in some such cases, that such acts are designed to be provocations to expose your reactions, and that in many cases the provoker is very sorry about the reactions provoked. But you have a choice in your interpretation and reactions, and these say far more about you and your religion than what a random foreign provoker says.

The demonstration and expression of liberty actually fails miserably in such cases, due to the provoked Muslim violence, which is exactly why such demonstrations will continue to arise, until that reaction is nulled, and nothing is thereby demonstrated other than tolerance and wisdom on the side of the provoked.

I also gave an example from your religion, where a Qur'an and other books were symbolically damaged as a demonstration. Was the teacher of Rumi filled with hatred and intolerance of Muslims when he threw Rumi's books into a well?

Islam will be far better when you can burn its books or draw a cartoon without fearing for your own life. But for now, this is a tragic reality -- that no opposition or disagreement with it is tolerated in the least, and this is all that is demonstrated in such events.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,226
146
Yeah I agree with you in the main, and with Hayabusa. We Americans have a tendency to be an ornery and defiant bunch. We may choose not to offend you, but tell us we aren't allow to on pain of death, then we will react the way we usually do to bullies. Routan is right about many things, but I don't think he gets that.

OTOH, I would point out that while the rebellious act makes sense as a form of communication with the crazies making the death threats, it will also offend the majority of Muslims who aren't making any death threats, and indeed many who are even condemning the ones who are. Which is why in the end, I would never do it, even if I understand why some people are tempted to do so purely as an act of defiance.

- wolf

Completely understandable. Which is why I suggested Routan focus his energy on his own culture/religion's radicalism rather than the response to it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Obviously I cannot say what routan does outside the forums, but it's difficult to call out radicals when they don't post here.

For myself I was pretty pissed when Matt & Trey were threatened and said so. They weren't targeting Mohammed, they pick on everyone and that is a distinction Muslims here must accept. Sure they can request politely that it not be done as that is their right, however if the answer is no they'll have to get over it. If they do then I've no problem. That's my perception of routan.

We then move to a qualitatively different act, the purposeful act of insult. Does routan and other Muslims have to accept it? Yes and it's to their benefit to do so because the rule apply to their freedom as well. Therein lies a problem I see because if a Muslim asks (not threatens or demands) that others consider his pov, then he's against free speech. I'm sure you can see the irony here.

If I felt the need to respond by burning something I would choose an effigy of terrorists, showing just who has earned my ire rather than using a shotgun approach.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Amused, and AT members, please allow me to elaborate on the value Muslims hold to the Quran. That is not to condone any behavior of Muslims around the world, but to give everyone a different perspective.

The Quran is not just a book to Muslims. It is an utmost sacred text to Muslims. We dont touch it without proper ritual ablution, which includes washing hands and face. The Quran is always kept on the highest shelf. No other book is kept on top of it. Usually we kiss it after recitation. Tens of thousands of Muslims spend years to memorize the entire text, be it in India or in the United States. Words from the Quran adorn our walls.

For Muslims, an act of burning the Quran is sacrilegious. Islamophobes know this, and know fully well that such an act would deeply hurt Muslim sentiments.

Just like Muslims are encouraged to speak out against extemists in our own "camp", I would encourage all fellow Americans to speak out and discourage such an act. This act is DEFINITELY not in the spirit of "free speech", nor does arguing on the basis of "rights" make this a righteous act.

you people take shit too seriously. let the fucktards do what they will and mind your own business.

it's not even your book that they're burning. they bought it and have full ownership of it. they can do whatever they please with it.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
What does that even mean - "This act is DEFINITELY not in the spirit of 'free speech'"?

Sure, it's not a very nice thing, but I'd say that it's definitely in the spirit of free speech as intended in the Constitution.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
I am addressing a specific point in your post...you are obviously disagreeing with free speech/expression if you don't understand why it is okay to burn anything (your Quran, the American flag, etc)...you did question why does it need to burned, didnt you???

it seems to me you have problems with people who don't share your viewpoints...you assume that they are anti-muslim...instead of trying to understand why we do what we do here and embrace it, you question our motives instead...

spacejamz, you and others, seem to not read what I say. There is not a single post where I have suggested that burning the Quran is not allowable under US Laws and rights. Please see my first post in this thread.

This act is DEFINITELY not in the spirit of "free speech", nor does arguing on the basis of "rights" make this a righteous act
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
I was defending the Constitution when most here were pissing their pants, and I don't get why it needs to be burned. It's like saying "I have a right to be a huge prick, and therefore for freedom's sake I need to be one". Well, you have the freedom to be a big dick, but that has nothing to do with freedom.

When I was a little tyke we weren't taught that rights were things free from responsibilities. That one could swing their fist as far as anothers nose didn't mean we had to. We had the rights to do many things, but it was incumbent on those exercising them to not do so in a way which was childish.

I've been reading along in these threads and not once has the claim been made by routan that no one has the right, but he's asking that some consideration for others who aren't terrorists be taken into account. His asking doesn't mean he's against the First and if you can't understand that, then you don't understand it either.

I am not asking for a ban on burning anything, but I also feel that a few understand that when the Constitution was created it was felt that the people had the native intelligence to act wisely. Obviously that's not true.

Hayabusa Rider, thank Heavens at least someone actually reads what I am writing!
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
As my commentary in the OP points out, normally I would never think of doing something so tasteless... until that freedom to be tasteless is threatened... then that's pretty much all I want to do.

I appreciate Routan's feelings. I know he has never advocated a ban and that's why I'm not debating him.

My point is this: If I see something is hurtful to others, I will avoid doing that thing. The Golden Rule is what I live by.

But when these people tell me I CAN'T do it, and they threaten to kill me if I do. Fuck em! That will probably lead me to go out of my way to do it now.

That was my point in this thread.

Routan should spend his energy addressing the violent and threatening radicalism in his own religion and culture, before wasting energy addressing the obvious rebellious response to that threatening radicalism.

Amused, I take your bolded point to be valid, and I have responded to this point of view in perhaps another thread or somewhere in here.

Muslims do NOT threaten anyone with physical damage. Throughout this scenario, there was not a single incident where a Muslim physically took any action against those who were planning the act, or those who supported this act.

This particular planned act was also not predicated on the basis of the reaction of Muslims being threatening and what not. In any case, the consequence of a hateful act should not be the reason of the act..

There exists radicalism and violence in every religion and every society. I condemn it. I view the acts of burning a religious book also a radical and violent act. How are you suggesting to me to address radicalism and violence in "my" religion and culture while I am failing to do so amongst fellow Americans, and in fact, you arent doing it either?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
routan, you refuse to acknowledge that the burning of a book can have other meanings besides hate or trying to incite hate. That's where you're failing.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
What does that even mean - "This act is DEFINITELY not in the spirit of 'free speech'"?

Sure, it's not a very nice thing, but I'd say that it's definitely in the spirit of free speech as intended in the Constitution.

RabidMongoose, a fair question.

By "This act is DEFINITELY not in the spirit of 'free speech'", I mean that the right allows everyone to hold an opinion, and I fully support that. But the spirit of that right is not to conflict with societial values or rights.

I am fully tolerant with the views expressed on this very forum, and you are yourself aware of the anti-Islamic speech expressed here. The right given to all humans to express their opinions is provided so that they are free from censorship or discrimination. It is not meant to discriminate or prejudice against others.

At least that is the view I hold. And of course, you have every right to disagree.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
routan, you refuse to acknowledge that the burning of a book can have other meanings besides hate or trying to incite hate. That's where you're failing.

bfdd, I have addressed this view both in open discussions and in private messages.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
RabidMongoose, a fair question.

By "This act is DEFINITELY not in the spirit of 'free speech'", I mean that the right allows everyone to hold an opinion, and I fully support that. But the spirit of that right is not to conflict with societial values or rights.

I think that you're wrong with regard to the Constitution.

I think that's part of the point of this portion of the First Amendment...that despite social values, people can say or do through symbolic speech whatever they want in contradiction of social values...or government values...or whatever else...obviously within whatever restrictions the Supreme Court jurisprudence has put on this right.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
There is a difference between contradiction and distinction. I made a distinction.

Once you presume attack and hatred on the motive of the opponent, it become easy to respond in like. It is certain that in some such cases, that such acts are designed to be provocations to expose your reactions, and that in many cases the provoker is very sorry about the reactions provoked. But you have a choice in your interpretation and reactions, and these say far more about you and your religion than what a random foreign provoker says.

The demonstration and expression of liberty actually fails miserably in such cases, due to the provoked Muslim violence, which is exactly why such demonstrations will continue to arise, until that reaction is nulled, and nothing is thereby demonstrated other than tolerance and wisdom on the side of the provoked.

I also gave an example from your religion, where a Qur'an and other books were symbolically damaged as a demonstration. Was the teacher of Rumi filled with hatred and intolerance of Muslims when he threw Rumi's books into a well?

Islam will be far better when you can burn its books or draw a cartoon without fearing for your own life. But for now, this is a tragic reality -- that no opposition or disagreement with it is tolerated in the least, and this is all that is demonstrated in such events.

Madwand1, again, I have addressed what you have said above. You are yourself saying that certain acts are designed to be provocations to expose your reactions. The planned burning of the Quran is the best example of such an act.

Reactions among every American Muslim was one of peaceful disagreement. And similarly I am disagreeing with those in support on a forum. No violence. No death threats.

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.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
I think that you're wrong with regard to the Constitution.

I think that's part of the point of this portion of the First Amendment...that despite social values, people can say or do through symbolic speech whatever they want in contradiction of social values...or government values...or whatever else...obviously within whatever restrictions the Supreme Court jurisprudence has put on this right.

RabidMongoose, I will agree with what you said being the letter of the right. Not the spirit.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I mean that the right allows everyone to hold an opinion, and I fully support that. But the spirit of that right is not to conflict with societial values or rights.

That is EXACTLY what the spirit of that right is. Speech and opinions that don't conflict with general viewpoints or societal values don't need protecting. It's speech that is in conflict with general values and opinion that needs protecting, speech that is likely to anger or offend someone in some way. That's what the freedom of speech is for.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
That is EXACTLY what the spirit of that right is. Speech and opinions that don't conflict with general viewpoints or societal values don't need protecting. It's speech that is in conflict with general values and opinion that needs protecting, speech that is likely to anger or offend someone in some way. That's what the freedom of speech is for.

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".
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
That is EXACTLY what the spirit of that right is. Speech and opinions that don't conflict with general viewpoints or societal values don't need protecting. It's speech that is in conflict with general values and opinion that needs protecting, speech that is likely to anger or offend someone in some way. That's what the freedom of speech is for.

Yeah, this is pretty much the 'spirit' of the freedom of speech right...I'm not sure what else can be the 'spirit' of the right...