Burning Koran

[FRE]

The way the UN moves ideas around is threw treaties which have to be ratified by our elected officials.

Yes, they do act THROUGH treaties, and I hope that our elected officials use good judgment when signing. But they are subject to interpretation and our elected officials and the UN may not agree on interpretation, in which case it is unclear what would happen. I see the risk of being pressured into action we might oppose as > 0.

 

[playainda336]

Either way, burning the book was disrespectful.

AND Un-American.

America was originally about religious freedom. What happened?

 

[cocktaste]

I know,but don`t understand how is burning koran "free Speech".It is destroying stuff of one religion in the "holly-house" of other religion.Sorry but i don`t find it like Free Speech.

The action = person's point of view on a particular religion. It is protected under the 1st Amendment. I don't think "inciting violence" is against the law in the United States. I could be wrong though. I think it falls under the category of supposition, thus, they cannot prosecute on the possibility that something could incite violence. People have free will. If they choose to act on what many would deem incitement, then they would be prosecuted. They chose to act.

I couldn't give a shit about what somebody burns. You also have the right to burn the American flag.

This guy is an asshole, but he's within his right, no matter how stupid he/it is.

 

[cocktaste]

Either way, burning the book was disrespectful.

AND Un-American.

America was originally about religious freedom. What happened?

America was not originally about religion freedom.

That's a lie purported by the Right wing fundie nuts.

Un-American would = not adhering to the Constitution. The guy has every right to do it. People throw around the term "un-American" way too loosely. Dissent from public opinion IS very much American.

Again, the guy is still an asshole, and a nut.

 

[deleted213967]

Had the outrage-happy bigots on the "victimized" side been any smarter, they would have recycled an e-Bible over a worldwide webcast, in a more environmentally-friendly retaliation.

Instead, they chose to kill and loot their own businesses. Big surprise!

 

[FRE]

Either way, burning the book was disrespectful.

AND Un-American.

America was originally about religious freedom. What happened?

True, at least in theory, but unfortunately there has always been a problem with religious discrimination although it tends to be less bad now than it was in the early 1900s. There are still hot-heads who try to impose their beliefs on others.

 

[FRE]

The action = person's point of view on a particular religion. It is protected under the 1st Amendment. I don't think "inciting violence" is against the law in the United States. I could be wrong though. I think it falls under the category of supposition, thus, they cannot prosecute on the possibility that something could incite violence. People have free will. If they choose to act on what many would deem incitement, then they would be prosecuted. They chose to act.

I couldn't give a shit about what somebody burns. You also have the right to burn the American flag.

This guy is an asshole, but he's within his right, no matter how stupid he/it is.

It's unclear whether he is within his rights. One could be arrested for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or for inciting someone to commit a violent act. And, he had to know that burning the Koran was almost certain to result in violence and murder.

 

[Drifterwood]

At what point does the first amendment give the object of incitement the right to retaliate?

I have the right then to go to Dallas and tell some big redneck that the Cowboys are a bunch of faggots?

Will the Dallas PD defend this limey SOB?

 

[FRE]

At what point does the first amendment give the object of incitement the right to retaliate?

I have the right then to go to Dallas and tell some big redneck that the Cowboys are a bunch of faggots?

Will the Dallas PD defend this limey SOB?

Who stated that the object of incitement has a right to retaliate? I certainly did not.

So far as I know, there are gray areas to the right of free speech. Libel provides injured parties with the right to sue, at least here in the U.S. That is one limit to the right of free speech.

Again, a person can be arrested for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; courts would accept that that goes beyond the limits of free speech. The question is exactly where to draw the line.

There is a danger in testing the limits; doing so could gradually erode the right of free speech. It has been rightly stated that bad cases make bad law. A good example is the 1896 case of Plessy vs Ferguson; it took 58 years to reverse that horrible decision.

 

[helgaleena]

At what point does the first amendment give the object of incitement the right to retaliate?

I have the right then to go to Dallas and tell some big redneck that the Cowboys are a bunch of faggots?

Will the Dallas PD defend this limey SOB?

They would, in theory. But there's many a slip twixt map and territory. Choose wisely your redneck and be certain that he is not a friend of the Dallas PD officers on duty where you do the taunting. Also select PD officers who are not Cowboys fans.

 

[Drifterwood]

Who stated that the object of incitement has a right to retaliate? I certainly did not.

So, no country has the right to go to war?

 

[FRE]

So, no country has the right to go to war?

I never said that.

Defending against an attack that does actual damage can be a reasonable thing to do, depending on circumstances. Retaliating for purely emotional reasons is an entirely different matter.

I think that you do know the difference.

 

[yoursgetsmine]

The whole point is if everybody stretched the boundaries of ALL the freedoms we have in this country ALL at the SAME time....we'd have utter chaos, so while he may be within HIS rights in THIS country....because we're a global community and have instant communication with the entire world, other people in other countries CAN be expected to react to OUR freedoms no matter how protected they are here in the U.S. and consequently he should have reacted with restraint because the repercussions were deadly and affect a lot of other people who were not involved in this tug of war of expression, and sadly a lot of families are without fathers, mothers, sons or daughters and husbands or wives JUST so he could in effect shout "fire" in the movie theater which had the same dire result....fatalities.

It's on him, no matter what his "rights" may be or not be....but that was real blood shed.....not some "words" on a piece of paper that are open to EVERYBODY'S interpretation. Would he have done it had it sealed the doom of all his followers and his personal family including himself......I'm betting NOT.

Know when to hold and when to fold....and if the circumstances of your actions cause or result in deaths that would have not have occurred had you taken a more benign approach to this situation....why not at least consider it. Unfortunately in this world stage of "reality" shows, everybody seems to want their 15 minutes of fame.....and now a whole lot of people will have the the rest of their lives torn by grief and the ones who perished will never exercise their rights again.

 

[FRE]

The whole point is if everybody stretched the boundaries of ALL the freedoms we have in this country ALL at the SAME time....we'd have utter chaos, so while he may be within HIS rights in THIS country....because we're a global community and have instant communication with the entire world, other people in other countries CAN be expected to react to OUR freedoms no matter how protected they are here in the U.S. and consequently he should have reacted with restraint because the repercussions were deadly and affect a lot of other people who were not involved in this tug of war of expression, and sadly a lot of families are without fathers, mothers, sons or daughters and husbands or wives JUST so he could in effect shout "fire" in the movie theater which had the same dire result....fatalities.

It's on him, no matter what his "rights" may be or not be....but that was real blood shed.....not some "words" on a piece of paper that are open to EVERYBODY'S interpretation. Would he have done it had it sealed the doom of all his followers and his personal family including himself......I'm betting NOT.

Know when to hold and when to fold....and if the circumstances of your actions cause or result in deaths that would have not have occurred had you taken a more benign approach to this situation....why not at least consider it. Unfortunately in this world stage of "reality" shows, everybody seems to want their 15 minutes of fame.....and now a whole lot of people will have the the rest of their lives torn by grief and the ones who perished will never exercise their rights again.

A very good post; I fully agree.

If we use our rights irresponsibility, we risk losing them.

 

[FRE]

Check out this link for very thoughtful considerations about Koran burning:

Koran Burning

 

[185248]

One religious fanatic, or several going by the video... stirs up other religious fanatics and the innocents are the ones caught in the middle. So what is so different from the past few thousand years? Why did he not visit an Arab country and carry out his moronic demonstration? Afraid his god would not protect him me thinks. Sorry guys, this stuff has been going on long before the USA was on the scene.

 

[deleted213967]

A very good post; I fully agree.

If we use our rights irresponsibility, we risk losing them.

Didn't the Roberts Supreme Court recently reaffirm the absoluteness of the First Amendment in the case of Phelps (possibly the most universally despised individual in the land)?

You can't say you have rights but you're not allowed to use them.

Phelps and that other para-religious schmuck may be world-class asshole*, but only savages still wallowing in the Dark Ages would "retaliate" by killing innocent people.

 

[D_stryhtfg]

Priest Terry Jones was burned the Koran (muslim`s holly Book).
What is your opinion about this,Is it OK.Is it inciting hatred.
Is now Ok if Muslims in Mosques burn The Bible.
My opinion is that this is only extending war with Arabs country`s.

Terry exercised his right to burn them...just like Muslims can exercise their right to9 burn the bible.

What's NOT OK is the way the United States continually bends over backwards to NOT offend the Muslim faith (IE: The South Park incident, burning Bibles, etc).

 

[deleted213967]

Terry exercised his right to burn them...just like Muslims can exercise their right to9 burn the bible.

What's NOT OK is the way the United States continually bends over backwards to NOT offend the Muslim faith (IE: The South Park incident, burning Bibles, etc).

:biggrin1: Don't get me started about the South Park Incident!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Terry exercised his right to burn them...just like Muslims can exercise their right to9 burn the bible.

So just because it's protected under the First Amendment it's OK to do it, even though we know the intention is to incite and antagonize a particular person or group to react violently? If that's the case, then nobody should be outraged or concerned about the people that were killed in response to Terry's exceedingly stupid actions.

What's NOT OK is the way the United States continually bends over backwards to NOT offend the Muslim faith (IE: The South Park incident, burning Bibles, etc).

So apparently, the "Freedom of Religion" clause in the very Constitution you want to tout about doesn't apply here? Perhaps if certain political parties didn't try to use Islam and Muslims as a divisive subject to conjure up support for a presidential election it wouldn't seem as if our country is "bending over backwards" to accommodate them? Then again, that speech is also protected by the First Amendment so people feel compelled to use theirs as a form of damage control. Because let's face it... saying whatever the fuck you want without any regard of the consequences is FAR more important than treating people who are different with an ounce of respect.

Stop being a hypocrite.