Burn a Quran day

[noreligion]

Of course not. I don't see why it would be.

Thank god you are neither a lawyer or a judge cause you have no idea what breach of peace is.

I directly answered the question.

Nope. Read the damn question. None of you guys screaming free speech has answered or is able to answer the question I asked. You are essentially throwing crap against the wall hoping beyond hope some will stick but sad to say that your attempt is failing miserably.

 

[bokonon]

What specifically is protected by the constitution as free speech

Everything that hasn't been deemed an exception by case law

and why?

Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

Why can't you people answer a direct question? At this point is is indisputable that this is an illegal act. Would you guys prefer anarchy?

Seriously, is your presence here part of an audition for The Jersey Shore?

 

[Checkmite]

You mean Jones is carrying a gun to protect himself from death threats made by people safely distant (as in overseas) and there are no Muslims in America? Do you live in a closet since you apparently think America is just white Anglo Saxon Christians?

You're nitpicking and being intentionally obtuse. If Jones burned his books and his crowd of observers went crazy and started burning every Islamic-looking thing in sight, that might work as 'incitement to riot'. There's a logical progression from 'man advocates burning Muslim things' to 'crowd reacts by burning Muslim things'. 'Man burns Koran' doesn't similarly progress to 'Muslim kills a person'.

 

[noreligion]

You're nitpicking and being intentionally obtuse. If Jones burned his books and his crowd of observers went crazy and started burning every Islamic-looking thing in sight, that might work as 'incitement to riot'. There's a logical progression from 'man advocates burning Muslim things' to 'crowd reacts by burning Muslim things'. 'Man burns Koran' doesn't similarly progress to 'Muslim kills a person'.

Define breach of peace. Here is some other terms you can find it under. Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace. Now can I have a definition and then an explanation as why this isn't a breach of peace?

 

[Checkmite]

Thank god you are neither a lawyer or a judge cause you have no idea what breach of peace is.

Why don't we talk about this later - after Jones burns his books an no judge convicts him of 'breach of the peace' - and then we'll know who does or doesn't know what it is.

Nope. Read the damn question. None of you guys screaming free speech has answered or is able to answer the question I asked. You are essentially throwing crap against the wall hoping beyond hope some will stick but sad to say that your attempt is failing miserably.

.

I answered very specifically. Any speech that does not infringe on another person's legal or constitutional rights is protected speech.

 

[noreligion]

.

I answered very specifically. Any speech that does not infringe on another person's legal or constitutional rights is protected speech.

Sorry. wrong answer. If this was a class on the constitution you failed. Now are you going to answer Define breach of peace. Here is some other terms you can find it under. Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace. Now can I have a definition and then an explanation as why this isn't a breach of peace? or not. If not, why are you wasting my time?

 

[bokonon]

Sorry. wrong answer. If this was a class on the constitution you failed. Now are you going to answer Define breach of peace. Here is some other terms you can find it under. Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace. Now can I have a definition and then an explanation as why this isn't a breach of peace? or not. If not, why are you wasting my time?

Instead of wasting everyone's time, why don't you start by explaining why you think it is? As long as "THE BURNING OF THE QURAN" is a peaceful demonstration, why would you think it would fall outside the law?

If Jones does burn a book tomorrow, and is not arrested on the spot, would that convince you? What about if one of the many other nutbags promising to do so follow through and are not arrested?

 

[bobcarp]

Why don't we talk about this later - after Jones burns his books an no judge convicts him of 'breach of the peace' - and then we'll know who does or doesn't know what it is.

Sorry. wrong answer. If this was a class on the constitution you failed. Now are you going to answer Define breach of peace. Here is some other terms you can find it under. Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace. Now can I have a definition and then an explanation as why this isn't a breach of peace? or not. If not, why are you wasting my time?

I think you two are just arguing different angles on the same issue. One is arguing the “Philosophy of Constitutional rights” and the other is arguing “Constitutional Rights in Practice”.
Most all agree that he has the “RIGHT” to burn the Korans and we as Americans should not have others infringe on our rights. And if he does burn the korans, no court or judge is going to convict him of anything. But as far as “Practice” in this situation, it is obviously going to encourage people who have already proved themselves to be crazy fanaticals to do something that is going to harm innocent people, which they have done in the past.

 

[noreligion]

I think you two are just arguing different angles on the same issue. One is arguing the “Philosophy of Constitutional rights” and the other is arguing “Constitutional Rights in Practice”.
Most all agree that he has the “RIGHT” to burn the Korans and we as Americans should not have others infringe on our rights. And if he does burn the korans, no court or judge is going to convict him of anything. But as far as “Practice” in this situation, it is obviously going to encourage people who have already proved themselves to be crazy fanaticals to do something that is going to harm innocent people, which they have done in the past.

You are forgetting that his locale refused a burning permit for this so if he does go along with it he is breaking the law.

Edit: Is anybody suing the local government for breaking Jone's first amendment rights?

 

[jayh]

So that makes burning a koran constitutionally protected freedom of speech? What about breach of peace? Would you care to hazard a guess as to why the FBI visited this idiot Jones?

You are aware, I suppose, that the FBI is hardly the model of Constitutional restraint.

 

[bokonon]

Looks like it's off again...http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/os-florida-quran-burning-cancelled-20100910,0,806960.story

 

[FireGarden]

And it gets even better. The ground zero mosque is supposed to be a matter of the right of the landowners to build what they want trumping hurt feelings of the 9/11 families. Yet somehow this pastor's right to free expression should play second fiddle to the hurt feelings it would cause. Then we say 'yeah yeah, freedom of speech yada yada, but it's still wrong because Jones is doing it just to be a dick', forgetting that one argument of the anti-mosque crowd is 'freedom of religion yada yada, but it's still wrong because they're just building it in this spot to be dicks.' Why people in this forum are actively taking sides in this holy-war-by-proxy is beyond me.

The funny thing is that Jones has already put up signs saying "Islam is of the devil" -- so he's already expressed himself more eloquently than burning the Quran will do.

As far as the Mosque is concerned... There is already a Mosque in the area and it is too small to accomodate the Muslims in the area. Some of them pray outside. So there is a need for a larger Mosque in the area. And it is being built by people who have been involved in 911 memorials and as official rep for the Bush admin. They are not being dicks.

If Jones was burning Qurans in order to keep his house warm, it would be different. But he doesn't even pretend that -- as the signs he has put up demonstrate. So Jones is being a dick.

 

[Java Man]

Instead of wasting everyone's time, why don't you start by explaining why you think it is? As long as "THE BURNING OF THE QURAN" is a peaceful demonstration, why would you think it would fall outside the law?

It might not fall outside the law, but it definitely falls outside common sense.

First thing the Quran is sacred for Muslims. It might not be for you, but it is for them. So burning the Quran is an insult, which doesn't fall into free speech. He could very well express his dislike for Islam without insulting. One thing is to express my concern about a company like BP and quite another is to put up signs that addresses it's CEO's sexual orientation his mother's moral values and shows altered photos of him having homosexual sex. Well burning the Quran is like a thousand times worse even if you don't "get it" because you're not Muslim.

Secondly Jones isn't just burning the Quran. He has an agenda with the "near" ground zero mosque. To me his actions are no different from "satisfy all my demands or I'll blow up this plane". So that definitely falls out of free speech. He's using his supposed "free speech rights" to negotiate something. That sounds a lot more like blackmailing than free speech to me.

 

[bokonon]

It might not fall outside the law, but it definitely falls outside common sense.

You're right, it might not fall outside the law. The only way, in this case, that it is likely to fall outside the law is if he violates an ordinance on outdoor burning. "Protected free speech" itself has limitations. It is legal for me to say "The President flagellates frogs." It is legal for me to put my slogan on a sign and walk around with it. It is not legal for me to spray paint my slogan on public property, or on private property which I do not have permission to alter.

And you are right again, burning a Quran is not a sensible thing to do. It is an expression of bigotry and contempt which serves only to inflame passions.

To me his actions are no different from "satisfy all my demands or I'll blow up this plane". So that definitely falls out of free speech. He's using his supposed "free speech rights" to negotiate something. That sounds a lot more like blackmailing than free speech to me.

It might be an attempt at blackmail, since he has publicly announced that he would consider certain quid pro quos to be a "sign from God," and since there are definitely some for whom the burning of this book would be an undesirable outcome. I hadn't thought of it, but perhaps a case could be made on that basis.

Certainly the thing being threatened doesn't have to be illegal for the situation as a whole to be blackmail. The person threatening to reveal facts about David Letterman's affair unless he was paid a sum of money was convicted of blackmail, and "revealing facts about David Letterman's affair" is not illegal.

It's possible that Jones has crossed a line here which would make further threats unwise...

On the other hand, I'm not sure it would constitute blackmail. Perhaps an element of secrecy is necessary for the crime of blackmail. The threat in this case might be considered simply a negotiating tactic. When the owner of a sports team threatens to take his team to another city unless he gets certain concessions ("Build me a stadium!") they're not charged with a crime. When people boycott a business attempting to bring about change, they're not charged either.

ETA: I think we're more properly talking about "extortion" here; "blackmail" seems to involve the threat to reveal information, while "extortion" includes other threats.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just thinking out loud here; I really don't know.

 

[Checkmite]

First thing the Quran is sacred for Muslims. It might not be for you, but it is for them. So burning the Quran is an insult, which doesn't fall into free speech.

No, it isn't. Burning a book is a sign of disrespect for the ideas the book espouses, or for the book's authors. Fans of those ideas may be offended, but merely offensive speech is not illegal.

Can you imagine the precedent it would set if a person were prevented from expressing himself in an intrinsically harmless manner based on how other people hypothetically might respond to it after the fact? It's an invitation for any kind of free speech to be held hostage by those who disagree. Imagine Christian Identity threatening to kill some Jews if some museum in New York exhibits 'Piss Christ' again. Would we be starting 12-page threads lambasting the museum for ignoring the threats, or would we be lambasting the hate group for making the threats?

Do you guys think somebody burning a bible would ever be a good or even reasonable excuse for a Christian to burn something down or murder someone? If not, why is this discussion proceeding as if Muslims flipping out and killing people because somebody burned a Koran is such a logical or expected matter of course that we're ready to blame murders on someone who does nothing but burn a book rather than on the people that actually committed the murder?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Still waiting for someone to tell me why it would have been a good idea.

Burning books they haven't read...

Intentionally insulting people who have done them no harm...

This whole "9/11 happened, we are wounded forever ,don't tread on me" garbage is just showing the world what a bunch of pussies we are.

 

[FireGarden]

Do you guys think somebody burning a bible would ever be a good or even reasonable excuse for a Christian to burn something down or murder someone? If not, why is this discussion proceeding as if Muslims flipping out and killing people because somebody burned a Koran is such a logical or expected matter of course that we're ready to blame murders on someone who does nothing but burn a book rather than on the people that actually committed the murder?

I don't know which discussion you see proceeding in that manner. Who has said such a murderer should not be blamed?

 

[jayh]

No, it isn't. Burning a book is a sign of disrespect for the ideas the book espouses, or for the book's authors. Fans of those ideas may be offended, but merely offensive speech is not illegal.

Can you imagine the precedent it would set if a person were prevented from expressing himself in an intrinsically harmless manner based on how other people hypothetically might respond to it after the fact? ....

Functionally this is NO DIFFERENT from the re-running of the Mo cartoons (after we already 'knew' it could cause trouble). It did not inform anything, it was an affront to religious sensibilities and hence a direct challenge, it only served to excite violent crackpots. Yet it was widely, and correctly in my opinion, defended as free speech. Now, perhaps because we don't like the guy doing it, most people here seem to have suddenly become so accommodationist. Yes it's insulting. Free speech often is.

Frankly I am disappointed he backed down. This will make it more difficult for others who wish to speak out.

 

[Skeptic]

It's not 'incitement to riot' because in order for it to be that the person doing the inciting first needs a crowd capable of rioting and secondly has to be directly encouraging illegal behavior. Burning a Koran isnt directly encouraging Muslims to kill people; if they make that decision they do it all by themselves.

Oh, come on. You're treating Muslims like they have free will or are capable of common decency or something. Everybody knows they're just puppets, wholly incapable of not killing people because an idiot 10,000 miles away burned a book.

 

[Java Man]

Do you guys think somebody burning a bible would ever be a good or even reasonable excuse for a Christian to burn something down or murder someone? If not, why is this discussion proceeding as if Muslims flipping out and killing people because somebody burned a Koran is such a logical or expected matter of course that we're ready to blame murders on someone who does nothing but burn a book rather than on the people that actually committed the murder?

Muslims flipping out and killing people is an over generalization. Some Muslims, a small radical minority will surely flip out and start killing others. It is not a logical matter, but it is certainly an expected matter. Give a gun to a suicide and he'll blow his head off. Is it the right thing for him to have done? No! But it sure was the expected thing given his illness. So WTF was the gun given to him in the first place?!?!?!?

Now if we are on the side of the sane people on Earth, why are we allowing these actions to take place. The priest is like the big bank robbery hero who thinks he can outspeak the crooks better than the police negotiator can and gets everyone shot. Does our bank hero have the right to speak up? Yes, but these are armed robbers under a great deal of stress and are not prone to act in any logical manner.

Rather than get the few out there agitated we should soothe things out. We can't self label ourselves as "the logical ones" when we give prime tv time to a nut case like that priest. Who is no better than the Muslim nut cases that will be agitated by his actions.