Six British Men Arrested After Quran Burning

[Beerina]

So if, for example, I owned a company which produced and sold hardcore pornography, would I be able to advertise said company on public billboards in the US using explicit, uncensored imagery?

If not, why not?

The purpose of porn is to arouse you sexually, which is not why you have freedom of speech (or expression.) Do you have the right to go arouse someone sexually via displays of sexual behavior? Note I am not taking a position on this here. Just noticing it.

 

[uk_dave]

So they might say, "I INTEND to burn a Koran BECAUSE it will piss people off BECAUSE killing people because your god says so is a bad thing, and I want to mock it in this way."

Government should do its job and protect them.

I intend to advertise my porn business by placing a *********** great billboard on a major interstate highway showing a lady giving oral relief to a gentleman.

Is that okay in your society? If not, why not?

 

[uk_dave]

The purpose of porn is to arouse you sexually, which is not why you have freedom of speech (or expression.) Do you have the right to go arouse someone sexually via displays of sexual behavior? Note I am not taking a position on this here. Just noticing it.

Oh I thought Mr Flynt managed to avoid obscenity charges by claiming the right to freedom of speach.

The purpose of burning a religious book is to arouse anger and hatred, is that better or worse than sexual arousal?

 

[ingoa]

Six British Men Arrested After Quran Burning


Germany couldn't take your freedom by force. Looks like they went about it the wrong way. They should have merely been greatly offended until you turned things over to them.

??? Were is ANY connection to Germany ???

 

[uk_dave]

??? Were is ANY connection to Germany ???

Germany got a damn good spanking in the last war, what?

 

[Architect]

Should the "artwork" Piss Christ be illegal?


Should Blasphemy be illegal?

Should burning Korans be illegal?

Should burning a flag be illegal?

No, no, no and no.

I can see that reading comprehension thing isn't really working out for you, so let me answer this one for your:

1. It isn't

2. It isn't, in Scotland at least (perhaps in Englandshire)

3. It isn't

4. It isn't

You can, at the end of the day, quite happily write a scholarly article about the Koran or the validity of religion. You can burn the US, the UK, or any other flag you want.

But that's not the point, is it?

You're upset because we in Europe have quite rightly concluded that, to take item 4 as an example, someone exercising said act in front of (say) the Central Mosque might only be doing it to incite religious hatred and start a fight. That's the bit we in Europe consider to be illegal.

Now if our American posters want to claim that the US Constitution is some God-given, super-duper document that trumps all other claims to freedom then feel free to cling to your mistaken belief. Just don't be surprised when the Europeans, Australians, Kiwis, and Canadians all point out that you're talking rubbish.

 

[Giz]

I can see that reading comprehension thing isn't really working out for you, so let me answer this one for your:

...[snipped] ...

You're upset because we in Europe have quite rightly concluded that, to take item 4 as an example, someone exercising said act in front of (say) the Central Mosque might only be doing it to incite religious hatred and start a fight. That's the bit we in Europe consider to be illegal.

Talking about reading comprehension... the article says that the Koran was burned in a pub... not in front of (say) Central Mosque.

I'm sorry, what point were you trying to make again? I got distracted by you trying to justify these arrests on the basis of a completely different scenario.

 

[Architect]

Talking about reading comprehension... the article says that the Koran was burned in a pub... not in front of (say) Central Mosque.

I'm sorry, what point were you trying to make again? I got distracted by you trying to justify these arrests on the basis of a completely different scenario.

It's okay, we have these things called "newspapers" here in Scotland which report on issues such as this, hence I'm moderately familiar with the story. However you are conflating two separate issues, per the previous posts:

1. Is it illegal to, say, burn a Koran? No.

2. Is it illegal to, say, burn a Koran if that act is intended to incite religious or ethnic hatred. Yes.

Now your original post seemed to be blethering on about (1), but you've now stepped back from this and seem to be questioning whether the location and circumstances of (2) were sufficient to merit arrest. That's a matter of conjecture pending the full facts. It seems borderline to me. In comaprison, however, the famous ABE t-shirts clearly didn't hit the trigger for (2) at all.

But like I said, feel free to keep working on that reading comprehension.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

1. Is it illegal to, say, burn a Koran? No.

2. Is it illegal to, say, burn a Koran if that act is intended to incite religious or ethnic hatred. Yes.

In a free country, that respects the basic, vital right of each individual to hold what beliefs and opinions he will, and to appropriately express these beliefs and opinions, the answer is still “no”. Here in the U.S.. we understood this two centuries ago.

In a civilized nation, people are not subject to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, for expressing what they believe, no matter how much someone else disagrees with their beliefs.

 

[uk_dave]

Hey Bob, you should move to the UK!

Hell, we don't even ticket over here if a passenger in a moving vehicle has an open container of alcohol! Freedom!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Hey Bob, you should move to the UK!

Hell, we don't even ticket over here if a passenger in a moving vehicle has an open container of alcohol! Freedom!

So in the UK, you consider the right to operate a dangerous machine while under the influence of a mind-impairing drug, to be more important than freedom of thought and expression?

Or perhaps that's backward; perhaps it is that you consider it more important to protect people from the indescribable horror of being exposed to beliefs and opinions that they don't like; than to protect them against being run over by a vehicle whose driver is intoxicated.


Either way, I guess this really shouldn't surprise me as much as it does. As I said, there's a very good reason we kicked you cretins out of our country two centuries ago.

 

[uk_dave]

Passenger, Bob, PASSENGER!



You was there during the 'kicking', Bob?

 

[Architect]

In a free country, that respects the basic, vital right of each individual to hold what beliefs and opinions he will, and to appropriately express these beliefs and opinions, the answer is still “no”. Here in the U.S.. we understood this two centuries ago.

In a civilized nation, people are not subject to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, for expressing what they believe, no matter how much someone else disagrees with their beliefs.

Well Bob, much as I enjoy a bit of US flag waving as much as the next man, I have to point out - again - that we too have freedom of speech, guaranteed by law, except where you abuse that freedom by seeking to incite religous or ethnic hatred.

Personally I think it's a good idea to protect our minorities from ethnic hatred, but you obviously disagree and believe in a completely unfettered freedom of speech. I'm guessing you've never actually experienced said ethnic discrimination, but am sure you'll flap a bit at the suggestion.

Incidentally, I see you're down to "two centuries" now; funnily enough, that's the time we enacted emancipation. You know, some 50 years before a country which allegedly protected all its citizens actually bothered to free its slaves.....

 

[Architect]

So in the UK, you consider the right to operate a dangerous machine while under the influence of a mind-impairing drug, to be more important than freedom of thought and expression?

He said as a passenger, Bob. Keep working at that reading comprehension.

Or perhaps that's backward; perhaps it is that you consider it more important to protect people from the indescribable horror of being exposed to beliefs and opinions that they don't like; than to protect them against being run over by a vehicle whose driver is intoxicated.

See above. We try to protect our ethnic priorities.

Either way, I guess this really shouldn't surprise me as much as it does. As I said, there's a very good reason we kicked you cretins out of our country two centuries ago.

And yet, strangely, your great and free country still had segregation only 50 years ago. My, your grasp of US history is interesting.....

 

[richardm]

a written constitution does tend to fend off "questionable" laws like this one).

I'm not so sure it does. For one thing, it depends what's been written down but for another, even though the US constitution specifies the right to bear arms there are lots of state-level laws kicking around that remove or reduce that right. Having a written constitution doesn't seem to be a guarantee of anything.

 

[Architect]

It guarantees rednecks unaware of ECHR the right to claim that they have freedom of speech and we don't, apparently. However it didn't guarantee equal rights until at least the 1960s, by the looks of it, nor did it do much for their indigenous minority's.....

 

[ddt]

I'm not so sure it does. For one thing, it depends what's been written down but for another, even though the US constitution specifies the right to bear arms there are lots of state-level laws kicking around that remove or reduce that right. Having a written constitution doesn't seem to be a guarantee of anything.

And freedom of speech under the First Amendment does not extend to commercial speech, for instance. The rights listed in the US Constitution (especially those listed in the Bill of Rights) are described in very short phrases, which are still open to interpretation. That they're laid down in the constitution only guarantees that that interpretation is done by the SCOTUS rather than by politicians whose opinions are subject to the whims of the day.

 

[Architect]

See above. We try to protect our ethnic priorities.

minorities, even. Too early in the dashed morning.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Either way, I guess this really shouldn't surprise me as much as it does. As I said, there's a very good reason we kicked you cretins out of our country two centuries ago.

We are all 200 years old?

Oh, you mean 'we' in that backwards, xenophobic fashion.

Tell me, what relation does the 2006 Racial & Religous Hatred Act have to do with King George III in 1763?

 

[Architect]

Well obviously it proves we're cretins, you fool. We haven't moved on in 200 years. We still execute the mentally retarted, lock-up the untried and unloved in offshore bases, blow an airline with 266 people out of the sky and give the trigger happy dolt who ordered it a medal......

...ah, no, wait a minute....