Six British Men Arrested After Quran Burning

[WildCat]

Firstly, as has been pointed out to Wildcat and others on previous threads (but they tend to change the subject), freedom of speech is guaranteed in the UK and Europe generally by the EHCR. There are, however, restrictions where such speech is intended to cause religious, sexual, or racial hatred/crime.

How Orwellian!

 

[WildCat]

That goes for the USA also though doesnt it. What is the motive of shouting fire in a theater?

Incitement, clear and present danger.

Not even close to the thought crime these guys are charged with.

 

[WildCat]

(ps - in answer to previous posts, the USA isn't right 100% of the time, for instance the UK does a better job on some gay rights - marriage for example,

There is no gay marriage in the UK.

 

[WildCat]

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?

There's billboards everywhere advertising strip gentleman's clubs.

I doubt even Amsterdam has billboards showing oral sex.

 

[WildCat]

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!

In Montana the driver can have an open container of alcohol. In other states (Texas for sure) passengers can have open containers.

 

[WildCat]

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.

So you can say anything you'd like... so long as you don't offend anyone?

 

[WildCat]

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.....

Who introduced African slavery into North America again?

 

[Beerina]

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

...in the context of 1.3 billion people living in dictatorships where doing so is punishable by death, and they are taught they should kill people who do this.

By outlawing burning a Koran, you just encourage this nonsense.

is that better or worse than sexual arousal?

Killing people is clearly worse. That's why outlawing burning a Koran is the wrong thing to do. The desired end state of society is one where it's not illegal to burn a Koran, nor dangerous because people murderously fly off the handle at the prompting of their leaders. The desired state is nobody burns a Koran because it's pointless -- nobody would kill them for doing so.

People burn Korans precisely because there are governments that not only outlaw it, but punish it with death. The West outlawing it is going 180 degrees the wrong way down the path.


I will also note many who support the right to burn a Koran also probably were in favor of outlawing burning the US flag -- a similar statement of expression.


The correct answer is the government should do its job and protect that right. Then the right to freedom of speech will build up supportive meme feelings until it, properly, overwhelms the generated outrage over such events.

Outlawing burning a Koran is not respecting religion -- it's cowardice to defend freedom itself in the face of angry threats. Your very proposition about violence vs. porn proves this point.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What is the motive of shouting fire in a theater?

Incitement, clear and present danger.

Not even close to the thought crime these guys are charged with.

They weren't charged with thinking anything. This law was rushed in response to several racially-motivated disturbances in a number of English towns. The previous government had a habit of "fixing" whatever was of immediate public concern by throwing new laws at it. Stupid policy, IMO, but the purpose of the law was to prevent people deliberately provoking race riots. They were charged with inciting racial or religious hatred. Not with "offending anyone".

 

[WildCat]

They weren't charged with thinking anything. This law was rushed in response to several racially-motivated disturbances in a number of English towns. The previous government had a habit of "fixing" whatever was of immediate public concern by throwing new laws at it. Stupid policy, IMO, but the purpose of the law was to prevent people deliberately provoking race riots. They were charged with inciting racial or religious hatred. Not with "offending anyone".

Uh, "inciting hatred" is a thought crime any way you slice it.

Unless you're encouraging someone to actually commit a violent act it's not incitement. Now, if they stood up in the pub and said "let's go over to the Muslim area and start bashing heads" you'd have incitement.

Burning a Koran? Not even close.

 

[DC]

There is no gay marriage in the UK.

Nor does the US, some states do.
the UK has same sex civil union in all "states", has the US?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

"MY FREEDOMS BIGGER THAN YOURS!"

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Uh, "inciting hatred" is a thought crime any way you slice it.

Unless you're encouraging someone to actually commit a violent act it's not incitement. Now, if they stood up in the pub and said "let's go over to the Muslim area and start bashing heads" you'd have incitement.

Burning a Koran? Not even close.

IANAL, but I started trying to read this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents

It looks to me as if this act is in fact an amendment to the Public Order act and the actual offence involved is threatening behaviour. The racial or religious element is only an aggravating factor which may increase the seriousness of the offence, but it's the threatening behaviour which is the offence itself.

Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about can correct me if I got it completely wrong.

 

[Thunder]

There is no gay marriage in the UK.

source please.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There is no gay marriage in the UK.

source please.

Officially it's a "civil partnership", not a marriage. Almost everyone calls it marriage though, and AFAIK for all practical purposes it is.

 

[Architect]

I suspect Wildcat knows this, but is just trying to gloss over an example where the US doesn't enjoy the same freedom as UK citizens/subjects.

the UK has same sex civil union in all "states", has the US?

(cough) home nations (cough)

 

[Architect]

Who introduced African slavery into North America again?

And who made it illegal over 50 years before the freedom-loving US?

 

[Architect]

So you can say anything you'd like... so long as you don't offend anyone?

Can you show me where I said that causing "offence" was the issue?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Who introduced African slavery into North America again?

My ancestors and yours, sir

(though slavery wasn't unknown among native American tribes before the Europeans arrived)

 

[SnakeTongue]

Psychological operation in progress.

Yes, sir!