The difference between that sort of thing and burning the Koran is nobody is going to get killed over it. Those guys have taken extremism to new heights and if anyone thinks you'll change their minds it won't ever happen.
Burning The Koran
- Thread starter Loyalist
- Start date
The difference between that sort of thing and burning the Koran is nobody is going to get killed over it. Those guys have taken extremism to new heights and if anyone thinks you'll change their minds it won't ever happen.
Dunno if this has been posted yet if it has sorry for the repost
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-13028793
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-13028793
So apparently, free speech is only permissible if it doesn't upset extremists. Makes perfect sense, not an oxymoron at all. Sure as hell doesn't sound like free speech to me.
Hear Hear! :clap
The goal in defeating them isn't to change their minds but to dissuade others who might otherwise give them support.
This is the question that needs to be answered to determine if he is in his rights or not.
The pastor had zero control over what those murderers chose to do.
Did he? I mean this all goes back to the "incitement" part of free speech.
I don't think it's the government we need to be worrying about here. We don't get real news because of the corporate media, plain and simple. The government aren't pushing for censorship, it's the lobbyists of the multinational corporations that are buying our politicians and getting these laws pushed.
If we want any of this to change, we need to get the politicians out of the corporations pockets.
If you believe that, then we don't have free speech in America. Of course there are restrictions on our speech. There are numerous examples where the courts have limited our speech, one being incitement of violence. I DO NOT have the right to start a riot with a hate filled speech, right? I mean I would get my ass thrown in jail for that. So what's the difference here?
His actions caused the death of several people. This in no way excuses the people who did the killings, but they were directly inflamed by this pastor.
The part that pisses me off the most. This pastor was personally warned by our military leaders that he should seriously rethink this. Because they KNEW what problems it would cause. With this information, he still went ahead with it causing several deaths.... He is a fucking idiot in my book and I hope these deaths haunt him for the rest of his life.
No good will come of the burning of anyone's holy book.
Perhaps its time to limit certain freedoms when those freedoms cause death to others.
Time to rethink that freedom and the price tag. :ninja
Perhaps its time to limit certain freedoms when those freedoms cause death to others.
Time to rethink that freedom and the price tag. :ninja
Sorry, I truly disagree with that.
If I get your drift correctly then I agree
I think we should actually have a Koran burning day. Lets find out who is tolerant and who is not.
The more these type of things do as far as I can tell is to expose the fact that Muslims in general seem to tolerate the extremists. I don't see a whole lot of protesting against this kind of stuff by the so called moderate Muslims. Their silence is akin to enabling. Time to find out what we really have to deal with. IMO
You already know what you are dealing with. It's the " who " that we're having a hard time identifying.
Here's my issue with all of that. There's a difference between hate-filled speech and inciting a riot. In my estimation, inciting violence is when you call for violent action as a result of what you're saying. You can spew all of the hate-filled shit that you'd like; you aren't culpable for the actions of others. On the other hand, if you tell people to kill the police officer that's making sure that you're not breaking laws during your protest, then you've broken the law. That's inciting violence, the other is exercising your right to free speech.
However, you'll get no argument from me that this pastor is a complete toolbag and shouldn't have done what he did. But the fact remains that he had the legal right to do so.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the next red rep to come streaming in. :24:
You're right, there is a difference...
Here's my point... right, wrong or indifferent, he KNEW that people would mostly die for his actions. Now he wasn't stopped from doing it by the government, so his free speech was not infringed. But shouldn't he be held accountable for what he did? Since it is a fine line between free speech and infringement, I think this case would be a good one for the courts to hear.
Personally I don't think this guys hands are clean, I don't think he has the right to hide behind "free speech" here. I think there needs to be a price for him to pay.
He didn't do anything. There wasn't a guarantee that anything was going to happen as a result of his decision. There was nearly concrete evidence that something would happen, but that couldn't be known 100%. He burned a book... he can't be culpable for the actions of others. Especially seeing as how those others aren't even American citizens and are halfway around the world.
There isn't any legal price that he can truly pay here... legally anyway. I hope he lives the rest of his live with knowing that his actions caused the deaths of others... but I doubt he even cares. He seems to be another Fred Phelps extremist type to me.
No laws were broken, so he cannot be charged with a crime... because he quite honestly didn't commit one.
I can't remember if it was this thread, a different thread, or a different forum, but I read one suggestion that the public should shun him. Such as all businesses refuse to serve him, neighbors refuse to speak to him, that sort of thing. That type of social action is freedom making abuse of freedom pay.
Well, not a complete toolbag. I think you'll find he's likely missing a screwdriver ... and probably a level, as well. :cool
Last edited by a moderator:
Westboro nutjobs stay out of sight and hearing of the funeral and gravesite. They assemble along the procession route, as I understand it. They don't overrun anything. Should they be arrested for standing beside a public road?
See, when you start calling for outlawing speech, you have to draw a line somewhere or lose control. Simply offending someone just isn't good enough.
Yes. If they were over here they would be arrested fore inciting hatred which works well. I'm glad that our soldiers dont have to have their funerals ruined by hate filled biggots and our country respects the rights of people to have a dignified funeral over the rights of people to tell lies to promote hate.:thumbup
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure that the U.S. also has laws for inciting hatred but perhaps that law maybe hard to prove in the courts against ones freedom of speech.
Well the least could that happen is they could be moved on for being a public nusiance and if they refused, arrested for public disorder offenses.
I agree but every backstreet lawyer would have a field day with people being charged with that crime.
You see the problem isn't so much in the laws, its with the people that enforce them and lawyers and judges that deal with them in the courts. IMO