|
On September 08 2010 07:03 Fontong wrote:
Let's commemorate an act of hatred by perpetuating hatred!
Fucking stupid if you ask me
Yes, that is exactly correct.
Ever heard of "Everybody Draw Muhammed day"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day
Ever heard of sit-ins? Ever say to black people "why do you go and sit at that whites only table when you know it's only going to perpetuate hatred?"
This NEEDS to be done. This needs to be done often enough that they don't riot everytime we do it. It needs to be done often enough so that television stations and newspapers aren't afraid to show an image of Mohammed. That's why I want to do it, not because I want to stand side by side with bigots.
|
Osaka27149 Posts
They better not go and build a Christian bookstore close to the church after this is all over.
|
On September 08 2010 07:11 Turkagent wrote:
What you seem to be ignoring or avoiding is the line between free speech and hate speech. From my understanding of the law it has to do with intention. People commonly burn American flags(In USA and other places) but is often not considered hate speech or illegal.
I don't know whether it constitutes hate speech, but it shouldn't. Hate speech shouldn't be a crime. There are already exceptions to freedom of speech that protect against threats and such, so hate speech doesn't do anything to protect people. It just criminalizes opinions, thoughts and views, and however vile you may think they are you are putting yourself against freedom of speech if you support that.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 08 2010 07:07 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:05 Jibba wrote:On September 08 2010 07:00 cz wrote:On September 08 2010 06:59 Jibba wrote:
Burning an object on another person's property is a wholly separate crime from intimidation. If I were a muslim in Gaineville, I would see it as an act of intimidation. The courts won't. Just living in the same city as someone doesn't mean you are now allowed to control everyones actions and/or opinions. Again, a person who directly said that he hates all Muslims and all Muslims should be deported for causing 9/11 is legally entitled to that speech. If you support freedom of speech you have to support it for unpopular opinions that you disagree with. Are you even aware of the many limitations placed on freedom of speech? I get the feeling that you aren't, and you fall under the group of people I mentioned in my first post here. If there is a civil case, how it would be construed has yet to be seen. I don't think there's any Florida law prohibiting burnings, but it really isn't that farfetched to find damages from this. Quick question: Do you believe that these book burnings should be illegal, if done in the spirit of hating Islam and blaming Muslims for 9/11 and nothing more? I'm not asking about "is illegal," I'm asking about your opinion on "should." Should criticism (even extreme) or hatred of a religion or group of people be illegal, in your opinion?
No. Messages of unified values are completely allowed, and I'm all for letting the KKK or neo-Nazis spill their filth in public.
I think you need to pay more attention to my posts, because I'm not posting what I feel, I'm posting what's possible. I feel that both sides feeling outrage and contempt are unmeasurably stupid and destructive towards their own ends, but that they should be allowed to be that stupid and destructive as long as its only causing harm to themselves. What I know and am arguing is that freedom of speech does not allow for intimidation or threatening hate speech and so if I were a Muslim family man living in Gainesville near that church, I would interpret it as a threat to myself and my children and I would seek legal action against the church. Whether they choose to grant me damages would be up to the judge, but I'd certainly have a case.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 08 2010 07:07 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:02 Jibba wrote:On September 08 2010 06:58 Saturnize wrote:
I agree with CZ. As long as this act is on their own persons property I fail to see how it falls under intimidation. Where did you receive your JD from? What is a JD? Anyways, I don't see why this topic is all about how the law should be dealt with instead of about how deplorable the actions of the people are. While I think they are kind of douche bags I still think that they should be able to do what they want on their own property.
Because the law is what protects their ability to do what they want on their own property...
|
On September 08 2010 07:14 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:07 cz wrote:On September 08 2010 07:05 Jibba wrote:On September 08 2010 07:00 cz wrote:On September 08 2010 06:59 Jibba wrote:
Burning an object on another person's property is a wholly separate crime from intimidation. If I were a muslim in Gaineville, I would see it as an act of intimidation. The courts won't. Just living in the same city as someone doesn't mean you are now allowed to control everyones actions and/or opinions. Again, a person who directly said that he hates all Muslims and all Muslims should be deported for causing 9/11 is legally entitled to that speech. If you support freedom of speech you have to support it for unpopular opinions that you disagree with. Are you even aware of the many limitations placed on freedom of speech? I get the feeling that you aren't, and you fall under the group of people I mentioned in my first post here. If there is a civil case, how it would be construed has yet to be seen. I don't think there's any Florida law prohibiting burnings, but it really isn't that farfetched to find damages from this. Quick question: Do you believe that these book burnings should be illegal, if done in the spirit of hating Islam and blaming Muslims for 9/11 and nothing more? I'm not asking about "is illegal," I'm asking about your opinion on "should." Should criticism (even extreme) or hatred of a religion or group of people be illegal, in your opinion? No. Messages of unified values are completely allowed, and I'm all for letting the KKK or neo-Nazis spill their filth in public. I think you need to pay more attention to my posts, because I'm not posting what I feel, I'm posting what's possible. I feel that both sides feeling outrage and contempt are unmeasurably stupid and destructive towards their own ends, but that they should be allowed to be that stupid and destructive as long as its only causing harm to themselves. What I know and am arguing is that freedom of speech does not allow for intimidation or threatening hate speech and so if I were a Muslim family man living in Gainesville near that church, I would interpret it as a threat to myself and my children and I would seek legal action against the church. Whether they choose to grant me damages would be up to the judge, but I'd certainly have a case.
Ok. We clearly disagree on the legal exceptions to freedom of speech and what constitutes intimidation and such, but that's not an issue that be resolved here without hours of citing precedents and such.
|
Though I'm fine with you supporting both sides of this issue....I do have to wonder what's the point of burning the Quran? Aren't we being just as bad as radicals who burn the flag abroad?
I mean....sure we have a freedom to do something, but when we resort to book burning to prove a point, I think we're sort of losing our way. >.>
|
If I were a muslim living in that county, I would take that church to civil court and get ton of money from it. You might not even need to be a FL resident, I'm not exactly sure on the law down there.
what a hero
I wouldn't show my face near a quran burning, however, it'd be more than a little embarrassing to be associated with those imbeciles.
|
|
|
On September 08 2010 07:18 Kralic wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE53Q6NR20090427Not the same thing, but there is freedom of speech and then there is abusing the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is like the saying the customer is always right. Some times yes, some times no.
Well, I can pretty much guarantee this is legal based on A) common sense understanding of the law and B) that no news station has talked about the legality of it. The latter suggests quite clearly that it is legal, though it's obviously a roundabout inductive way of reasoning it.
That and the fact that the KKK can march down black streets saying a lot of things and that's all legal. Burning books in your own backyard is a few levels down on the possible "intimidation" levels of that.
|
10387 Posts
I always found book burnings of any kind stupid, since you have to either buy the book, or the book you stole has to be replaced most of the time.. so in the end, you actually end up helping whatever organization financially when you meant to hurt it -_-
|
On September 08 2010 07:18 Kralic wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE53Q6NR20090427Not the same thing, but there is freedom of speech and then there is abusing the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is like the saying "The customer is always right.". Some times yes, some times no.
Its a bit of a different story. Germany law has a rather huge caveat when it comes to Nazi's and the holocaust. While he would have been able to say what he said in the US with no problem, Germany is a different place. There was a man who was arrested because he taught he dog to do the hitler solute on command and then proceeded to do this in public
|
Ok, so you are upset that they are burning flags in response to burning Qurans so you want to burn a Quran? You are a fucking idiot.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 08 2010 07:16 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 07:14 Jibba wrote:On September 08 2010 07:07 cz wrote:On September 08 2010 07:05 Jibba wrote:On September 08 2010 07:00 cz wrote:On September 08 2010 06:59 Jibba wrote:
Burning an object on another person's property is a wholly separate crime from intimidation. If I were a muslim in Gaineville, I would see it as an act of intimidation. The courts won't. Just living in the same city as someone doesn't mean you are now allowed to control everyones actions and/or opinions. Again, a person who directly said that he hates all Muslims and all Muslims should be deported for causing 9/11 is legally entitled to that speech. If you support freedom of speech you have to support it for unpopular opinions that you disagree with. Are you even aware of the many limitations placed on freedom of speech? I get the feeling that you aren't, and you fall under the group of people I mentioned in my first post here. If there is a civil case, how it would be construed has yet to be seen. I don't think there's any Florida law prohibiting burnings, but it really isn't that farfetched to find damages from this. Quick question: Do you believe that these book burnings should be illegal, if done in the spirit of hating Islam and blaming Muslims for 9/11 and nothing more? I'm not asking about "is illegal," I'm asking about your opinion on "should." Should criticism (even extreme) or hatred of a religion or group of people be illegal, in your opinion? No. Messages of unified values are completely allowed, and I'm all for letting the KKK or neo-Nazis spill their filth in public. I think you need to pay more attention to my posts, because I'm not posting what I feel, I'm posting what's possible. I feel that both sides feeling outrage and contempt are unmeasurably stupid and destructive towards their own ends, but that they should be allowed to be that stupid and destructive as long as its only causing harm to themselves. What I know and am arguing is that freedom of speech does not allow for intimidation or threatening hate speech and so if I were a Muslim family man living in Gainesville near that church, I would interpret it as a threat to myself and my children and I would seek legal action against the church. Whether they choose to grant me damages would be up to the judge, but I'd certainly have a case. Ok. We clearly disagree on the legal exceptions to freedom of speech and what constitutes intimidation and such, but that's not an issue that be resolved here without hours of citing precedents and such. It's left to the judge to decide. There is no legal definition of intimidation, however there is a legal right to interpret burnings as intimidation.
Still, throw some cute crying kids (Arab kids tend to be super cute) outside the courtroom, waiting for their young father who owns his own restaurant/dry cleaner/gas station/whatever on CNN and soon everyone thinks your church is full of bastards. In the PR war, the church would lose. And if I'm their congress person, I'm begging the church not to do it.
|
On September 08 2010 07:18 Kralic wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE53Q6NR20090427Not the same thing, but there is freedom of speech and then there is abusing the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is like the saying "The customer is always right.". Some times yes, some times no.
U.S. freedom of speech is different from a lot of other western countrys in that we have very small if any limitations on hate speech whereas in other countries there are even instances of people going to jail and being prosecuted for hate speech, for example Ake Green and Geert Wilders
|
On September 08 2010 06:48 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 06:47 Jibba wrote:On September 08 2010 06:39 cz wrote:
I want to see them go ahead with it just to show that it's allowed in this country and riots in the Muslim world don't change that. Nobody will get hurt unless the adherents of the "religion of peace" are the ones doing it. That's not entirely true. If the intent is to intimidate, it may very well be illegal just as cross burning can be. Also, there are far better ways to promote freedom of speech than book/cross burning. If it's illegal THAT is a serious issue. People should be able to burn whatever they want, holy book or not my entire house. Just because it's a special book to you doesn't mean the rest of the country has to follow your religious teachings (regarding the book itself) because it clearly shows that I do not care about other people's religion. That is one of the basic legal idiotic principles that the United States is built upon, and that is why I partially want to see this burning happen: as a demonstration that it still holds true that the idea it self is stupid and promotes racism/outcry across the world, rather than a speech of freedom, no matter how intimidating or violently responsive Muslims are.
Fixed.
If you want to join the burning, it's up to you. I'm not going to try to stop someone from promoting outcry in other countries; some people never understand what they are up to.
|
On September 08 2010 06:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 06:22 BlackJack wrote:
Some small church in my city is planning to have a Quran bonfire to commemorate 9/11. Normally I wouldn't care except for the fact that the media picked up on this and now there are protests in foreign countries with the usual burning of American flags and death to america chants (irony lol). Now I really want to go and check out all the drama.
I also want to show my support for the Quran burners. I wish that I could partake in the festivities as I would absolutely love knowing that my small actions contributed to pissing off millions of oversensitive morons around the world.
General Petreus 'condemned' the quran burning. He is worried that this will increase violence in Afghanistan. Enough is enough already. We can't live forever censoring our behavior out of fear that it will offend someone. Protecting our liberties/constitution should be the only cause that the military fights for, not the only cause that they won't fight for. /facepalm It doesn't bother you that in order to promote freedom of speech, you're also joining a bunch of bigots, who also happen to be oversensitive? They've just grown up in a society where their idiotic oversensitivity is more freely expressed. A bigot is still a bigot, the members of that church and the American public just have the luxury of being ignorant of 'fighting words.' In fact, were their actions directed towards a local mosque and not foreign nationals, it would probably be construed as a threat and the "freedom of speech" party would be crashed by a bunch of FBI agents.
No, it doesn't bother me that much to join a bunch of bigots because it doesn't matter to the Muslims that are protesting this. Because 1 guy in 300 million decides to burn a few books, those people over there want to kill ME regardless if I contribute or not. If I am going to take the blame I might as well join in on the fun lol. I guess in an ideal world I would burn a Quran and a bible, so I could piss off the Muslims and the church people at the same time.
|
On September 08 2010 07:24 GreatFall wrote:
Ok, so you are upset that they are burning flags in response to burning Qurans so you want to burn a Quran? You are a fucking idiot.
No. Try to keep up. I am not annoyed that they are burning flags. I am annoyed that they think that they have a right to burn a flag AND that I don't have a right to burn a Quran. I would stand right along side them and burn an American flag if someone tried to say they didn't have a right to. I would stand along side Americans and burn a flag if someone said we didn't have a right to. But thankfully the U.S. suporeme court said we DO have a right to burn an American flag.
Understand now?
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
I'd have no problem burning either a Quran or a Bible or whatever else if I really needed a fire (or just for shitz & giggles really), but doing it with the most press possible just to piss off people and show that I can? No thx
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 08 2010 07:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 06:35 Jibba wrote:On September 08 2010 06:22 BlackJack wrote:
Some small church in my city is planning to have a Quran bonfire to commemorate 9/11. Normally I wouldn't care except for the fact that the media picked up on this and now there are protests in foreign countries with the usual burning of American flags and death to america chants (irony lol). Now I really want to go and check out all the drama.
I also want to show my support for the Quran burners. I wish that I could partake in the festivities as I would absolutely love knowing that my small actions contributed to pissing off millions of oversensitive morons around the world.
General Petreus 'condemned' the quran burning. He is worried that this will increase violence in Afghanistan. Enough is enough already. We can't live forever censoring our behavior out of fear that it will offend someone. Protecting our liberties/constitution should be the only cause that the military fights for, not the only cause that they won't fight for. /facepalm It doesn't bother you that in order to promote freedom of speech, you're also joining a bunch of bigots, who also happen to be oversensitive? They've just grown up in a society where their idiotic oversensitivity is more freely expressed. A bigot is still a bigot, the members of that church and the American public just have the luxury of being ignorant of 'fighting words.' In fact, were their actions directed towards a local mosque and not foreign nationals, it would probably be construed as a threat and the "freedom of speech" party would be crashed by a bunch of FBI agents. I guess in an ideal world I would burn a Quran and a bible, so I could piss off the Muslims and the church people at the same time. In that case, I'll join you. Can I bring Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
