I actually found this analogy apt and thought provoking. The woman in a revealing dress is certainly not “asking for it.” Yet when she becomes a victim of crime, there are always those that can’t control the urge to point out how she contributed to her being a victim.If a woman was dressed provacatively and gets raped, does some of the blame fall on her?
The difference is that yelling fire, when there is no fire, is a lie. What this pastor did, was a statement of free speech. The problem with limiting free speech is always determining where to draw the line. Should speech against Islam be treated with greater restrictions because of incidents like this? Hate speech is a slippery screwdriver. It is a tool more apt to hurt than to help. It is unavoidable that such laws take on a bias of what is politically correct to speak ill of and what is unacceptable and illegal. What this pastor did was reckless and uncharitable. However, it was not the cause of Muslim violence, which existed before this act and will exist after this is forgotten. The architect of this conflict and this uprising is not this man, or any man. He is the ancient enemy of all Man.What the pastor did was equal to someone yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Yelling fire in a crowded theater could cause harm to innocent people…
According to news reports, the demonstrations are because the pastor burned a Koran, not because of something he said. Those demonstrations are a direct retaliation for that action. Yes, there was violence prior to the Koran burning, but the pastor made it worse. The village where the first killing took place was described as a ‘peaceful’ village. What the pastor did was make it easier for violent Muslims to attract more people, which in turn makes it a more dangerous place for our military, and other innocent people to be.The difference is that yelling fire, when there is no fire, is a lie. What this pastor did, was a statement of free speech. The problem with limiting free speech is always determining where to draw the line. Should speech against Islam be treated with greater restrictions because of incidents like this? Hate speech is a slippery screwdriver. It is a tool more apt to hurt than to help. It is unavoidable that such laws take on a bias of what is politically correct to speak ill of and what is unacceptable and illegal. What this pastor did was reckless and uncharitable. However, it was not the cause of Muslim violence, which existed before this act and will exist after this is forgotten. The architect of this conflict and this uprising is not this man, or any man. He is the ancient enemy of all Man.
I know. However, the US Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson ruled flag burning as protected free speech in that it is symbolic speech. Free speech is more than just the words we utter from our lips. It can also be writing, acting, dancing or anything else to convey an idea.According to news reports, the demonstrations are because the pastor burned a Koran, not because of something he said.
I am sure the murdered would disagree with that assessment if they were not already dead. This is too much like the mass murderer that lived down the street that the neighbors always describe in news interviews, as “nice” or “such a quiet man” or " he kept to himself and never bothered anyone." You believe what you want about such people and I will hold my own opinions.The village where the first killing took place was described as a ‘peaceful’ village.
Does freedom of speech include desecration of the Eucharist? There’s a decency required of Christians. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. The pastor crossed the line, knowing it would tick off the fanatics well known for violence.I know. However, the US Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson ruled flag burning as protected free speech in that it is symbolic speech. Free speech is more than just the words we utter from our lips. It can also be writing, acting, dancing or anything else to convey an idea.
The ‘murdered’ are dead because of riots brought on by the actions of the pastor.I am sure the murdered would disagree with that assessment if they were not already dead. This is too much like the mass murderer that lived down the street that the neighbors always describe in news interviews, as “nice” or “such a quiet man” or " he kept to himself and never bothered anyone." You believe what you want about such people and I will hold my own opinions.
Does freedom of speech include desecration of the Eucharist? There’s a decency required of Christians. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. The pastor crossed the line, knowing it would tick off the fanatics well known for violence.I know. However, the US Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson ruled flag burning as protected free speech in that it is symbolic speech. Free speech is more than just the words we utter from our lips. It can also be writing, acting, dancing or anything else to convey an idea.
The ‘murdered’ are dead because of riots brought on by the actions of the pastor.I am sure the murdered would disagree with that assessment if they were not already dead. This is too much like the mass murderer that lived down the street that the neighbors always describe in news interviews, as “nice” or “such a quiet man” or " he kept to himself and never bothered anyone." You believe what you want about such people and I will hold my own opinions.
YesDoes freedom of speech include desecration of the Eucharist?
Yes, he did and his actions are indefensible, but not prosecutable.There’s a decency required of Christians. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. The pastor crossed the line, knowing it would tick off the fanatics well known for violence.
Did those in church who placed (in the past) the koran on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum committed a grievous sin against charity too?Burning the Quran, or any other religious book for that matter, is a grievous sin against charity. From a Catholic perspective, there really isn’t much else to say.
The problem with this case is jurisdiction. If members of the Muslim community in the US did the same, it is likely that the Pastor could be found guilty of incitement to violence and cannot plead free speech as a defense. Perhaps, within crime and criminal procedures where one’s conduct causes a riot? What is strange for me, a non-American, is that the right to free speech is not taken in the context of the Preamble of the US Consitution which states: “We…in Order to form a more perfect Union…”.The difference is that yelling fire, when there is no fire, is a lie. What this pastor did, was a statement of free speech. ** The problem with limiting free speech is always determining where to draw the line.** Should speech against Islam be treated with greater restrictions because of incidents like this? Hate speech is a slippery screwdriver. It is a tool more apt to hurt than to help. It is unavoidable that such laws take on a bias of what is politically correct to speak ill of and what is unacceptable and illegal. What this pastor did was reckless and uncharitable. However, it was not the cause of Muslim violence, which existed before this act and will exist after this is forgotten. The architect of this conflict and this uprising is not this man, or any man. He is the ancient enemy of all Man.
There is no statute under which he could be convicted.The problem with this case is jurisdiction. If members of the Muslim community in the US did the same, it is likely that the Pastor could be found guilty of incitement to violence and cannot plead free speech as a defense.
I was looking for an American counterpart to our laws on public disorder and came across this where it refers to conduct albeit I am not certain whether it is the proper authority in this case:-There is no statute under which he could be convicted.
We have had some civil cases where some Klansmen have been held civily liable for damages after hate speech. However, this is actually a reverse situation. The violence was not directed at Muslims because of the pastors actions. If the pastor would have included speech directing violence against Muslims, and it was Muslims who were the victims, then he might indeed be held liable. As it is, I do not know. I know of no case where unrelated victims have sued because of such a situation. I do not think it will work. There simply is not a direct enough of a connection.
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or
thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for
any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this
paragraph - (!1)
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both..."*Our anti-hatred legislation is straightforward where there is clear evidence of incitement to hatred i.e. violence. However, it has also resulted in a few problems with frivolous lawsuits because of the way legislation on public disorder was drafted. Currently, Section 5 of our Public Order Act states: “…(1) *A person is guilty of an offence if he:I am glad England has it’s hate speech laws. I think in my lifetime it will be seen how this type of legislation affects free religious expression. We have already seen in Canada hate speech laws being used against Christians by homosexuals who are offended by God’s moral law. Perhaps other countries can serve as the canary in the coal mine for us.
Thank you for posting this.It took some purposeful stirring of the pot by Karzai and mullahs for this to blow up.
“The mob gathered after three mullahs at Friday Prayer urged action in response to the Koran burning by a pastor, Terry Jones, in Florida on March 20.”
"Both Afghan and international news media had initially played down or ignored the actions of Mr. Jones, the Florida pastor. On Thursday, however, President Karzai made a speech and issued statements condemning the Koran burning and calling for the arrest of Mr. Jones for his actions. On Friday, that theme was picked up in mosques throughout Afghanistan.
“Karzai brought this issue back to life, and he has to take some responsibility for starting this up,” said a prominent Afghan businessman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution if he was identified as a critic of the president"
nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/asia/03afghanistan.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Do you think all the people of that village are violent? You used a mass murder analogy earlier, was the whole neighborhood full of mass murderers?I do not view that such an act is indicative of a peaceful village.