My religion requires me to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre.

[Toucano]

I found 20 mental patients wandering the streets and we formed a church. Our god requires us to enter crowded places that accommodate the public and yell "Fire!" every Wednesday (the theology of "hump-day" or "hump-dayism" as it should be known).

We are thankful we have found a nation that has vanquished reason and pragmatism in the name of deaf and blind adherence to their misconceptions about principles of liberty and freedom. Critical thinking has always been the enemy of the one true God and his true followers like me. Thank you for acknowledging that dogma is your friend.

Some people will be injured and there will be deaths as the terrified public stampedes towards the exits each week, but the hump-day God requires sacrifice. Other times, people may ignore us when there actually is a fire and there will be lives lost. Again, faith requires sacrifice.

Thank you for acknowledging our civil right to freely express ourselves and worship our god as we see fit without regard to the obvious peril and danger to our fellow citizens.

All those brave men and women who died on the battlefield to protect the rights of the lunatic fringe, we salute you! Hump-day God rejoices in your sacrifice, too.


May Mercury bless you with a truly joyous and prosperous hump day!

[dkf]

1. Freedom of religion means embracing a lot of weird stuff.

I still don't get why we outlaw polygamy.

[Toucano]

2. Yes, thank you!

TRUE FREEDOM tolerates EVERYTHING...except Reason.

Wait until we roll out our kitten eating ritual. Nothing washes away the sin like a belly full of tabby cat!

[dkf]

4. The Chinese and Filipinos eat some weird stuff.

Being racially tolerant requires that also.

Yeah Americans are only tolerant to a point. Once it gets too far out of social norms it gets shut down.

[Toucano]

6. Yeah, but they eat them because they taste good.

That angers hump-day God and he will punish them.

Absolution of sin is the only way to correctly eat kittens.

[dkf]

7. Japanese eat Whales...also a no no.

[Ghost Dog]

10. You mean, like, pigs and such...?

Hmmm.

[NoNothing]

3. A more accurate analogy

My religion requires me to kill a puppy every time someone masturbates. Therefore, I call on all animal lovers everywhere, and the ASPCA and PETA, to condemn masturbators everywhere. You don't agree? What kind of a sick person are you, that you'd masturbate at the price of a puppy's life!?!

[RKP5637]

5. Yep, makes sense, sounds as logical as the rest of them. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I have a religion that requires I don't understand the constitution

and post bad analogies on interweb message boards.

[Toucano]

9. Heretic! n/t

[TheKentuckian]

11. Fire is a direct threat to life and limb. I don't get why this distinction doesn't logically flow.

Shredding a Bible in a theater isn't even the same thing as yelling fire.

You are dangerously raising offense and the potential reaction to an offense to a direct, real, and present danger. Carried to any length this strained logic undoes freedom of expression. We cannot conflate offense with imminent physical danger.

[Toucano]

12. The soldiers in Afghanistan are in direct imminent physical danger.

Or do you think they're over there for a day at the beach?

Gen. Petraeus and others have stated that this action will incite violence. The mere discussion has already produced an immediate reaction.

It is not an abstraction we're dealing with.

[TheKentuckian]

13. I think you might still be missing it.

A burning Koran is not a literal danger to anyone. The predicted response to it is the danger.

You are equating offense and the reaction to it and a direct, real, and present danger which means that there cannot logically be freedom of expression.

You are insisting that if someone might take serious offense to another's expression to the point that they might behave criminally then that expression must be shut down.

A danger like the building burning down or a flood or something in no way equates to someones sensibilities to be offended and their subsequent criminal overreaction in response to that offense.

I don't get how this is complicated. You cannot have freedom of expression AND make offense a crime.

[Toucano]

14. I'm not missing anything. Speech designed to incite violence is not protected.

It isn't a matter of speech that offends. It's speech that incites. In your theory, the actions of the listener are in no way connected to the incitement to violence. There is a direct connection. It's what the expression is engineered to accomplish!

The Supreme Court ruled the government can restrict "speech brigaded with action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969).

He is not simply saying, "I hate Muslims." Pastor Nutball has said he is "standing up and confronting terrorism" with his burning plans and the incitement to action is clear.

The danger and harm provoked by this speech, as in the "fire!" example, is imminent and real because we are engaged in a war in Afghanistan. The mere discussion of the plan has provoked violence - immediately. This is not the abstract, "marketplace of ideas" protected speech.

We regulate child pornography under the "harm principle" in that the pornographer's self-expression inherently causes direct and measurable harm to others. We do not restrict that speech simply because it "offends" someone.

Pastor Nutball's "self-expression" is rightly subject to the same restriction. Not only can the government rightly restrict this speech but it is obliged to restrict it.

If there were no troops in Afghanistan, the danger would not be imminent and society could afford the luxury of tolerating his self-expression, like we tolerate a Klan parade or a White Power rally. The speech is offensive, but it is not incitement to imminent violence.

This goes beyond the garden-variety freedom of speech.

It is possible to have a free society and NOT tolerate absolutely every vile commodity in the marketplace of ideas. Boundaries already exist.

Furthermore, this may fall out of the bounds of case law as Pastor Nutball is also providing direct aid and comfort to a declared enemy. I'm not aware of a case like this since the 1969 ruling.

[TheKentuckian]

15. You are dangerously stretching your interpretation, in my opinion.

The burning book is not a threat to anything. Irregardless of intent (which you take liberties with as well because you equate a confrontational statement with intent to incite but let's leave that to the side) the act of burning the book is not a reasonable incitement to violence.

There is plenty of reason for offense but no rational justification for a violent reaction. I do not argue that a shitty reaction is probable, regrettable, and unfortunate but it is the fruit of a fool in a free society and idiotic zealot reaction of a theocratic society compounded by our own folly of massive occupations that set up our troops as targets.

You can burn any books, flags, or what ever you please here. It can be crass, insensitive, and stupid to do so but offense is not a justification for violence in our society and as such offense cannot be criminal.

The pornographer in your example is perpetrating a direct crime against a defined individual-the child, this is not even remotely comparable and your extrapolation of aid and comfort is patently absurd.

The ink tact is far more steady ground, as much of a nit is that is to pick as it is.

[TheKentuckian]

16. There is no reasonable harm created from burning the books

If our culture and system of law is so utterly incompatible that our soldiers are in danger from the burning of books beyond the normal dangers of war then we must get our soldiers the hell out of there.

I do not dispute the reaction but it is clearly unjustified as no reasonable threat or danger created it. We do not protect from offense in our system.

That is giving in to terror. Do not offend us or we will throw a fit and murder your people. You will protect our holy book is fucking bullshit.

You demand free expression be a hostage to the willingness of those who take offense to react irrationally and that is flat unacceptable.