A Strategy of Cowering: Breathtakingly Misguided Arguments on the Koran Burning.

[smalll]

Some people clearly don't understand the concept of "freedom of speech" under our First Amendment, which includes FREEDOM OF EPXRESSION. Burning Korans you own on your own property (with, of course, the appropriate fire permit) is not illegal; it cannot be.

It is not shouting fire in a crowded theater -
It is not arson -
it is not cross-burning on someone's else's lawn to intimidate them -
It is not "terrorism" -
It is not "treason" (I've seen that here in an OP recently!)

This whole drive to to criminalize or othewise prevent this behavior comes down to a strategy of cowering. People are hunting up and down the lawbooks trying to find some distantly analogous precedent that would give the government the power to prevent people from burning Korans.

Those who talk of shouting fire, and the one who spoke even of treason are driven to find some way, any way to stop this because they are extremely concerned that the lives of hundreds if not thousands of our troops overseas will be severely endangered if one wacko fundy preacher in Floriduh burns some Korans. This WHOLE ARGUMENT hinges on the concept that Islam is "different" from other religions or systems of belief in that it is especially prone to violent reactions.

You know, maybe that's correct. Maybe Islam is "different" that way. Or maybe it's not. But if it is, is abject cowering really the best policy? Would it not, perhaps, be the absolute worst?

[crim son]

1. I get your point.

What would be your suggestion?

[smalll]

3. Nothing, except let them burn it. Let others build Park51. Let even more protest both actions.

That's freedom. That's what America is. Eventually, if not already, huge masses of Muslims all around the world may look at such a country and prefer its ways to the ways of the dictators and the mullahs they live under.

And even if they don't or even if it will take forever, there is no other option: cowering only encourages the thing you are cowering from.

[NoNothing]

9. Very well said

I think some posters, in their zeal to defend Muslims against actual bigotry and intolerance, are undermining the very moderate Muslims they think they are standing up for when they bring up "retaliation." Because if the proposition is that Muslim threats of violence require us to give up some of our civil liberties - well, that's bad for everybody, but especially bad for Muslims.

[smalll]

15. You too! -- "Because if the proposition is that Muslim threats of violence...

require us to give up some of our civil liberties - well, that's bad for everybody, but especially bad for Muslims."

Good point!

[crim son]

10. Hmmm.

Maybe you're right, the people might think that. But I'm not sure it matters much what the Muslim individual thinks so much as how their government chooses to frame our actions. The fact that many Americans are protesting the burning might also indicate that we are generally a tolerant people and generally dislike ridiculous demonstrations like the one the Dove Center is proposing. Could go either way. I lean toward criticizing the heck out of the burners, frankly, and it has nothing to do with politics. It's a gut feeling that the burning is meant to garner attention rather than anything else. But again, if nobody had paid any attention to the burners it wouldn't even be an issue. Perhaps that's what you mean.

[piratefish08]

47. i reject this rational response in that it is not based in emotion or religious belief.

:sarcasm:

[dkf]

2. I think we truly are nervous about being hit.

The FBI was warning about retaliation after all.

[crim son]

5. I'm nervous about it, but

even if I weren't, I'd be just as angry as I am now about burning anybody's religious artifacts. It's stupid, it's misguided and it's just rude. And these people are supposed to be Christians. If there's one thing that upsets me, it's religious hypocrisy.

[dkf]

7. You'd think they would be more mad about US soldiers collecting Afghan fingers.

[crim son]

22. That's not the way religion works. n/t

[csziggy]

35. I'm more pissed that they are burning books

Religious artifacts are easily manufactured - it's been done for millennia. But to me books are information and they should not be destroyed, or banned or locked up, even if I do not believe or agree with what is in them.

But if these guys want to burn religious books, then by all means, let them do it - as long as we can add our own choices to the fire. Bibles, Books of Mormon, Dianetics, whatever religious texts might offend anyone. See how this pseudo-Christian nut handles seeing his choice of "holy text" going up in flame. I'm only slightly kidding here.

[pipoman]

50. Uh, no

you can't "add our own choices to the fire. Bibles, Books of Mormon, Dianetics, whatever religious texts might offend anyone.". You could however burn any books you wish on your own property and that demonstration of free speech would be protected too.

[pipoman]

18. Are you also nervous about Assange/Wikileaks?

After all the .gov has said that his revelations are dangerous to Americans too...

[crim son]

24. I actually haven't lost any sleep about the leaks, the reason being

that I believe any danger is to American morale. The Afghans and Iraqis already know what we've been doing in their respective countries; it's the American people who have been in the dark. To my mind it's an entirely different situation. Why? What do you think?

[pipoman]

27. I think the good pastor is an idiot

but absolutely has the right to do what he is doing. I really don't think that threats against the US are valid arguments as anyone who would attack based on this but not based on other much more disturbing acts by the US .gov is truly a deranged nutcase...we can't restrict freedom based on what some nut might do in retaliation.

[crim son]

32. We agree on that.

He does indeed have the right, no question. I think that's beside the point. FWIW, I believe the Muslims have every right to build their civic center where they want to in NYC, but I think it's a bad idea right now. It's hard to argue that it's a good idea, IMHO, but there is no argument with respect to whether or not it is legally permissible. We deal with these issues in everyday life too - some actions are legal and still offensive to many, and whether or not one chooses to engage in those actions is up to them. Yes?

[dkf]

30. Actually I meant us...as in civilians.

[pipoman]

31. See I think if someone is inclined to attack us

this will have no impact. They will attack us.

[katandmoon]

4. There is more consternation over this fundy preacher than Bush illegally invading Iraq. Like THAT

didn't endanger the fucking troops?

[dkf]

28. Isn't it our wars that endanger our troops?

Bring em home!

[katandmoon]

53. That's what I said!

[Missy Vixen]

6. What would happen if a mosque burned some Bibles?

It is breathtaking to realize there are people in this nation who have no idea it was founded on freedom of religion - and freedom FROM religion.

The vast majority of those who follow the Islam faith are peaceful. Targeting a small segment by burning their treasured, sacred objects and writings is nothing more than childish.

I'm wondering if it's time to bring back shunning.

[Pavulon]

8. No one would care?

the "christian street" would go wild with anger. This is such a stupid issue, if it was ignored it would go away.

[pscot]

52. The stupider the issue

the more noise it seems to generate.

[woo me with science]

11. Good post.

I am often frightened by the number of people on DU who don't see a problem with curtailing all kinds of speech they don't like.

We have an education problem in that so many do not seem to understand our Constitution.

[Toucano]

12. I disagree completely.

It's not "cowering" to oppose and seek to stop demonstrations of hatred and intolerance.

The purpose of this "speech" is to incite violence, hence it is not constitutionally protected. If you doubt that, you need only listen to the accompanying propaganda. Justice Douglas referred to this as "speech brigaded with action" in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

If Pastor Nutball was burning his Koran as a symbol of his conversion to Christianity or atheism or just because he wanted to, it would be a different matter, but the INTENT of the speech is a factor in determining if it is protected. He is encouraging other people to engage in the same inciting behavior.

Inciting people to violence is a crime.

The "fighting words doctrine", though narrow, still applies for speech that is not merely offensive, but inflicts injury and incites a "breech of the peace".

[Zanzobar]

16. !

The same inciting behaviour? If he's inciting, it's illegal. Your remarks indicate that if he is inciting alone it's OK, but two people inciting together is not OK. What about freedom of assembly?

What if a bunch of quran burners want to burn qurans together without an implied leader?

[Toucano]

17. The number of people is irrelevant.

"Your remarks indicate that if he is inciting alone it's OK."

Not at all. I don't know how you reach that conclusion.

I said, "He is encouraging other people to engage in the same inciting behavior" because it's true. That doesn't affect the legal status of his speech either way, and I didn't say that it did.

[Zanzobar]

33. You don't make sense

I'll leave it at that.

[pipoman]

19. The only way this would be found to not be protected

is if the courts found violence to be a reasonable response to the act of burning a book. No court will ever find that.

[Electric Monk]

38. Thought experiment: Burn a pile of Bibles in front of that courthouse and see what happens. nt

[pipoman]

43. Well

these fools are burning their books on their own property. Burn anything on the courthouse steps and see what happens. If you are saying a person would be attacked by angry Christians, I have never heard of such a case and have no reason to believe anything would happen (aside from a counter protest).

[Bragi]

41. I Disagree

Your legal argument just doesn't hold up. Jones is an idiot intent on making a religious statement, which IS protected free speech, even from an idiot.

[TexasObserver]

13. THIS is the correct analysis!

I've never read (in other threads) so many ridiculous statements about arson, about destruction of religious icons, about suppression of this kind of symbolic speech, about this not being symbolic speech, about this not being legally protected as a first amendment exercise.

Freedom of religion is also the freedom to express disbelief, even contempt, for the god or gods of others.

[TroglodyteScholar]

14. K&R n/t

[emilyg]

20. k/r

[Canuckistanian]

21. Try to think BEYOND the First Amendment. This ISN'T a purely American issue

Nobody's arguing that he has an American legal right to burn the Korans. Hell, even Phelps has the right to picket soldier's funerals and stomp on burning American flags.

It's the INTERNATIONAL ramifications that are relevant here.

Why can't people understand that?

[NoNothing]

26. Well, since he is in America

The American legal rights are the only ones that really matter. Even if it has international ramifications, that doesn't trump U.S. law.

[totodeinhere]

34. There should be no international ramifications. Anyone who commits violence as a response to the

Quran burning is just as nutty as that wack job in Florida is. There is absolutely no excuse for committing violence in reaction to a book being burned. I don't care what book it is.

[Zoeisright]

36. "Should be" means squat. There "will be" ramifications.

That asshole pastor is inciting violence and committing a hate crime. And he knows it.

[smalll]

39. "Inciting violence" you say -- another example of a breathtakingly misguided argument --

and you're not the first to try to raise this point here on these boards.

To "incite to violence" in this context would mean to encourage people to attack members of the Muslim faith.

To "incite to violence" means to encourage your like-minded fellows to attack the supposed "enemy."

To "incite to violence" does NOT mean to do something that is so allegedly obnoxious to a group or person who is allegedly so violent that they will end up attacking YOU.

To summarize:
Someone from Team A incites his team-members to attack Team B: incitement to violence.
Someone from Team A says mean things about Team B, which may cause Team B to beat up on members of Team A: NOT incitement to violence, as is generally understood. :shrug:

[totodeinhere]

56. Lets wait and see if he is indicted by the authorities for committing a hate crime.

I doubt if it will happen but until and if that happens it is not up to you to act as his judge and jury.

As far as there "will be" ramifications goes, I don't think we should conduct our lives in America based upon fear of what some extremist in another country might do. Muslims in other countries have no right to interfere with our Bill of Rights. What this guy is doing is protected free speech. I hope it does not incite violence, and if the extremists in other countries have any sense it won't, but if they do commit violence, the responsibility is solely theirs.

BTW, where is your outrage against Islamic extremists who threaten violence against cartoonists and authors and others? You can express your disagreement with Jones. I have also done that. But why don't you also condemn violence carried out by Islamic extremists?

[smalll]

37. "the INTERNATIONAL ramifications" -- With all due respect, you are advising us to cower. /nt

[pipoman]

23. Yep, agree

I find it odd how many want to praise the Wikileaks guy and condemn this asshat.

[coti]

25. Nice post. nt

[Codeine]

29. The Heckler's Veto has always sucked.

If someone cannot cope with a book being burned halfway around the fucking globe then they have a serious problem, don't they? A problem bigger than some half-wit pastor in a Deep South shithole of a church.

[Bragi]

42. +++

[Dorian Gray]

40. Though I agree

in concept, I think it's hateful and bigoted. I am sad that they are doing this, and I wish that the "church" would reconsider.

[saltpoint]

44. I haven't heard very many people claim that Terry Jones

is holding an illegal event, except in the context of his not holding a burn permit.

I think the debate centers on his shit-for-brains citizenship.

[howard112211]

45. Burning Korans in public is akin to marching past synagogues with swastika flags.

I won't get in your way if you want to be the one making the case for the constitutionality of it.

[pipoman]

46. Oh jeez

really? Burning Korans on ones own property isn't even in the same state as "marching past synagogues with swastika flags".

[saltpoint]

48. Terry Jones' private property is a tax-exempt

entity while the streets of Skokie, Illinois are paid for by citizens.

A citizen may fly a Confederate flag on his farm in Georgia. That it is Constitutional doesn't make it a mature or thoughtful act.

[pipoman]

49. I'm not following how this pertains to my post?

The poster I was responding to seemed to be trying to make a case for the act of burning Korans "inciting an immediate breach of the peace" which is one of the criteria for limitations on the 1st Amendment. My point is that the poster's comment isn't even close to a good comparison.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Sounds like a good comparison to me.

Both involve nazis who hate jews/muslims respectively.

:shrug:

[howard112211]

51. Historically, it is part of the same game.

The nazis burned "jewish books" as a symbolic gesture. And when they did the kristallnacht was not far away.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Umm, marching past synagogues with swastika flags is fully protected free speech.

In fact, there was a rather famous supreme court case involving pretty much that very thing.

[Codeine]

57. Which is something dipshit Nazis are free to do.

I don't need to make the case for the Constitutionality of that, because the ACLU already did in a Supreme Court case in 1977; National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. The court ruled that the Nazi Party had the right to express themselves by marching with swastika flags past synagogues.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. No, it's akin to marching on your own property with swastika flags, if anything.

[CBGLuthier]

60. So you disagree with the Skokie decision then

We don't have a cafeteria constitution people. Offensive speech needs the most protection of all.

[smalll]

59. (Now we have a second OP on the board that calls it "treason.") /nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

61. I agree completely.