Yes, I am making the assumption that the Quran burning will result in violence from extremists.
If words alone in a free land cause violence and death in another land from the hands of others, it is that other land's and its other people's fault. We can try to help them, but the moment we restrict our own words for the sake of Bronze Age sensibilities, we are lost.
But it's not. I'm all about striving for our ideals even when we know they're impossible to achieve, but how do we rectify that with reality?
For us, it effectively is. I have near absolute freedom of speech, and great legal protection against violence directed against me. This protection is not absolute, but it is powerful.
Our laws enshrine the idea that if you resort to fist first, you are almost always at fault, and likely at risk of punishment.
I'm personally OK with the Quran burning, but I also believe that the people perpetrating it are universally fuckwits. I'm equally OK with Draw Muhammad day, and also a proponent and advocate for it. I'm also OK with a bible burning day, noting that this one would likely draw far less violence, if any at all.
A culture of violence in the face of perceived disrespect is common in Islam, but is also common among inner city youths in poverty and gang members, nay all manner of the disadvantaged. It is my belief that this kernel of culture is abhorrent to modern sensibilities and should be undermined wherever possible.
A man was shot dead by German troops when Afghan protesters demonstrating against plans by an American pastor to burn copies of the Koran attacked a Nato base in the north of Afghanistan.
If humans have free will, and I am able to, with word alone, cause another to act, without my askance for such action, nor for having revealed previously unknown truth, thereby illuminating a path not known before, am I not a god? Have I not directed action and action alone with word and word alone?
Of course, we have no free will, and it's equally valid to say that his violence caused my word. Thoughts are physical, words are actions, even if only spoken or merely thought, etc...
Of course, we have no free will, and it's equally valid to say that his violence caused my word. Thoughts are physical, words are actions, even if only spoken or merely thought, etc...
Wait, doesn't this completely go against what Scott says about there being a strictly defined line between physical and emotional harm? Is he not the person who said that there is no such thing as verbal abuse?
If words alone in a free land cause violence and death in another land from the hands of others, it is that other land's and its other people's fault. We can try to help them, but the moment we restrict our own words for the sake of Bronze Age sensibilities, we are lost.
So, yes, you're willing to let other people come to harm in order to uphold your ideals. You've got Legato but you won't pull the trigger.
We restrict free speech in certain contexts. Harassing speech, slander, libel, defaming speech, inciting panic or riots, and so forth. Should we not be restricting speech in those contexts? Why is the book burning significantly different than the extant situations in which we restrict speech?
I argue that the book burning is precisely calculated to induce a riot response in the target audience. As such, it should fall into a special category of restricted speech. I have not come to this conclusion lightly, but it is the only pragmatic solution that I see.
Yup. This asshole is yelling FIRE! in a crowded Global theater.
It's more akin to yelling "BargleFargle!" in a crowded theater, whereupon a small number of crazy people freak out and the rest of the theater doesn't care. The "fire" analogy implies immediacy and physical urgency local to the communication. Writing "Fire!" on a poster doesn't present the same danger, nor does making a Youtube video wherein I shout "fire!"
Hate speech is difficult to actually prove, as well, and generally seems to require a direct thread or heavily implied direct threat to a particular group. It's also not generally illegal. Case in point: burning a cross on a black family's lawn is trespassing AND a hate crime. Burning a cross on my own lawn, directly across from a black family's lawn, with whom I have had a history of altercation, is also likely a threat and hate crime. Burning a cross on my own property in most other circumstances is perfectly OK. Making a video of the burning and putting it on a web site is also OK.
If holding a cross burning is OK, despite the psychological harm it can cause, then why is a Quran burning any different? The irrational reaction of an audience should not mitigate the circumstance of the speech.
Harassment implies directed speech. If the Qurans being burned had individual persons' names or pictures in them, this would apply, but here it does not. Harassment is difficult to prove in court and many, many harassing things are not illegal.
So, the exact same speech is fine in most other circumstances, but if Muslims are involved, suddenly it should be restricted? Fuck that.
It's more akin to yelling "BargleFargle!" in a crowded theater, whereupon a small number of crazy people freak out and the rest of the theater doesn't care.
So you trigger the crazy people and then the normal people next to them get stabbed. He is yelling barglefargle, and the troops and civilians in Afghanistan suffer, because they are next to the crazy people.
edit: I would posit that if you know barglefargle is going to trigger the stabbing hobo in the theater, it is not a good idea to do it even if it is allowed. This minister can legally barglefargle, but it is a very mean, and a bad idea. He is not merely yelling for the sake of yelling and accidentally saying the hobo's trigger word, he is trying to set off said barglefargle hobo on purpose! He wants to watch with glee as crazy hobo stabs the person in the next seat.
You see, the problem here was the media mouthpiece we gave this man. I am wholeheartedly against the burning of any book; it's an atrocity against knowledge. However, would the media have ignored this psychopathic and bigoted idiot masquerading as a pastor, the world at large wouldn't know as much about this, and we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.
The problem with the media is that they have no concept of how to self-censor. Certain things do not need airtime. I'm sure there are still regular meetings of hate groups in the south, but Fox News doesn't give them a breaking news story. Same principle, different group of people. You want to spread irrational hate? Fine. Be prepared to be ignored by the world and mocked by those who know about your psychotic little crusade.
He is yelling barglefargle, and the troops and civilians in Afghanistan suffer, because they are next to the crazy people.
Great summary.
You see, the problem here was the media mouthpiece we gave this man. I am wholeheartedly against the burning of any book; it's an atrocity against knowledge. However, would the media have ignored this psychopathic and bigoted idiot masquerading as a pastor, the world at large wouldn't know as much about this, and we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.
We need to stop letting "churches" with less then 50 members speak for the other 310,214,903 Americans in this country.
Side note: That church, Dove World Outreach Center/5805 NW 37th St, Gainesville, FL‎, had it's insurance revoked as soon as this dude opened his mouth, and their internetz haz been deniedz...
We already have legislation in place that allows us to control speech in similar situations. Either apply it here, or slightly expand the criteria.
You forget that his sentiments resonate with a good many Americans...
And they're wrong.
If holding a cross burning is OK,
IIRC, it's not fine from a legal standpoint. I believe it constitutes an immediate threat and/or harassment. I could be wrong. It does depend on the context, though.
The irrational reaction of an audience should not mitigate the circumstance of the speech.
Unless you have set up the circumstances of the speech to deliberately provoke the audience into extreme irrational reaction.
Whether or not you like it, people are trivially manipulated by words. Whether or not you like it, words can induce an altered psychological state in people that has a measurable physiological impact. You are a collection of reactions, and over the last 20,000 years, people have learned how to manipulate those reactions to a terrifying degree. Words these days carry the impact of physical actions.
Hate speech is difficult to actually prove,
Not when you have a media mouthpiece and post signs that say "Islam is of the Devil." No, that's pretty easy to prove in court.
We already have legislation in place that allows us to control speech in similar situations. Either apply it here, or slightly expand the criteria.
As I argued, that legislation only covers direct threats, heavily implied direct threats, and situations with inherently dangerous or disruptive immediacy. I don't believe anything he's doing is actually illegal.
Not when you have a media mouthpiece and post signs that say "Islam is of the Devil." No, that's pretty easy to prove in court.
It's still not a crime unless there's also a threat.
The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[33] and incitement to riot.[34] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
The law is pretty clear that not only is just about everything discussed in this thread legal, but it's eminently protected in almost all circumstances.
In fact, to go even further, incitement to riot seems to require intent. Inciting a mob to riot on your behalf is a crime. A mob rioting against your own actions, however inflammatory, is not your liability, and in fact your inflammatory words are protected speech.
So, you're dead wrong on the legal side.
As for the moral side, I wouldn't want to live in a country where speech can be restricted only because it is unpopular in some segment of the world. In that world, should people everywhere not simply threaten violence to quell any opposition to any idea they ever have? Can we truly not show Muhammad in cartoons, or poop on a book if it has certain words in it? What about pooping on a similar, but slightly crooked book? There's no way to justify preventing speech in this case without opening a wellfull of abuses.
If fundamentalists in a foreign nation threaten violence due to our women not being forced to cover themselves and having civil rights, must we appease them too? How far must we go?
Freedom is dangerous. Freedom is deadly. Freedom is painful. We have to accept all of that to have it, and we'd better fucking express that freedom, won so dearly, with every god-damned fiber of our being.
876.19Exhibits that intimidate.—It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to place, or cause to be placed, anywhere in the state any exhibit of any kind whatsoever with the intention of intimidating any person or persons, to prevent them from doing any act which is lawful, or to cause them to do any act which is unlawful.
EDIT: I like freedom, but when upholding my ideals puts other people into direct and imminent harm, as has already happened, the only thing to do is compromise my ideals. Period.
Boo-yah: Adam's surgery went well. Hopefully he will no longer need to walk with his pimp cane. He still will walk with it, he just won't need to. (This is Kate, btw.)
Boo-yah: Adam's surgery went well. Hopefully he will no longer need to walk with his pimp cane. He still will walk with it, he just won'tneedto. (This is Kate, btw.)
Not that its any of my business, but why do you post on Adam's account?
Boo-yah: Adam's surgery went well. Hopefully he will no longer need to walk with his pimp cane. He still will walk with it, he just won'tneedto. (This is Kate, btw.)
That's great! Here's to a fast and speedy recovery.
Boo-yah: Adam's surgery went well. Hopefully he will no longer need to walk with his pimp cane. He still will walk with it, he just won'tneedto. (This is Kate, btw.)
That's great! Here's to a fast and speedy recovery.
Boo-yah: Adam's surgery went well. Hopefully he will no longer need to walk with his pimp cane. He still will walk with it, he just won'tneedto. (This is Kate, btw.)
Awww yeah!
Boo-yah: I think I have drunk swagger. I definitely got at least one girl interested in me tonight, got several others talking about me, and almost made out with someone technically off-limits like six times. Wat.
Note that the last case is definitely a "WTF of the Day," as well.
Boo-yah: Adam's surgery went well. Hopefully he will no longer need to walk with his pimp cane. He still will walk with it, he just won'tneedto. (This is Kate, btw.)
Awww yeah!
Boo-yah: I think I have drunk swagger. I definitely got at least one girl interested in me tonight, got several others talking about me, and almost made out with someone technically off-limits like six times. Wat.
Note that the last case is definitely a "WTF of the Day," as well.
Boo-yah: Adam's surgery went well. Hopefully he will no longer need to walk with his pimp cane. He still will walk with it, he just won'tneedto. (This is Kate, btw.)
Awww yeah!
Boo-yah: I think I have drunk swagger. I definitely got at least one girl interested in me tonight, got several others talking about me, and almost made out with someone technically off-limits like six times. Wat.
Note that the last case is definitely a "WTF of the Day," as well.
I called XBL customer support to change my membership to get the promotion for $39.99/12 months. I ended up getting an even better deal of $29.99/12 months. ^____^
Think back to all those anime situations where the romantic tension is super high guy and the girl get really close to kissing but then something happens (friend walks in or they, themselves, abort) and they don't kiss.
Comments
Our laws enshrine the idea that if you resort to fist first, you are almost always at fault, and likely at risk of punishment.
I'm personally OK with the Quran burning, but I also believe that the people perpetrating it are universally fuckwits. I'm equally OK with Draw Muhammad day, and also a proponent and advocate for it. I'm also OK with a bible burning day, noting that this one would likely draw far less violence, if any at all.
A culture of violence in the face of perceived disrespect is common in Islam, but is also common among inner city youths in poverty and gang members, nay all manner of the disadvantaged. It is my belief that this kernel of culture is abhorrent to modern sensibilities and should be undermined wherever possible.
Of course, we have no free will, and it's equally valid to say that his violence caused my word. Thoughts are physical, words are actions, even if only spoken or merely thought, etc...
We restrict free speech in certain contexts. Harassing speech, slander, libel, defaming speech, inciting panic or riots, and so forth. Should we not be restricting speech in those contexts? Why is the book burning significantly different than the extant situations in which we restrict speech?
I argue that the book burning is precisely calculated to induce a riot response in the target audience. As such, it should fall into a special category of restricted speech. I have not come to this conclusion lightly, but it is the only pragmatic solution that I see.
Hate speech is difficult to actually prove, as well, and generally seems to require a direct thread or heavily implied direct threat to a particular group. It's also not generally illegal. Case in point: burning a cross on a black family's lawn is trespassing AND a hate crime. Burning a cross on my own lawn, directly across from a black family's lawn, with whom I have had a history of altercation, is also likely a threat and hate crime. Burning a cross on my own property in most other circumstances is perfectly OK. Making a video of the burning and putting it on a web site is also OK.
If holding a cross burning is OK, despite the psychological harm it can cause, then why is a Quran burning any different? The irrational reaction of an audience should not mitigate the circumstance of the speech.
Harassment implies directed speech. If the Qurans being burned had individual persons' names or pictures in them, this would apply, but here it does not. Harassment is difficult to prove in court and many, many harassing things are not illegal.
So, the exact same speech is fine in most other circumstances, but if Muslims are involved, suddenly it should be restricted? Fuck that.
edit: I would posit that if you know barglefargle is going to trigger the stabbing hobo in the theater, it is not a good idea to do it even if it is allowed. This minister can legally barglefargle, but it is a very mean, and a bad idea. He is not merely yelling for the sake of yelling and accidentally saying the hobo's trigger word, he is trying to set off said barglefargle hobo on purpose! He wants to watch with glee as crazy hobo stabs the person in the next seat.
The problem with the media is that they have no concept of how to self-censor. Certain things do not need airtime. I'm sure there are still regular meetings of hate groups in the south, but Fox News doesn't give them a breaking news story. Same principle, different group of people. You want to spread irrational hate? Fine. Be prepared to be ignored by the world and mocked by those who know about your psychotic little crusade.
We need to stop letting "churches" with less then 50 members speak for the other 310,214,903 Americans in this country.
Side note: That church, Dove World Outreach Center/5805 NW 37th St, Gainesville, FL‎, had it's insurance revoked as soon as this dude opened his mouth, and their internetz haz been deniedz...
Whether or not you like it, people are trivially manipulated by words. Whether or not you like it, words can induce an altered psychological state in people that has a measurable physiological impact. You are a collection of reactions, and over the last 20,000 years, people have learned how to manipulate those reactions to a terrifying degree. Words these days carry the impact of physical actions. Not when you have a media mouthpiece and post signs that say "Islam is of the Devil." No, that's pretty easy to prove in court.
In fact, to go even further, incitement to riot seems to require intent. Inciting a mob to riot on your behalf is a crime. A mob rioting against your own actions, however inflammatory, is not your liability, and in fact your inflammatory words are protected speech.
So, you're dead wrong on the legal side.
As for the moral side, I wouldn't want to live in a country where speech can be restricted only because it is unpopular in some segment of the world. In that world, should people everywhere not simply threaten violence to quell any opposition to any idea they ever have? Can we truly not show Muhammad in cartoons, or poop on a book if it has certain words in it? What about pooping on a similar, but slightly crooked book? There's no way to justify preventing speech in this case without opening a wellfull of abuses.
If fundamentalists in a foreign nation threaten violence due to our women not being forced to cover themselves and having civil rights, must we appease them too? How far must we go?
Freedom is dangerous. Freedom is deadly. Freedom is painful. We have to accept all of that to have it, and we'd better fucking express that freedom, won so dearly, with every god-damned fiber of our being.
(This is Kate, btw.)
Boo-yah: I think I have drunk swagger. I definitely got at least one girl interested in me tonight, got several others talking about me, and almost made out with someone technically off-limits like six times. Wat.
Note that the last case is definitely a "WTF of the Day," as well.