But what also made me sad was over at Huffingtonpost they had a head line that said "a Majority of Republicans believe that Obama is a fundie Muslim" and I read the survey and it asked if Obama "Sympathizes" with fundamentalist Islam...when I pointed out this in the forums I got flamed by liberals thinking I was defending republicans... when in reality I just want people to deal in facts.. ugh.
I really like how the first woman is wearing a shirt identical to one Abbie Hoffman was infamous for wearing. Abbie Hoffman, a liberal radical from the Yippie party, who endorsed copious drug usage, petty theft, corporate espionage, and protests against authority figures ranging from peaceful to violent. That shirt also got him cited for mutilation of the flag and was blurred out when he made a late-night talk show appearance.
That video seems weird seeing as just last night I was playing the "Head of State" mission in Fallout 3, which takes place in the same place. Time to plasma rifle Beck in the face! (and laugh as he turns to green goo!)
Personally I like the first woman, (summarized) "I came out to be among people who think exactly the same as me and not be challenged intellectually in any way."
Personally I like the first woman, (summarized) "I came out to be among people who think exactly the same as me and not be challenged intellectually in any way."
Just watched a video of some crazy southern lady screaming at people at the rally to get a job and pay taxes. I probably pay more in taxes than she makes.
This has already been discussed, but I believe you could build a very convincing case that such a demonstration would directly result in retaliatory violence.
This has already been discussed, but I believe you could build a very convincing case that such a demonstration would directly result in retaliatory violence.
We don't refrain from saying or doing things because of the threat of retaliatory violence. Hence "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day." You cannot support the right of people to depict Muhammed while denouncing the right of people to burn a Koran without being a hypocrite.
We don't refrain from saying or doing things because of the threat of retaliatory violence. Hence "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day." You cannot support the right of people to depict Muhammed while denouncing the right of people to burn a Koran without being a hypocrite.
She's right. A film in which a Koran or book which looked like it were burned would likely generate similar reaction of violence and death. If that were the case, should depictions be banned? There was a time when to publicly speak out against racism was likely to directly cause retaliatory violence. Should people then not have had the right to so speak?
The Rodney King verdict's announcement caused massive violence. Should similar verdicts in tense times be hidden, or even overturned, simply for the threat of violence?
If I insult some other group, and that leads to violence, have I now retroactively committed a crime? If some group reacts violently to some particular speech act, and begin to do so repeatedly, is that act now to be banned?
If I truthfully discover real evidence of American war crimes, shall I be banned from announcing my discovery? Such things usually cause great violence overseas.
This has already been discussed, but I believe you could build a very convincing case that such a demonstration would directly result in retaliatory violence.
Even if you did, the act is still not illegal by just about every reading of our laws. I believe these laws are correct. To say otherwise is to say outright that we as a people will quell any speech that can lead to violent reactions beyond our borders.
We don't refrain from saying or doing things because of the threat of retaliatory violence.
This wasn't the threat of retaliatory violence. It actually happened. There were violent protests, people attacked a NATO The current test is "imminent lawless action," right? Well, we had extant lawless action at the threat of the act.
If threats are met with threats, that's one thing. In this case, threats to burn the Koran were met with violent action. This is a completely different situation.
If some group reacts violently to some particular speech act, and begin to do so repeatedly, is that act now to be banned?
If it's an innocuous act, no. If you go out of your way to perform an action that is designed to deliberately entice the party to act in that way, yes.
Note that I've said nothing about how we should treat the people who actually react. That's a different argument and I take an even harsher view of it.
This wasn't thethreatof retaliatory violence. It actually happened.
And we have massive protections against prior restraint of speech. What happened after happened, but at the time the speech was enacted, there was zero imminent threat of danger. That the violence happened later, upon discovery alone of the speech, and with no direct threat attached, is more than enough to say that there was no immediacy. Coupled with our clear protections against prior restraint, there is no way to justify preventing this sort of speech, let alone punishing someone for it post facto.
What happened after happened, but at the time the speech was enacted, there was zero imminent threat of danger.
Someone has an unreasonably optimistic memory of Islamic extremists.
That the violence happened later, upon discovery alone of the speech, and with no direct threat attached, is more than enough to say that there was no immediacy.
What do you consider "immediacy?" I say it to someone in my vicinity and they react to it right then? Jones' speech was noticed effectively immediately. It got halfway across the world in a very small span of time, and was repeated for days. It was met very quickly, very harshly.
Immediacy implies that the act of speech at the moment of its making causes inherent danger. e.g., shouting fire in a crowded theater.
If I record myself shouting fire in my home, or somewhere else where it couldn't be construed as a direct threat, it's not an immediate and inherent danger. If someone else, upon observing my speech later, believes that there is a fire, that is, from every legal perspective (and, in my opinion, every moral perspective) his problem.
If someone plays my video loudly in a crowded theater, it's the same as that person shouting in a crowded theater.
The fact remains that we have extremely strong protections against prior restraint of any kind in speech, and also post facto punishment. The exceptions are extreme and few, and almost every challenge is thrown out at some level.
Speaking out against racism DID cause violent and deadly reprisals in the south in the 1960s. Should that speech have been restricted?
Trigun wasn't a world with laws per say. It was more a might makes right world.
I'll spoiler it in case anybody hasn't actually seen Trigun: Vash, a dedicated pacifist, faced down Legato. Legato manipulated townsfolk into threatening Milly and Meryl. He could not be reasoned with. At a crucial moment, when it appeared that Milly and Meryl were certainly going to be killed, Vash killed Legato.
The point of that scene is that Vash compromised his morals for the sake of other people. His own adherence to the principles of pacifism placed innocent people directly in harm's way, and if he upheld his principles, those people would have likely died. Instead, he made the decision to compromise himself.
My moral stance is simple: If upholding a principle is very likely to directly result in the death of someone else (not you), then the moral thing to do is to abandon the principle until the dangerous situation is resolved.
A principle can be upheld again. A person cannot be un-killed.
My moral stance is simple: If upholding a principle is very likely to directly result in the death of someone else (not you), then the moral thing to do is to abandon the principle until the dangerous situation is resolved.
So the Rodney King verdict should not have been read? It directly led to numerous deaths, and the reaction was quite foreseeable. How about a new verdict in a similar case, expecting a similar result if the defendants were found not guilty?
There's a difference between morality and law. Legally, there is a whole lot of precedent for where you draw the line for intentional and imminent. We don't legislate all morality. Morality is HIGHLY subjective. Your opinion is fine, but you need to recognize that our laws do not hinge on your opinion.
Also, stop judging a person's actions based on the actions of the responders. Free will and all that.Trey and Matt are just as morally guilty as this guy. And, by the way, neither one of them actually successfully pulled off the sacrilege they said they would. The magnitude of the response is the only difference.
I'm thoroughly aware. This isn't just a case of the law, though. This is a situation which warrants a fundamental reconsideration of our core values in this country.
The magnitude of the response is the only difference.
And the magnitude of the intent. And tell me, is there no situation in which the magnitude of the response should be considered?
Legally, there is a whole lot of precedent for where you draw the line for intentional and imminent.
I've been doing a lot of reading on this. "Imminence" is the sticky part, as far as I can see. This is a matter of scale. It certainly takes time for his words to get halfway across the world, and it takes time for an angry mob to assemble, but it happened as fast as it could really happen in the last few days.
We'd need a court case to rule on the imminence of a heavily time-delayed speech, but how does the law handle a thing which is recorded and re-broadcast?
As for Jones' intent, as I've said, we can divine that from what he's said. "We want to show the world just how dangerous Islam is, so we're going to burn the Koran." That says to me that he intends to incite extremists Muslims to violent action to prove a point. That is a completely different ballgame than anything we've seen to date.
It directly led to numerous deaths, and the reaction was quite foreseeable.
They lacked Jones' intent.
Let me make one other thing clear, as Rym keeps talking about post facto punishment: I'm not advocating that we punish Jones. I'm saying that we need to re-evaluate our laws to handle a situation like this in the future.
Pete: "Don't make the terrorists angry."
Well, don't make them needlessly angry, in a situation where people have already died over your speech.
Comments
But what also made me sad was over at Huffingtonpost they had a head line that said "a Majority of Republicans believe that Obama is a fundie Muslim" and I read the survey and it asked if Obama "Sympathizes" with fundamentalist Islam...when I pointed out this in the forums I got flamed by liberals thinking I was defending republicans... when in reality I just want people to deal in facts.. ugh.
These people are just so fucking stupid.
This has already been discussed, but I believe you could build a very convincing case that such a demonstration would directly result in retaliatory violence.
The Rodney King verdict's announcement caused massive violence. Should similar verdicts in tense times be hidden, or even overturned, simply for the threat of violence?
If I insult some other group, and that leads to violence, have I now retroactively committed a crime? If some group reacts violently to some particular speech act, and begin to do so repeatedly, is that act now to be banned?
If I truthfully discover real evidence of American war crimes, shall I be banned from announcing my discovery? Such things usually cause great violence overseas. Even if you did, the act is still not illegal by just about every reading of our laws. I believe these laws are correct. To say otherwise is to say outright that we as a people will quell any speech that can lead to violent reactions beyond our borders.
If threats are met with threats, that's one thing. In this case, threats to burn the Koran were met with violent action. This is a completely different situation. If it's an innocuous act, no. If you go out of your way to perform an action that is designed to deliberately entice the party to act in that way, yes.
Note that I've said nothing about how we should treat the people who actually react. That's a different argument and I take an even harsher view of it.
Well, almost. Again, I go back to Trigun. Vash and Legato. It's the same situation. I side with Vash.
If I record myself shouting fire in my home, or somewhere else where it couldn't be construed as a direct threat, it's not an immediate and inherent danger. If someone else, upon observing my speech later, believes that there is a fire, that is, from every legal perspective (and, in my opinion, every moral perspective) his problem.
If someone plays my video loudly in a crowded theater, it's the same as that person shouting in a crowded theater.
The fact remains that we have extremely strong protections against prior restraint of any kind in speech, and also post facto punishment. The exceptions are extreme and few, and almost every challenge is thrown out at some level.
Speaking out against racism DID cause violent and deadly reprisals in the south in the 1960s. Should that speech have been restricted?
Vash, a dedicated pacifist, faced down Legato. Legato manipulated townsfolk into threatening Milly and Meryl. He could not be reasoned with. At a crucial moment, when it appeared that Milly and Meryl were certainly going to be killed, Vash killed Legato.
The point of that scene is that Vash compromised his morals for the sake of other people. His own adherence to the principles of pacifism placed innocent people directly in harm's way, and if he upheld his principles, those people would have likely died. Instead, he made the decision to compromise himself.
My moral stance is simple: If upholding a principle is very likely to directly result in the death of someone else (not you), then the moral thing to do is to abandon the principle until the dangerous situation is resolved.
A principle can be upheld again. A person cannot be un-killed.
Also, stop judging a person's actions based on the actions of the responders. Free will and all that.Trey and Matt are just as morally guilty as this guy. And, by the way, neither one of them actually successfully pulled off the sacrilege they said they would. The magnitude of the response is the only difference.
Rym: "We don't negotiate with terrorists."
We'd need a court case to rule on the imminence of a heavily time-delayed speech, but how does the law handle a thing which is recorded and re-broadcast?
As for Jones' intent, as I've said, we can divine that from what he's said. "We want to show the world just how dangerous Islam is, so we're going to burn the Koran." That says to me that he intends to incite extremists Muslims to violent action to prove a point. That is a completely different ballgame than anything we've seen to date. They lacked Jones' intent.
Let me make one other thing clear, as Rym keeps talking about post facto punishment: I'm not advocating that we punish Jones. I'm saying that we need to re-evaluate our laws to handle a situation like this in the future. Well, don't make them needlessly angry, in a situation where people have already died over your speech.