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.
This re-evaluation would require adding either prior restraint or post-facto punishment. Otherwise, there would be no effect. You'd need to amend the constitution to get around that pesky first amendment's free speech rights.
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.
If you want purely the moral argument, I say that our core values of freedom to speak and create art are more valuable than the Bronze Age sensibilities of a culture on the other side of the world. Freedom of speech is more valuable than even the lives that might be lost by way of its exercise.
Really, the people who react violently to something such as this are too dangerous to society to be tolerated. This is a world where millions of people can draw Muhammad or smoke a Quran at the drop of a hat, and publish their doings globally in a matter of seconds. If you consider the actions people around the world might take as just cause for prior restraint of speech, you are literally saying that any random violent nutjob on the other side of the globe gets to set your own personal community standards and control the global discourse absolutely.
What specifically do you propose we do? What exactly is your line? The Muhammad Cartoons brought violence and death. The mere discussion of burning the Quran in the media brought violence and death. Should the discussion itself have been banned? Even if the event did not occur? Shall I not even suggest that we should burn a Quran? Is it OK to draw Muhammad again? Is South Park in the wrong?
What, exactly, is your line? And what, exactly, should be done for someone who crosses it? What specifically should we do if the line moves? If further types of speech begin eliciting violent reactions among radicals far away?
This is pretty obvious, but I'll spell it out anyhow. My line is exactly where the law is at this moment in time: If a speaker gives a speech with the intent to cause imminent lawless action, or creates an environment that is likely to produce imminent lawless action, then that speaker can and should be punished for that speech. This requires 1)that the speaker intend for his speech to cause the lawless action, 2) that the action committed would occur imminently, and 3)that the speech would likely result in said lawless action.
Terry Jones committed no crime and should not be punished. However, had he gone through with the burning, he should have been punished, because the act fits the test for imminent lawless action.
1. Terry Jones intended to incite people to lawless action by the burning of the Koran. He has stated expressly that he wants to show the world that Islam is dangerous, and he felt that the best way to do that was to burn the Koran.
Burning the Koran can be used to do a variety of things, the same as burning the flag or a cross. The main legal question is what is the intent with which the action is committed? In Jones' case, he wants to show that Islam is dangerous. Burning the book in and of itself does nothing to demonstrate that Islam is dangerous; it only demonstrates that you really hate Islam, and that books can burn. The only way it demonstrates that Islam is dangerous is if that act then provokes dangerous action. Thus, Jones could only have intended to provoke extremist militants to lawless action.
2. The lawless actions that would have precipitated were effectively imminent. People were engaged in protests and poised to commit violence if he went through with it. In fact, they were committing violence before he was even about to do it.
3. The lawless action was indeed likely. There's really no arguing that. In some ways, Jones is right about militant Muslims, but we also already knew that.
So, yes, in this particular case, burning the Koran would have been a punishable offense, because he intended the act to provoke violence. This is separate from the cartoon or from South Park; in those cases, they did not specifically intend to provoke violent action, or rather, we can't prove that they did intend that. Intent is the deciding factor.
As for the law itself, I dunno. Disorderly conduct? Terrorism? This is an act from a person against a foreign nation, so federal law likely applies, over state laws. I can look it up later, but there are many things which could be applied. It doesn't matter what punishment is actually enacted, because there are many things which could be applied. The point is that this sort of thing is punished. In this case, massive public pressure was sufficient. Had he gone through with it, there should have been legal consequences.
Freedom of speech is more valuable than even the lives that might be lost by way of its exercise.
This is a very, very dangerous thing. You're saying that your ideology is more important that the lives of other people. What separates you from the Islamic militant? The nature of your beliefs?
Really, the people who react violently to something such as this are too dangerous to society to be tolerated.
I agree completely. However, the people who would burn the Koran in order to provoke violence are also too dangerous to be tolerated. To whit, Terry Jones is a terrorist, too.
If you want purely the moral argument,
I wasn't going to bring morality into it, but you introduced it earlier. My moral line is clear - that principles should be abandoned if it means that life will be preserved. Your moral line is also clear - that certain principles should never be abandoned, even if it means people will die.
My problem here is that you are not dying for this. Terry Jones is not dying for this. My problem is that someone else unrelated to your principles, my principles, Jones' principles, and the Muslims principles that are endangered. That takes your stance from admirable to tyrannical.
I am not arguing for prior restraint through legal means. I am arguing for prior restraint via massive, directed, social pressure. I am also arguing in favor of levying post facto punishments for people who commit acts like those that Terry Jones intended to commit. In order for it to be worthy of punishment, it must fit the test of having intent to cause imminent lawless action. If any one of those aspects is missing - intent, imminence, likelihood - then the speech should not be punished.
I can't possibly make this any more clear. My line is at speech which reasonably serves no other purpose than to intentionally incite people to lawless action which endangers the lives of others. You rail against the Bronze Age beliefs of people across the globe, yet you tolerate the Bronze Age beliefs of people in your own back yard, even when enacting those beliefs causes harm to other people. Why? We must create an environment that will not tolerate any Bronze Age beliefs at all.
You assume that the line will move; the line only moves when we move it. It does not move of its own accord, and to contend that it will is just another slippery slope fallacy. If this keeps happening, we'll have to re-evaluate every single time for every specific instance. Right now, I'm saying that we need to move the line of what we consider to be protected speech so that Terry Jones' proposed actions would not be protected. All of his threats are fine, but the actual act of burning the Koran - in the manner he intended and in the situation that he created - would be the problem.
Burning the Korancanbe used to do a variety of things, the same as burning the flag or a cross. The main legal question is what is the intent with which the action is committed? In Jones' case, he wants to show that Islam is dangerous. Burning the book in and of itself does nothing to demonstrate that Islam is dangerous; it only demonstrates that you really hate Islam, and that books can burn. The only way it demonstrates that Islam is dangerous is if that act then provokes dangerous action. Thus, Jones could only have intended to provoke extremist militants to lawless action.
This is an unprovable statement. Apart from the far reaching assumptions you took to complete your logic, there is no way to show that he could only have intended to provoke extremist militants.
The lawless actions that would have precipitated were effectively imminent. People were engaged in protests and poised to commit violence if he went through with it. In fact, they were committing violence before he was even about to do it.
I would say there is a difference between the panic immediately caused by someone shouting fire in a crowded room and that which would cause a protest. The former is fuelled by reactionary emotions and panic while the later requires an interpretation of the statement that could only be concluded with "I disagree so vehemently that I will protest".
3. The lawless action was indeed likely. There's really no arguing that. In some ways, Jones is right about militant Muslims, but we also already knew that.
Perhaps, but this could be said about a multitude of various expressions of speech, many of which,such as flag burning, have been shown to be under Constitutional protection.
My problem here is thatyouare not dying for this. Terry Jones is not dying for this. My problem is that someone else unrelated to your principles, my principles, Jones' principles, and the Muslims principles that are endangered. That takes your stance from admirable to tyrannical.
Those who are most likely to die from said speech, American soldiers, are there for the very reason to protect Jones' ability to do so. In the most literal sense, they have voluntarily pledged their lives to protect it. Don't sully their sacrifice by removing those freedoms in the name of protecting them.
I think that you're walking a dangerous line when you say that the principles of a society should be compromised if it would save a life(or even many lives).
What could eventually happen is that as the extremists become more extreme it would force our society to look more and more like theirs.
e.g. suddenly an Imam manages to get people rioting in the streets about how we dress our women (more than a few Muslims I've met get quite tweeked about this) and people are dying in the streets because we let women and girls wander around in low-riders and spandex mini skirts. Should we force women to not wear these things? Should we force them to wear a burka because of what another culture thinks about our own?
One could come up with more convincing arguments but I think what we're getting up against is free will and how it is affected.
Would it be illegal to tell a man I know to very jealous that I have video tape of his wife banging another man who lives at 123 main st. knowing that he will go to that address and assault/murder that man? Am I really responsible for his actions? What if I don't honestly think he will do so and he does it anyways? How do you judge that in court?
Indeed, the problem is that compromising your principles encourages extremists to pressure you into doing the same thing again and again.
And every time they exert pressure, we reconsider our stance. We also need to extract compromise from the Islamic community as well. Start with the moderate elements who still flip their shit every time Mohammed is depicted, and reinforce that their reaction is incompatible with the modern world.
I flatly reject this notion that compromise is a sign of weakness. We can compromise a principle, or part of it, and still maintain a strong stance on other parts of that principle. We can draw another firm line - that we can no longer tolerate this disproportionate reaction and will make no further concessions - and stick to it. For the radicals, we treat them as we always do; if they do something radical in response, we punish that, and we do so swiftly and firmly.
Just because we draw a line here doesn't mean we'll eventually get pushed back again. That's a slippery slope fallacy. We can draw a line here and say "no further." That doesn't mean we don't need to draw a line.
How do you judge that in court?
By figuring out your intent. Intent can be a difficult thing, but it is not an unprovable thing.
Would it be illegal to tell a man I know to very jealous that I have video tape of his wife banging another man who lives at 123 main st. knowing that he will go to that address and assault/murder that man? Am I really responsible for his actions?
You could probably build a case for reckless endangerment, depending on the circumstances, your intent, and the state.
Don't sully their sacrifice by removing those freedoms in the name of protecting them.
And I, like the guy in command in Afghanistan, agree with that sentiment; however, there is also the practical concern that engaging in this behavior complicates the situation for the soldiers currently trying to maintain stability in many places around the world. I would rather not complicate their jobs more than is really necessary. Speaking out is one thing, but deliberately provoking the elements that the troops are fighting only hurts the situation.
Apart from the far reaching assumptions
Which were those? I've only based my knowledge of Jones' intent on things he said. Here's an example:
Thom Hartmann: And you don't have a response to my suggestion that you are doing Osama Bin Laden's work for him by riling up and putting our soldiers at risk by riling up the Muslim world?
Terry Jones: We definitely feel that we are not doing his work, I can respond to that. That has to do with what we're doing right now. We definitely, we definitely feel that we are not doing that, just the opposite. We are revealing the radicalness of Islam. I believe we are pointing the finger at the wrong person and I don't know why we do that in America. If violence comes out of this it's because it's the nature of Islam. It is their violent nature. And possibly not as many people are against us as you think. We get e-mails, we got a phone call yesterday from a retired green beret"
No, he never says that he's doing because he wants to provoke them, but read enough of his interviews, and this is the message he brings out every time. He wants to reveal radical Muslims as being violent and dangerous.
This is how you prove intent in court. You take a bunch of statements together, and you can divine from the that the likely intent. Sometimes, you don't have statements at all, and you have to divine likely intent based only on actions. This is harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's been done.
I've been a part of a grand jury that has indicted people on attempted murder using far less evidence of intent than what Jones is presenting here. That doesn't mean we thought it was sufficient evidence to convict, but there was enough evidence that one could build a convincing case.
I would say there is a difference between the panic immediately caused by someone shouting fire in a crowded room and that which would cause a protest. The former is fuelled by reactionary emotions and panic while the later requires an interpretation of the statement that could only be concluded with "I disagree so vehemently that I will protest".
Except this didn't encourage just protests; protestors attacked an uninvolved military base and were fired upon. Violence happened as a direct result of the threat of burning the Koran.
I agree with Rym in many ways; largely, radical Islam is a stone age view, and it is incompatible with the modern world. Most radical views are incompatible with the modern world, but Islam seems to be particularly egregious. It needs to be dealt with. Similarly, Terry Jones' church has stone age views that we cannot abide in this day and age. They're not killing people, but their views and views like theirs will almost certainly lead to increased violence.
The book burning was discussed on the last episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast. I was surprised, since this is an unusual topic for the podcast. Steven Novella summed it up very nicely.
Here is an assuredly poor recitation of some of the points he made: a) There is a fundamental right to freedom of expression, whether or not the message is offensive. b) The pastor was asked to cancel the event based on the anticipated violent reaction from the extremist Muslim community. c) This request represented an intolerance of constitutionally protected expression to accommodate un-protected reactions. In other words, the pastor was asked to be "tolerant" of the extremists intolerance.
Seems pretty messed up to me. All of the anger directed at the pastor should have been directed at those who advocate a violent response to constitutionally protected speech. As abhorrent an act as it may have been, we all should appreciate the constitutional right. America has defended its constitution before, and should have done so this time.
During the civil rights movement, there were violent reactions in response to exercises of constitutional rights. We didn't ask civil rights leaders to stop their activities. Why should this have been any different? Once the message becomes more important than the right, those in power can control the message.
Having said all of that, I also subscribe to a morality theory. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean that it is moral to do so. I accept arguments against expression based on morality, as long as the argument is based on nothing more.
For example, I fully appreciate the right to build a mosque on (or adjacent to) "ground zero". However, knowing who perpetrated 9/11, and the tremendous loss inflicted on innocent families, I also understand that the location is going to be tremendously (and justifiably) hurtful to many people. There is nothing wrong with wanting less overall pain in this world. If the "pain" of finding another location pales in comparison to the "pain" created by the current location, a moral person would choose to find a new location. Key to my opinion is the fact that it is reasonable for the families to feel pain over the proposed location. It is not reasonable to respond to a book burning by killing people.
I agree with Rym in many ways; largely, radical Islam is a stone age view, and it is incompatible with the modern world.
The modern world boycotted South Africa (with tremendous success). Those same first-world countries do nothing to boycott countries that systemically subjugate women. That disgusts me. I wonder what would have happened if South Africa had oil instead of diamonds?
I wonder what would have happened if South Africa had oil instead of diamonds?
I'm thinking Nelson Mandela, just might have died in prison. Because, lets be honest, the only reason any government gives two shits about the middle east, is oil. Hell, if they ever find anything worth anything in Somalia, we'll be right back over there.
Those same first-world countries do nothing to boycott countries that systemically subjugate women. That disgusts me.
I concur. Whatever comes from this affair with Jones, we need to take a firm stance on this radical Islam garbage as well. I'm all about allowing people to believe what they will, but some things are not compatible with the modern world.
*sigh* This sort of thing makes it hard for me to stay an optimist.
Really? Because, and y'know, just throwing this out there, if you create something that purposefully taunts a group known for their penchant for violently murdering anyone who disrespects their faith, that sort of response is to be expected. Regardless of what you think of said ridiculous violent hate, it's not a question of optimism or pessimism. It's a question of cause and effect.
You mocked the prophet, now there's a fatwa on you. That's generally how the system works. I'm not happy that that happens, but I'm not surprised nor losing faith in humanity because of it. People have been killed for less grave reasons.
Wait . . . weren't Rym and K on their high horses in this very thread just a few days ago because some people were making jokes about "the full retard"?
So, we can't joke about the full retard but we can burn Korans?
So, we can't joke about the full retard but we can burn Korans?
Oh, you can. But the court of public opinion can crucify you. Fight speech with speech. The moment you fight speech with words, you don't deserve to live in modern society.
So, we can't joke about the full retard but we can burn Korans?
Looks like they went full retard.
SSSSSSHHHHHHH! You'll get us in trouble with the sensitive types!
I don't know about you lot, but I'm going out to the shed to burn a Koran or two. It's much safer than making jokes about "the full retard".
So, we can't joke about the full retard but we can burn Korans?
Oh, you can. But the court of public opinion can crucify you. Fight speech with speech. The moment you fight speech with words, you don't deserve to live in modern society.
Wait, I'm having trouble getting the point in this. Maybe it's just because I've had too much to drink yet again. In your second sentence you tell us to fight speech with speech. Then, in your third sentence, you say that if we fight speech with words (i.e., speech), we don't deserve to live in modern society.
So, if we follow your advice, we don't get to live in modern society?
Tell me how Pete's concern about offending people by burning Korans is substantively different than your concern about people being offended by "the full retard".
Tell me how Pete's concern about offending people by burning Korans is substantively different than your concern about people being offended by "the full retard".
Previously answered:
Just because you have the right to do something does not mean that it is moral to do so.
There is also a fundamental difference between a person that suffers from a birth defect and a person that kills someone over mere words.
I thought the main issue that Pete was arguing on here was the law, not our morals. Simply putting what a lot of you guys have been saying, there's a big difference between telling someone what they should do and what they can do.
The moment you fight speech withwordsforce, you don't deserve to live in modern society.
FTFY
So, Obi Wan can't live in modern society since he often uses the force to decide his verbal battles. Am I analyzing that right or am I missing something?
Tell me how Pete's concern about offending people by burning Korans is substantively different than your concern about people being offended by "the full retard".
Previously answered:
Just because you have therightto do something does not mean that it ismoralto do so.
Actually, that's not an answer at all. If anything, that is a demonstration of how similar the concerns are.
There is also a fundamental difference between a person that suffers from a birth defect and a person that kills someone over mere words.
Here's the real crux for k. Whereas Pete's concern is the safety of society at large, k wants to be judgmental about the type of people being offended. The Muslim types don't deserve consideration because they're bad. The people who would be offended about a "full retard" joke are somehow more virtuous. This, of course, neglects to account for the people who would be offended by burning Korans who would never think of responding with violence. k just likes to judge people.
My friend Abdullah the Retarded MuslimTM is deeply offended by both burning Korans and people joking about "the full retard". Well, he's more offended about the Korans; because, as a retarded person, he's afraid of fire.
Go back and read my earlier comment in which I said that if the pain of not exercising your right of expression is less than the pain created by the expression, it is moral to refrain from exercising the right. You are selectively ignoring portions of my argument. Don't misrepresent what I said by taking statements out of context.
Go back and read my earlier comment in which I said that if the pain of not exercising your right of expression is less than the pain created by the expression, it is moral to refrain from exercising the right.
If that's the standard for analysis, then Pete is even more in the right. Surely the greater of the two evils of someone feeling bad and someone (maybe multiple someones) being killed is easy for all to determine.
If I may, it seems to me like the discussion has gone thus: (oversimplified a bit, of course)
Forum: LOL. We're laughing at an internet meme.
Kilarney and Rym: YOU KIDS STOP EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT OF EPRESSION ABOUT THAT TOPIC RIGHT NOW! It's immoral because it could lead to someone's feelings being slightly hurt!
A very little while later, someone says: Hey, what about those crazy Florida people who want to burn Korans?
Pete: I'm not so sure i's a good idea for them to exercise their right to engage in that particular expression. I think it is immoral because it could lead to multiple deaths, so I believe that these people should refrain from exercising their right to engage in that particular expression.
Kilarney and Rym: ZOMG1! THEY'RE JUST EXERCISINGTHEIR RIGHT TO SPEECH!
I looked down at my friend Abdullah the Retarded MuslimTM, (did I mention that he's in a wheelchair and he was born with his heart outside his body?) and asked him what he thought about all this. He looked up at me and said, "Derp."
Kilarney and Rym: YOU KIDS STOP EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT OF EPRESSION ABOUT THAT TOPIC RIGHT NOW! It's immoral because it could lead to someone's feelings being slightly hurt!
Tell me how Pete's concern about offending people by burning Korans is substantively different than your concern about people being offended by "the full retard".
I said they should stop, but I didn't force them. The fuckwit burning the Koran should have stopped as well, but we shouldn't have forced him. Admonish people for their words if you find them abhorrent, but support their right to say them no matter how abhorrent.
There's also the matter that a private forum is very different legally from general, public speech, in that we have a right to the latter, but no obligation to provide the former. Still, I did not add "full retard" to the rules. You can be insensitive and use the phrase if you so wish.
A better analogy would have presented had I said that we should pass laws preventing the use of the term "full retard." I did not say that. ;^)
One fundamental issue as well is this whole "causes violence" thing. It is easily argued that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater can directly cause a panic even if all of the participants are otherwise rational: the danger is reasonably believed to be real and imminent. The speech itself inherently states that there is current physical danger requiring immediate action.
But non-imminent speech that does not imply danger itself is entirely different. The only way to argue that it directly causes the violence is to argue that the person acting violently was directly brought to action by your words. This is to argue that this person had no free will, but instead was nothing more than a physical manifestation of violence caused by your words. Or, at best, we are arguing that the person is incapable of self-determination in a legal sense. Now, even if that is true, it just means that people like that are little more than loaded guns with hair-triggers, ready to enact violence at some perceived slight someday.
The fact that the speech in question is not a threat of any reasonable nature, nor a claim of imminent danger of any kind, means that it is at worst an insult. To legislate against it (again, this would require a constitutional amendment) would be to say quite literally, "You can insult whoever you want, except for the Muslims: they're special, and aren't responsible for the violence they may cause if you insult their space man."
One fundamental issue as well is this whole "causes violence" thing. It is easily argued that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater can directly cause a panic even if all of the participants are otherwise rational: the danger is reasonably believed to be real and imminent. The speech itself inherently states that there is current physical danger requiring immediate action.
But non-imminent speech that does not imply danger itself is entirely different.
The problem here has already been identified. There is an objective history of violence or credible, substantive threats of violence arising from such speech. Salman Rushdie, The Dutch cartoon guy, and the Draw Muhammad for a Day Lady cases all show that this type of speech results in violence or credible threats of violence. Is it really unreasonable to infer from events such as these that this type of speech is not entirely different from your "fire in a crowded theater"?
But non-imminent speech that does not imply danger itself is entirely different. The only way to argue that it directly causes the violence is to argue that the person acting violently was directly brought to action by your words. This is to argue that this person had no free will, but instead was nothing more than a physical manifestation of violence caused by your words. Or, at best, we are arguing that the person is incapable of self-determination in a legal sense. Now, even if that is true, it just means that people like that are little more than loaded guns with hair-triggers, ready to enact violence at some perceived slight someday.
In your "fire in a crowded theater", aren't you arguing the very same thing i.e., that the theater people are hair-trigger robots with no free will? Is it so predictable that they will react violently? I think I remember Abbie Hoffman actually trying it once, with the result that people looked at him like he was an idiot and then returned to watching the movie.
(again, this would require a constitutional amendment)
I already laid out how one can build a case for this in the existing legal system. You need intent, for which reckless intent may suffice and which Jones has demonstrated via interviews and public statements; you need the possibility of imminent lawless action, which was the case going into Jones' plan; and the harm has to be likely, which is certainly the case, as even threatening to burn the Koran caused violence.
Of course, that in and of itself is just a test as to whether or not a given form of speech could be punished. In Jones' case, the only applicable Florida statute is disorderly conduct.
nor a claim of imminent danger of any kind
Ah, I think you're getting hung up here. The part about "imminent lawless action" doesn't necessarily refer to whether or not the speech is creating panic about a certain situation. You keep going to shouting "Fire," and thinking that the important part is whether or not there is reason to suspect there is actually a fire. You should know that the full line is "falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." The test is whether or not the given speech is likely to cause imminent lawless action, irrespective of the contents of the speech. That's how the law is set up right now.
You may also be getting hung up on intent; there are grades of intent for different crimes, and recklessness is an intent. Neglect is also an intent. Intent does not always mean "purposeful" from a legal standpoint.
How you think it should operate is already clear. I've been making a case that under existing statutes, burning the Koran in the situation in which Jones was going to do it would not have been protected speech. There are countless ways that it could have happened while being protected speech, but it was the confluence of circumstance around it that would have made the speech non-protected.
EDIT: And of course, my moral stance is that had Jones proceeded, he fully well should have been prosecuted, because we can't brook any stone age beliefs any longer, be they in this country or elsewhere.
The problem here has already been identified. There is an objective history of violence or credible, substantive threats of violence arising from such speech. Salman Rushdie, The Dutch cartoon guy, and the Draw Muhammad for a Day Lady cases all show that this type of speech results in violence or credible threats of violence. Is it really unreasonable to infer from events such as these that this type of speech is not entirely different from your "fire in a crowded theater"?
Our law is clear. Speech that causes reactionary violence is protected. Only speech that advocates violence and is directed at a group likely to engage in it imminently is not.
Is it so predictable that they will react violently?
It's just the going analogy, and it's a poor one. A better analogy is a direct threat against another person in the presence of means and perceived will to act upon the threat. That is illegal.
There are countless ways that it could have happened while being protected speech, but it was the confluence of circumstance around it that would have made the speech non-protected.
Not by our current law. At best, you could have gotten him on burning trash without a permit. It is highly unlikely that there is any legal action that could have been taking against him that would have held up in court.
The test is whether or not the given speech is likelyto causeimminent lawless action
Such as asking a mob to riot right now. That's not protected if they appear likely to do it. Telling a mob they're stupid and ugly right now, regardless of the outcome, is protected. In all of my research, I see practically zero exceptions to this, and furthermore a history of even relatively benign restrictions on speech being overturned handily time and time again. Restrictions on speech have some of the shortest lives of any laws.
Just for laughs, can you cite a current statute that makes ity illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If so, can you also link to the legislative history?
But non-imminent speech that does not imply danger itself is entirely different. The only way to argue that it directly causes the violence is to argue that the person acting violently was directly brought to action by your words. This is to argue that this person had no free will, but instead was nothing more than a physical manifestation of violence caused by your words. Or, at best, we are arguing that the person is incapable of self-determination in a legal sense. Now, even if that is true, it just means that people like that are little more than loaded guns with hair-triggers, ready to enact violence at some perceived slight someday.
In your "fire in a crowded theater", aren't you arguing the very same thing i.e., that the theater people are hair-trigger robots with no free will? Is it so predictable that they will react violently? I think I remember Abbie Hoffman actually trying it once, with the result that people looked at him like he was an idiot and then returned to watching the movie.
I don't think that the comparison of Muslims murdering someone for burning the Quran and yelling fire in a crowded theatre are exactly equivalent.
Follow me here, in the case of the theatre the main threat to the crowd is that people, who believe that they themselves are in immediate threat of harm, will all at the same time try to rush out of the theatre and crush/trample someone on the way out.
In the case of the really upset Muslims you have freethinking rational human beings who are in no immediate threat of harm will walk out of their homes and riot in the streets. They make a choice to go someplace else and put someone else in danger. They are not trying to save themselves from some immediate threat. They are themselves are making the choice to create the threat.
They could have just as easily chosen to stand up and yell at the television in anger and write a letter to the editor, but they choose to go and create a dangerous situation. They choose to go and burn churches and try to find this gentleman to retaliate.
Comments
Really, the people who react violently to something such as this are too dangerous to society to be tolerated. This is a world where millions of people can draw Muhammad or smoke a Quran at the drop of a hat, and publish their doings globally in a matter of seconds. If you consider the actions people around the world might take as just cause for prior restraint of speech, you are literally saying that any random violent nutjob on the other side of the globe gets to set your own personal community standards and control the global discourse absolutely.
What specifically do you propose we do? What exactly is your line? The Muhammad Cartoons brought violence and death. The mere discussion of burning the Quran in the media brought violence and death. Should the discussion itself have been banned? Even if the event did not occur? Shall I not even suggest that we should burn a Quran? Is it OK to draw Muhammad again? Is South Park in the wrong?
What, exactly, is your line? And what, exactly, should be done for someone who crosses it? What specifically should we do if the line moves? If further types of speech begin eliciting violent reactions among radicals far away?
Terry Jones committed no crime and should not be punished. However, had he gone through with the burning, he should have been punished, because the act fits the test for imminent lawless action.
1. Terry Jones intended to incite people to lawless action by the burning of the Koran. He has stated expressly that he wants to show the world that Islam is dangerous, and he felt that the best way to do that was to burn the Koran.
Burning the Koran can be used to do a variety of things, the same as burning the flag or a cross. The main legal question is what is the intent with which the action is committed? In Jones' case, he wants to show that Islam is dangerous. Burning the book in and of itself does nothing to demonstrate that Islam is dangerous; it only demonstrates that you really hate Islam, and that books can burn. The only way it demonstrates that Islam is dangerous is if that act then provokes dangerous action. Thus, Jones could only have intended to provoke extremist militants to lawless action.
2. The lawless actions that would have precipitated were effectively imminent. People were engaged in protests and poised to commit violence if he went through with it. In fact, they were committing violence before he was even about to do it.
3. The lawless action was indeed likely. There's really no arguing that. In some ways, Jones is right about militant Muslims, but we also already knew that.
So, yes, in this particular case, burning the Koran would have been a punishable offense, because he intended the act to provoke violence. This is separate from the cartoon or from South Park; in those cases, they did not specifically intend to provoke violent action, or rather, we can't prove that they did intend that. Intent is the deciding factor.
As for the law itself, I dunno. Disorderly conduct? Terrorism? This is an act from a person against a foreign nation, so federal law likely applies, over state laws. I can look it up later, but there are many things which could be applied. It doesn't matter what punishment is actually enacted, because there are many things which could be applied. The point is that this sort of thing is punished. In this case, massive public pressure was sufficient. Had he gone through with it, there should have been legal consequences. This is a very, very dangerous thing. You're saying that your ideology is more important that the lives of other people. What separates you from the Islamic militant? The nature of your beliefs? I agree completely. However, the people who would burn the Koran in order to provoke violence are also too dangerous to be tolerated. To whit, Terry Jones is a terrorist, too. I wasn't going to bring morality into it, but you introduced it earlier. My moral line is clear - that principles should be abandoned if it means that life will be preserved. Your moral line is also clear - that certain principles should never be abandoned, even if it means people will die.
My problem here is that you are not dying for this. Terry Jones is not dying for this. My problem is that someone else unrelated to your principles, my principles, Jones' principles, and the Muslims principles that are endangered. That takes your stance from admirable to tyrannical.
I am not arguing for prior restraint through legal means. I am arguing for prior restraint via massive, directed, social pressure. I am also arguing in favor of levying post facto punishments for people who commit acts like those that Terry Jones intended to commit. In order for it to be worthy of punishment, it must fit the test of having intent to cause imminent lawless action. If any one of those aspects is missing - intent, imminence, likelihood - then the speech should not be punished.
I can't possibly make this any more clear. My line is at speech which reasonably serves no other purpose than to intentionally incite people to lawless action which endangers the lives of others. You rail against the Bronze Age beliefs of people across the globe, yet you tolerate the Bronze Age beliefs of people in your own back yard, even when enacting those beliefs causes harm to other people. Why? We must create an environment that will not tolerate any Bronze Age beliefs at all.
You assume that the line will move; the line only moves when we move it. It does not move of its own accord, and to contend that it will is just another slippery slope fallacy. If this keeps happening, we'll have to re-evaluate every single time for every specific instance. Right now, I'm saying that we need to move the line of what we consider to be protected speech so that Terry Jones' proposed actions would not be protected. All of his threats are fine, but the actual act of burning the Koran - in the manner he intended and in the situation that he created - would be the problem.
What could eventually happen is that as the extremists become more extreme it would force our society to look more and more like theirs.
e.g. suddenly an Imam manages to get people rioting in the streets about how we dress our women (more than a few Muslims I've met get quite tweeked about this) and people are dying in the streets because we let women and girls wander around in low-riders and spandex mini skirts. Should we force women to not wear these things? Should we force them to wear a burka because of what another culture thinks about our own?
One could come up with more convincing arguments but I think what we're getting up against is free will and how it is affected.
Would it be illegal to tell a man I know to very jealous that I have video tape of his wife banging another man who lives at 123 main st. knowing that he will go to that address and assault/murder that man? Am I really responsible for his actions? What if I don't honestly think he will do so and he does it anyways? How do you judge that in court?
I flatly reject this notion that compromise is a sign of weakness. We can compromise a principle, or part of it, and still maintain a strong stance on other parts of that principle. We can draw another firm line - that we can no longer tolerate this disproportionate reaction and will make no further concessions - and stick to it. For the radicals, we treat them as we always do; if they do something radical in response, we punish that, and we do so swiftly and firmly.
Just because we draw a line here doesn't mean we'll eventually get pushed back again. That's a slippery slope fallacy. We can draw a line here and say "no further." That doesn't mean we don't need to draw a line. By figuring out your intent. Intent can be a difficult thing, but it is not an unprovable thing. You could probably build a case for reckless endangerment, depending on the circumstances, your intent, and the state. And I, like the guy in command in Afghanistan, agree with that sentiment; however, there is also the practical concern that engaging in this behavior complicates the situation for the soldiers currently trying to maintain stability in many places around the world. I would rather not complicate their jobs more than is really necessary. Speaking out is one thing, but deliberately provoking the elements that the troops are fighting only hurts the situation. Which were those? I've only based my knowledge of Jones' intent on things he said. Here's an example: No, he never says that he's doing because he wants to provoke them, but read enough of his interviews, and this is the message he brings out every time. He wants to reveal radical Muslims as being violent and dangerous.
This is how you prove intent in court. You take a bunch of statements together, and you can divine from the that the likely intent. Sometimes, you don't have statements at all, and you have to divine likely intent based only on actions. This is harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's been done.
I've been a part of a grand jury that has indicted people on attempted murder using far less evidence of intent than what Jones is presenting here. That doesn't mean we thought it was sufficient evidence to convict, but there was enough evidence that one could build a convincing case. Except this didn't encourage just protests; protestors attacked an uninvolved military base and were fired upon. Violence happened as a direct result of the threat of burning the Koran.
I agree with Rym in many ways; largely, radical Islam is a stone age view, and it is incompatible with the modern world. Most radical views are incompatible with the modern world, but Islam seems to be particularly egregious. It needs to be dealt with. Similarly, Terry Jones' church has stone age views that we cannot abide in this day and age. They're not killing people, but their views and views like theirs will almost certainly lead to increased violence.
Here is an assuredly poor recitation of some of the points he made:
a) There is a fundamental right to freedom of expression, whether or not the message is offensive.
b) The pastor was asked to cancel the event based on the anticipated violent reaction from the extremist Muslim community.
c) This request represented an intolerance of constitutionally protected expression to accommodate un-protected reactions. In other words, the pastor was asked to be "tolerant" of the extremists intolerance.
Seems pretty messed up to me. All of the anger directed at the pastor should have been directed at those who advocate a violent response to constitutionally protected speech. As abhorrent an act as it may have been, we all should appreciate the constitutional right. America has defended its constitution before, and should have done so this time.
During the civil rights movement, there were violent reactions in response to exercises of constitutional rights. We didn't ask civil rights leaders to stop their activities. Why should this have been any different? Once the message becomes more important than the right, those in power can control the message.
Having said all of that, I also subscribe to a morality theory. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean that it is moral to do so. I accept arguments against expression based on morality, as long as the argument is based on nothing more.
For example, I fully appreciate the right to build a mosque on (or adjacent to) "ground zero". However, knowing who perpetrated 9/11, and the tremendous loss inflicted on innocent families, I also understand that the location is going to be tremendously (and justifiably) hurtful to many people. There is nothing wrong with wanting less overall pain in this world. If the "pain" of finding another location pales in comparison to the "pain" created by the current location, a moral person would choose to find a new location. Key to my opinion is the fact that it is reasonable for the families to feel pain over the proposed location. It is not reasonable to respond to a book burning by killing people.
You mocked the prophet, now there's a fatwa on you. That's generally how the system works. I'm not happy that that happens, but I'm not surprised nor losing faith in humanity because of it. People have been killed for less grave reasons.
So, we can't joke about the full retard but we can burn Korans?
I don't know about you lot, but I'm going out to the shed to burn a Koran or two. It's much safer than making jokes about "the full retard". Wait, I'm having trouble getting the point in this. Maybe it's just because I've had too much to drink yet again. In your second sentence you tell us to fight speech with speech. Then, in your third sentence, you say that if we fight speech with words (i.e., speech), we don't deserve to live in modern society.
So, if we follow your advice, we don't get to live in modern society?
Tell me how Pete's concern about offending people by burning Korans is substantively different than your concern about people being offended by "the full retard".
My friend Abdullah the Retarded MuslimTM is deeply offended by both burning Korans and people joking about "the full retard". Well, he's more offended about the Korans; because, as a retarded person, he's afraid of fire.
If I may, it seems to me like the discussion has gone thus: (oversimplified a bit, of course)
Forum: LOL. We're laughing at an internet meme.
Kilarney and Rym: YOU KIDS STOP EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT OF EPRESSION ABOUT THAT TOPIC RIGHT NOW! It's immoral because it could lead to someone's feelings being slightly hurt!
A very little while later, someone says: Hey, what about those crazy Florida people who want to burn Korans?
Pete: I'm not so sure i's a good idea for them to exercise their right to engage in that particular expression. I think it is immoral because it could lead to multiple deaths, so I believe that these people should refrain from exercising their right to engage in that particular expression.
Kilarney and Rym: ZOMG1! THEY'RE JUST EXERCISINGTHEIR RIGHT TO SPEECH!
I looked down at my friend Abdullah the Retarded MuslimTM, (did I mention that he's in a wheelchair and he was born with his heart outside his body?) and asked him what he thought about all this. He looked up at me and said, "Derp."
There's also the matter that a private forum is very different legally from general, public speech, in that we have a right to the latter, but no obligation to provide the former. Still, I did not add "full retard" to the rules. You can be insensitive and use the phrase if you so wish.
A better analogy would have presented had I said that we should pass laws preventing the use of the term "full retard." I did not say that. ;^)
One fundamental issue as well is this whole "causes violence" thing. It is easily argued that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater can directly cause a panic even if all of the participants are otherwise rational: the danger is reasonably believed to be real and imminent. The speech itself inherently states that there is current physical danger requiring immediate action.
But non-imminent speech that does not imply danger itself is entirely different. The only way to argue that it directly causes the violence is to argue that the person acting violently was directly brought to action by your words. This is to argue that this person had no free will, but instead was nothing more than a physical manifestation of violence caused by your words. Or, at best, we are arguing that the person is incapable of self-determination in a legal sense. Now, even if that is true, it just means that people like that are little more than loaded guns with hair-triggers, ready to enact violence at some perceived slight someday.
The fact that the speech in question is not a threat of any reasonable nature, nor a claim of imminent danger of any kind, means that it is at worst an insult. To legislate against it (again, this would require a constitutional amendment) would be to say quite literally, "You can insult whoever you want, except for the Muslims: they're special, and aren't responsible for the violence they may cause if you insult their space man."
Of course, that in and of itself is just a test as to whether or not a given form of speech could be punished. In Jones' case, the only applicable Florida statute is disorderly conduct. Ah, I think you're getting hung up here. The part about "imminent lawless action" doesn't necessarily refer to whether or not the speech is creating panic about a certain situation. You keep going to shouting "Fire," and thinking that the important part is whether or not there is reason to suspect there is actually a fire. You should know that the full line is "falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." The test is whether or not the given speech is likely to cause imminent lawless action, irrespective of the contents of the speech. That's how the law is set up right now.
You may also be getting hung up on intent; there are grades of intent for different crimes, and recklessness is an intent. Neglect is also an intent. Intent does not always mean "purposeful" from a legal standpoint.
How you think it should operate is already clear. I've been making a case that under existing statutes, burning the Koran in the situation in which Jones was going to do it would not have been protected speech. There are countless ways that it could have happened while being protected speech, but it was the confluence of circumstance around it that would have made the speech non-protected.
EDIT: And of course, my moral stance is that had Jones proceeded, he fully well should have been prosecuted, because we can't brook any stone age beliefs any longer, be they in this country or elsewhere.
Follow me here, in the case of the theatre the main threat to the crowd is that people, who believe that they themselves are in immediate threat of harm, will all at the same time try to rush out of the theatre and crush/trample someone on the way out.
In the case of the really upset Muslims you have freethinking rational human beings who are in no immediate threat of harm will walk out of their homes and riot in the streets. They make a choice to go someplace else and put someone else in danger. They are not trying to save themselves from some immediate threat. They are themselves are making the choice to create the threat.
They could have just as easily chosen to stand up and yell at the television in anger and write a letter to the editor, but they choose to go and create a dangerous situation. They choose to go and burn churches and try to find this gentleman to retaliate.