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.
OK, I'm going to say this again. The test was "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater." It means that, in fact, there is not a threat of real harm. There is no actual immediate threat, but the reaction is a dangerous one anyway.
If you don't actually see flames, or smell smoke, and some dude just yells "Fire," you can exert your free will to confirm this or not. That doesn't matter, though, because the expected and likely reaction is one of panic.
Whether or not we like it, words can influence people to do things involuntarily. Loud arguments induce the fight-or-flight response, for example; that is entirely involuntary. Likewise, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even when there is no fire, is likely to induce a panic response.
EDIT: You should also know that the "shouting fire" business is no longer the actual test, because it's actually more restrictive of speech than what we use now. Simply inducing panic for the lulz is not sufficient; your speech must result in lawless action specifically, it must be likely to result in that action, and you must have the intent for your speech to result in that action.
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.
OK, I'm going to say this again. The test was "falselyyelling fire in a crowded theater." It means that, in fact, thereis nota threat of real harm. There is no actual immediate threat, but the reaction is a dangerous one anyway.
If you don't actually see flames, or smell smoke, and some dude just yells "Fire," you can exert your free will to confirm this or not. That doesn't matter, though, because the expected and likely reaction is one of panic.
Whether or not we like it, words can influence people to do things involuntarily. Loud arguments induce the fight-or-flight response, for example; that is entirely involuntary. Likewise, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even when there is no fire, is likely to induce a panic response.
The point is that the other people in the theatre believe that their lives are in danger and act on that, and that their action is involuntary, and that said involuntary reaction can reasonably said to cause harm.
My point being that the Mulsims who wander out into the street and then cause harm have a choice to do not do so. They are not spontaneously and involuntarily rioting because they believe their lives to be in danger. They is no perceived immediate threat to their life.
Therefore the two situations are not comparable.
EDIT:
EDIT: You should also know that the "shouting fire" business is no longer the actual test, because it's actuallymorerestrictive of speech than what we use now. Simply inducing panic for the lulz is not sufficient; your speech must result in lawless action specifically, it must be likely to result in that action, and you must have the intent for your speech to result in that action.
I were speaking to a few others who were using said "shouting fire" as an comparison between the two situations.
The point is that the other people in the theatre believe that their lives are in danger and act on that,
But there is no rational basis for that belief, and that's the point. The Muslims feel that they are being threatened, because it's part of their core belief system. Is that belief irrational? Absolutely. Does it matter for the purposes of the law in this case? No.
We know that militant Muslims react violently and irrationally to things like this, they were in a position where they were likely to do imminent harm, and Jones had the intent for his actions to provoke a response. He didn't commit a crime because he didn't actually go through with it, but had he, he could have been charged with disorderly conduct under Florida law, and subsequent appeals would likely have established that his actions were not protected speech.
Should they be reacting like this? No, and that's a separate discussion. Militant Islam is a problem, and we need to find a way to deal with it.
The thing about the "shouting fire" example is that you have to point out that there is no fire. It has everything to do with provoking involuntary responses which are individually irrational. If someone shouts "Fire," and there's an actual fire, there's no crime. If someone shouts "Fire," and the unthinking mob stampedes without bothering to check, then there can be a crime.
Once again, I must correct Joe's false characterization of my earlier comments.
I stated that the term "full retard" was insensitive, and that thoughts could be conveyed in a better way. I never told anyone to stop using the term, nor suggested that I had a right to do so. In my next comment, I pointed out the hypocrisy of using inflamatory language to criticize a person for using inflamatory language.
That's all I said.
It would help, Joe, if you refrain from mischaracterizing my comments.
As to the meat of the debate, people seem to fail to understand the distinction between the law and my subjective moral beliefs. They are not the same, nor should they be.
Joe, you stated:
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!
Please show me where I told people to stop using the term. Hint: You can't. I'm happy to debate you, but I ask that you have some personal intergrity so we can stick to the issues that matter.
He didn't commit a crime because he didn't actually go through with it, but had he, he could have been charged withdisorderly conductunder Florida law, and subsequent appeals would likely have established that his actions were not protected speech.
I highly doubt that. The only chance he would have had of being prosecuted would have been if the violence happened at his event. If the violence happened elsewhere in the world, let alone not immediately when his speech is made, then he is pretty obviously in the clear. If somehow he weren't, appeals would almost definitely overturn any conviction: that law doesn't appear to have been tested in federal courts, and very similar laws have not stood up to scrutiny.
Disorderly conduct could not likely be applied to events happening on foreign soil not directly coincident to the time of the speech. I am confident that trying to prosecute a US Citizen for speech made on US soil for the disorderly conduct (itself a crime) taking place outside of the US would be all but laughed out of court.
The only chance he would have had of being prosecuted would have been if the violence happenedat his event.
You consistently argue that laws are not updated to be in line with the progress of technology. Right now, I can be on a teleconference with a person in Israel or Japan. Anything I do here can be transmitted to that person effectively immediately, as though they were right there in the room with me. Jones' demonstration would have been broadcast, and that would have put the Muslim protestors effectively at the event.
If Jones burning had been recorded and broadcast 3 days later, and then there was violence, no, he would not have been liable. But if his message was broadcast and within a mere hour reached people halfway across the world, then one could readily build a case that those people were effectively at his event.
I am confident that trying to prosecute a US Citizen for speech made on US soil for the disorderly conduct (itself a crime) taking place outside of the US would be all but laughed out of court.
The mere fact that a Supreme Court justice agrees with me leads me to believe that the case is nowhere near as clear-cut as you think. It's not as clear-cut as I'm stating, either, but the fact is that this is a thing which must be decided by cases expressly because it is not a clear-cut case.
that law doesn't appear to have been tested in federal courts,
What, disorderly conduct? It's tested all the time. Nobody has ever tested it as applied to speech in this particular instance. The test that was created by Brandenburg v. Ohio hasn't really been implemented much at all, because nobody wants to tread that ground.
What are you guys even arguing about anymore? If someone could summarize exactly what is going on that would be real helpful. I want to understand what you guys are discussing but none of you are talking any sense!
What are you guys even arguing about anymore? If someone could summarize exactly what is going on that would be real helpful. I want to understand what you guys are discussing but none of you are talking any sense!
I contend that had Pastor Jones gone through with his burning of the Koran on 9/11, it would have been a crime punishable by Florida law, because his actions would fit the criteria for speech which is not protected by the First Amendment. Rym contends that the burning would not have been punishable by any law, because it would not have fit the very strict criteria that we have for laws which limit speech.
Independent of the disagreement about the application of the law, there is also a meta moral disagreement between the two of us. I contend that if we can abandon a strongly-held conviction in order to preserved human life, we are morally obligated to do so. Rym contends that certain principles are more important than human life, and must be upheld at all costs.
Of course, the arguments are more involved than that, but I believe that accurately sums up what is being debated.
WhaleShark wants to stop people saying stupid shit that could hurt people.
I need to clarify something here: I'm not talking about prior restraint through legal means. I'm talking about a situation in which we could apply a post facto punishment for speech. Prior restraint through public pressure is what was used to get Jones to back, and what we should use first in all such situations.
A - Speech that incites violence directly, saying "Go and hurt these people" = bad. Everyone agrees.
B - Speech that causes violence as a reaction against that speech, as in "Black people should be able to drink from this water fountain" and racist people getting angry. The protesters knew their speech and actions might cause violent reactions, and yet nobody ever thought or said they shouldn't have the right of protest and speech.
I'm talking about a situation in which we could apply a post facto punishment for speech.
So if speech I make now becomes inciteful after the fact, I'm now punished?
More to the point, should not everyone who participated in "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" have been punished for willfully inciting?
Even more to the point, the fact that the people reacting to the speech are foreigners on foreign soil very likely shields the speaker, and there was no imminent danger local to the event. Even if you were somehow able to get a disorderly conduct charge that wasn't overturned, that would set a precedent for making any speech that is unpopular anywhere in the world. There are enough factors here to confidently say that a disorderly conduct charge would have been thrown out had it been levied.
Locally, KKK rallies draw all manner of minor violence, and are protected. This protection derives largely from the fact that the violence is reactionary, not advocated. Disorderly Conduct almost always, in these cases, applies to the reactionary crowds, and not the KKK speakers themselves, no matter how inflammatory their remarks or actions.
In the case of the Koran, at best, Disorderly Conduct charges would have to be levied against the violent actors, not the speaker. But, since the violent action occurs not on US soil, it is not likely a prosecutable crime from either direction.
Also, Brandenburg v. Ohio seems to back me up pretty solidly. Not only is imminence pretty narrowly defined, but the test seems to require all of immediacy, advocacy, and likelihood. Even if you could prove the first and last, there was clearly no advocacy.
Reactionary violence is not enough of an excuse, by any reading of our laws, to warrant restriction of speech or post facto punishment.
There is this other factor that nobody is bringing up. The guys is protesting the violent nature of Islam. If his protest incites violence, he has won. If he is stopped from doing the protest, in any many that relies on the "You might cause violence" argument, he has won. The guy won. He was being a dick, but he won.
That people are missing this is like the "robot killer" concept that banning burning of American flags, that represent the freedoms of America, is a good idea.
More to the point, should not everyone who participated in "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" have been punished for willfully inciting?
No, because there was no imminence in that case. No actual violent protests occurred. Speech was fought with speech.
I will say that "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" was impossibly and painfully juvenile, though.
So if speech I make now becomes inciteful after the fact, I'm now punished?
If it does so imminently, well, yes. Technically, all punishments are applied post facto. Laws which are made post facto cannot apply, certainly, but I'm saying that we have laws which would have applied in that situation. There's no need to make new legislation; we just need to test what already exists.
No, because there was no imminence in that case. No actual violent protests occurred. Speech was fought with speech.
Except the lady who started it essentially has to go into witness protection because of the death threats. I guess you could say it was fought with speech...
The main issue I have with your argument though is that there is a fundamental difference between the "imminence" of a shouting fire in a crowded room situation as opposed to the "imminence" of riots. The former is fuelled by a flight or fight reactionary response that is fundamentally different from the emotional response of the later.
Except the lady who started it essentially has to go into witness protection because of the death threats. I guess you could say it was fought with speech...
Well, that's the reaction of militant Islam, and that's a problem by itself. Make no mistake about my intentions; while I want Jones to back off here, I only want him to do so to be the bigger man. The militant reaction has to stop, one way or another. Part of the problem is that even moderate Muslims get irrationally offended over depictions of Muhammad, and this creates a foundation of support for the more extreme views.
If we can incorporate the moderate ones into our culture and demonstrate the principles of calming the fuck down, then we can remove part of the environment that supports some extremist views. However, in the mean time, we must do something about these extremist reactions, and my moral argument is that when dealing with such a violent and explosive group, you cannot respond with inflammatory speech.
I break up lots of fistfights between very angry men, men who are larger than me and are hell-bent on hurting each other. You can't intervene with an extreme reaction; you have to intervene with a calm assertiveness. In this case, backing off from burning the Koran, while saying that we do not support the extremist reaction, is the best way to be calmly assertive.
The former is fuelled by a flight or fight reactionary response that is fundamentally different from the emotional response of the later.
Well, except that riots really are not a rational situation. The emotional reactions in a riot are heavily tied to adrenaline, a component of the fight-or-flight response.
Additionally, as irrational as it is, extremist Muslims believe that burning the Koran is the same as attacking them, and they've been so warped by their doctrine that they actually have involuntary responses. There have been a lot of studies using fundamentalist Christians demonstrating that they actually enter altered, irrational states of mind during revival meetings. It's an unpleasant though, but really, extremist believers do exhibit a lack of free will, and their emotions can be triggered almost like clockwork.
If you poke a bear with a sharp stick and get mauled, you are partly to blame. Muslims shouldn't react the way they do, but they do, and we need to address the situation. You can't address it if you're busy making it worse.
It's nice to say that they should exercise free will, but what do you do with a belief system that, in part, asks you to surrender that will?
Let me make something clear: I have nothing but disdain for the militant Islam reaction. However, we cannot cast disdain at others for their militant and extremist behavior unless we also cast that disdain at our own militant and extremist behaviors. Pragmatically, though, we need to address the extremist Islamic reaction in a way that will eventually stop or marginalize it.
The basic problem boils down to how do you be tolerant of someone who is intolerant of you? If the other side doesn't play by the rules, you lose.
Take this concept to a board game. Monopoly. Settlers of Catan. Tigris and Euphrates. Whatever you like. If player one is allowed to cheat the entire game and player two is not, the game is broken. Player one will always win.
So I can see where Pete's argument holds merit. To paraphrase: Extremistsshouldn't react the way they do, but they do, and we need to address the situation. If they are allowed to cheat at the social contract but we are not, we lose.
I will never be tolerant of the intolerance of other people. We aren't talking about bears. We're talking about people.
The pastor burning the Koran was, in some part, protesting the violent intolerance of Islamic reactionaries. I'm going to bring it back to this analogy again, but it's like saying "Those blacks in the south should have sit the fuck down at the back of the bus, because, you know, the KKK are a bad bunch."
No. Fuck that. Live and let live. If other people are not letting live, the people who are living are not the ones to blame.
I also want to emphasize another point: I am not at all comfortable with my argument. I hate it, but I truly feel that it is necessary.
I will never be tolerant of the intolerance of other people.
Nor will I, no matter from whence said intolerance comes. Jones is being every bit as intolerant as the Muslim extremists, and I will not abide it. I also will not abide the Muslim extremists, but I tread more carefully because they've demonstrated a penchant for killing people fucking dead.
...they've demonstrated a penchant for killing people fucking dead.
Everyone knows this, but it's not your responsibility, nor is it up to the government to regulate or punish the causes of other people's intolerance.
In fact, I would argue that it then makes standing up to their ludicrous demands an act of valor.
The fact that, as an American Citizen, I can burn the flag or bible or whatever to express my powerful feelings, and be protected in this expression, is a wonderful thing. A similar act in many nations would bring swift death. Kowtowing to ludicrous demands only strengthens the position of the ones making them.
Who is dying for this Koran burner's rights? (Rights, not beliefs.)
Is it him? Maybe. Everyone else who might be harmed has stated their disagreement and distanced themselves already. If anyone is harmed, the people doing the harming will be breaking the law and should be punished in some appropriate way.
There are many people who say and do things I disagree with that might cause harm to me. But I let it slide. I can vote against them if they try to gain too much power, but their right to speak is not mine to take away. If you are talking about soldiers in Afghanistan being in more harm... well, they are in a WAR, and the war they are fighting is against religious extremists so other people can enjoy the right to do and live and say what they want in some kind of safe freedom. To ask people to not be free to help keep soldiers who are fighting for freedom from being targets in a war where they are already bombing the shit out of people... it all sounds a bit wishy washy on the reasoning side of things. To me.
I have an idea. Let's all stop caring about the Pastor Jones story, stop covering it in the media, and let the crazy man do his crazy shit in isolation. There, I fixed it. No longer is there any risk of a problem. The only reason his thing was even remotely successful at raising a shitstorm is that it had heavy media coverage.
So maybe we should be looking at restricting the media's rights instead of the crazy man, since the crazy man didn't directly speak to the people who reacted with violence. The media filmed him and beamed it overseas, yo. It's clearly the media that incited this violence.
Comments
If you don't actually see flames, or smell smoke, and some dude just yells "Fire," you can exert your free will to confirm this or not. That doesn't matter, though, because the expected and likely reaction is one of panic.
Whether or not we like it, words can influence people to do things involuntarily. Loud arguments induce the fight-or-flight response, for example; that is entirely involuntary. Likewise, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even when there is no fire, is likely to induce a panic response.
EDIT: You should also know that the "shouting fire" business is no longer the actual test, because it's actually more restrictive of speech than what we use now. Simply inducing panic for the lulz is not sufficient; your speech must result in lawless action specifically, it must be likely to result in that action, and you must have the intent for your speech to result in that action.
My point being that the Mulsims who wander out into the street and then cause harm have a choice to do not do so. They are not spontaneously and involuntarily rioting because they believe their lives to be in danger. They is no perceived immediate threat to their life.
Therefore the two situations are not comparable.
EDIT:I were speaking to a few others who were using said "shouting fire" as an comparison between the two situations.
We know that militant Muslims react violently and irrationally to things like this, they were in a position where they were likely to do imminent harm, and Jones had the intent for his actions to provoke a response. He didn't commit a crime because he didn't actually go through with it, but had he, he could have been charged with disorderly conduct under Florida law, and subsequent appeals would likely have established that his actions were not protected speech.
Should they be reacting like this? No, and that's a separate discussion. Militant Islam is a problem, and we need to find a way to deal with it.
The thing about the "shouting fire" example is that you have to point out that there is no fire. It has everything to do with provoking involuntary responses which are individually irrational. If someone shouts "Fire," and there's an actual fire, there's no crime. If someone shouts "Fire," and the unthinking mob stampedes without bothering to check, then there can be a crime.
I stated that the term "full retard" was insensitive, and that thoughts could be conveyed in a better way. I never told anyone to stop using the term, nor suggested that I had a right to do so. In my next comment, I pointed out the hypocrisy of using inflamatory language to criticize a person for using inflamatory language.
That's all I said.
It would help, Joe, if you refrain from mischaracterizing my comments.
As to the meat of the debate, people seem to fail to understand the distinction between the law and my subjective moral beliefs. They are not the same, nor should they be.
Joe, you stated: Please show me where I told people to stop using the term. Hint: You can't. I'm happy to debate you, but I ask that you have some personal intergrity so we can stick to the issues that matter.
Disorderly conduct could not likely be applied to events happening on foreign soil not directly coincident to the time of the speech. I am confident that trying to prosecute a US Citizen for speech made on US soil for the disorderly conduct (itself a crime) taking place outside of the US would be all but laughed out of court.
If Jones burning had been recorded and broadcast 3 days later, and then there was violence, no, he would not have been liable. But if his message was broadcast and within a mere hour reached people halfway across the world, then one could readily build a case that those people were effectively at his event. The mere fact that a Supreme Court justice agrees with me leads me to believe that the case is nowhere near as clear-cut as you think. It's not as clear-cut as I'm stating, either, but the fact is that this is a thing which must be decided by cases expressly because it is not a clear-cut case. What, disorderly conduct? It's tested all the time. Nobody has ever tested it as applied to speech in this particular instance. The test that was created by Brandenburg v. Ohio hasn't really been implemented much at all, because nobody wants to tread that ground.
Independent of the disagreement about the application of the law, there is also a meta moral disagreement between the two of us. I contend that if we can abandon a strongly-held conviction in order to preserved human life, we are morally obligated to do so. Rym contends that certain principles are more important than human life, and must be upheld at all costs.
Of course, the arguments are more involved than that, but I believe that accurately sums up what is being debated.
Rym thinks the constitutional implications of doing something like this are unjust.
At least that's what was going on two pages ago. I think they're just trying to out stubborn each other at this point.
A - Speech that incites violence directly, saying "Go and hurt these people" = bad. Everyone agrees.
B - Speech that causes violence as a reaction against that speech, as in "Black people should be able to drink from this water fountain" and racist people getting angry. The protesters knew their speech and actions might cause violent reactions, and yet nobody ever thought or said they shouldn't have the right of protest and speech.
Some people are confusing A and B.
More to the point, should not everyone who participated in "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" have been punished for willfully inciting?
Even more to the point, the fact that the people reacting to the speech are foreigners on foreign soil very likely shields the speaker, and there was no imminent danger local to the event. Even if you were somehow able to get a disorderly conduct charge that wasn't overturned, that would set a precedent for making any speech that is unpopular anywhere in the world. There are enough factors here to confidently say that a disorderly conduct charge would have been thrown out had it been levied.
Locally, KKK rallies draw all manner of minor violence, and are protected. This protection derives largely from the fact that the violence is reactionary, not advocated. Disorderly Conduct almost always, in these cases, applies to the reactionary crowds, and not the KKK speakers themselves, no matter how inflammatory their remarks or actions.
In the case of the Koran, at best, Disorderly Conduct charges would have to be levied against the violent actors, not the speaker. But, since the violent action occurs not on US soil, it is not likely a prosecutable crime from either direction.
Reactionary violence is not enough of an excuse, by any reading of our laws, to warrant restriction of speech or post facto punishment.
That people are missing this is like the "robot killer" concept that banning burning of American flags, that represent the freedoms of America, is a good idea.
I will say that "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" was impossibly and painfully juvenile, though. If it does so imminently, well, yes. Technically, all punishments are applied post facto. Laws which are made post facto cannot apply, certainly, but I'm saying that we have laws which would have applied in that situation. There's no need to make new legislation; we just need to test what already exists.
The main issue I have with your argument though is that there is a fundamental difference between the "imminence" of a shouting fire in a crowded room situation as opposed to the "imminence" of riots. The former is fuelled by a flight or fight reactionary response that is fundamentally different from the emotional response of the later.
If we can incorporate the moderate ones into our culture and demonstrate the principles of calming the fuck down, then we can remove part of the environment that supports some extremist views. However, in the mean time, we must do something about these extremist reactions, and my moral argument is that when dealing with such a violent and explosive group, you cannot respond with inflammatory speech.
I break up lots of fistfights between very angry men, men who are larger than me and are hell-bent on hurting each other. You can't intervene with an extreme reaction; you have to intervene with a calm assertiveness. In this case, backing off from burning the Koran, while saying that we do not support the extremist reaction, is the best way to be calmly assertive. Well, except that riots really are not a rational situation. The emotional reactions in a riot are heavily tied to adrenaline, a component of the fight-or-flight response.
Additionally, as irrational as it is, extremist Muslims believe that burning the Koran is the same as attacking them, and they've been so warped by their doctrine that they actually have involuntary responses. There have been a lot of studies using fundamentalist Christians demonstrating that they actually enter altered, irrational states of mind during revival meetings. It's an unpleasant though, but really, extremist believers do exhibit a lack of free will, and their emotions can be triggered almost like clockwork.
It's nice to say that they should exercise free will, but what do you do with a belief system that, in part, asks you to surrender that will?
Let me make something clear: I have nothing but disdain for the militant Islam reaction. However, we cannot cast disdain at others for their militant and extremist behavior unless we also cast that disdain at our own militant and extremist behaviors. Pragmatically, though, we need to address the extremist Islamic reaction in a way that will eventually stop or marginalize it.
Take this concept to a board game. Monopoly. Settlers of Catan. Tigris and Euphrates. Whatever you like. If player one is allowed to cheat the entire game and player two is not, the game is broken. Player one will always win.
So I can see where Pete's argument holds merit. To paraphrase: Extremists shouldn't react the way they do, but they do, and we need to address the situation. If they are allowed to cheat at the social contract but we are not, we lose.
The pastor burning the Koran was, in some part, protesting the violent intolerance of Islamic reactionaries. I'm going to bring it back to this analogy again, but it's like saying "Those blacks in the south should have sit the fuck down at the back of the bus, because, you know, the KKK are a bad bunch."
No. Fuck that. Live and let live. If other people are not letting live, the people who are living are not the ones to blame.
The fact that, as an American Citizen, I can burn the flag or bible or whatever to express my powerful feelings, and be protected in this expression, is a wonderful thing. A similar act in many nations would bring swift death. Kowtowing to ludicrous demands only strengthens the position of the ones making them.
It is, in fact, the act of a fundamentalist mind.
Is it him? Maybe. Everyone else who might be harmed has stated their disagreement and distanced themselves already. If anyone is harmed, the people doing the harming will be breaking the law and should be punished in some appropriate way.
There are many people who say and do things I disagree with that might cause harm to me. But I let it slide. I can vote against them if they try to gain too much power, but their right to speak is not mine to take away. If you are talking about soldiers in Afghanistan being in more harm... well, they are in a WAR, and the war they are fighting is against religious extremists so other people can enjoy the right to do and live and say what they want in some kind of safe freedom. To ask people to not be free to help keep soldiers who are fighting for freedom from being targets in a war where they are already bombing the shit out of people... it all sounds a bit wishy washy on the reasoning side of things. To me.
That said, maybe we should send a few pallets of bibles to Iraq and teach them all a valuable lesson in free speech.
Someone tell me this is a troll.
So maybe we should be looking at restricting the media's rights instead of the crazy man, since the crazy man didn't directly speak to the people who reacted with violence. The media filmed him and beamed it overseas, yo. It's clearly the media that incited this violence.