63 replies to this topic

[iargue]

argue... I think he was saying that if you scroll up, you'll find the exact same video embedded on this page.

I honestly think Cara put it well.. spreading hate effects us all.

OTOH, He has the right to do it... He's just a hateful moron for doing it. =/

I know exactly what he meant, and I posted the video because ITS WHAT I BELIEVE. Atleast 10 people here have expressed the same views as other people. Why cant I do it too?

[Mishelle]

Oh im sure the burning was hate inspired. Good observation mishelle. I would like to classify it as that as well. The cross burning was a good example.

The people who oppose the community center a few blocks from ground zero or who support the Quran burnings are misinformed pieces of shit who obviously know nothing about 9/11. If they did they would know that Muslim-Americans died in 9/11 too, so why disrespect their religion when they're also victims? They're obviously using this as an excuse to perpetuate racism and it shouldn't be allowed.

Yes but people seem to forget that the United-States is a free country. Lets say your neighbour lets his grass grow 4 feet tall when your trying to sell your house, he may be doing it on purpose so that you wont sell your house because visitors dont want a neighbour like that. Even so, being the douche that he is, is has all the right to be that way and you cant do anything to stop him.

This is in the same vein, you cant tell people what to do.

Even in some communities you're not allowed to do that. In my gated community you have to keep your grass neat, if you let it grow 4ft tall you get fined. You may not be able to tell people what to do, but if what they're doing negatively effects you and other people you can impose consequences for it.

[Freshx]

LOL that was like a hour and a half from where i live and if you were driving that way cops stopped you and looked all in your car and stuff it was the stupidest thing ever.

[Mishelle]

I understand where you are coming from.. I do. I find it to be a completely hateful act that is shrouded in ignorance and discrimination. However, I don't think that I'm a 'misinformed piece of shit' for saying that the man has a constitutional right under freedom of expression to do so. I'm not saying we shouldn't speak publicly about how ignorant or how awful it is... but it's no different than people burning the bible or the american flag... Do I think they are hateful people? Of course. I would never condone their blind hatred, but instead would like to spread love and understanding to them. But at the end of the day, they are Americans and their right to do this is protected. (Though just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's moral. )

This isn't any kind of expression though, this is hateful fear mongering used to discriminate against people of a particular religion, make them feel unwelcome in their own country, and basically attack them for being a part of the Islam religion when they had nothing to do with 9/11. If someone decided to stick a burning cross on my lawn, it wouldn't be ok. There would obviously be legal consequences and this is the same thing. There's no message that needs to be heard when it's racist, discriminatory, predatory, and promotes racial violence. The religious extremists committed 9/11, the Muslim-Americans who worked in the twin towers who lost their lives that day didn't. So they shouldn't act like they're all pro-American and patriotic when they're basically shitting on dead Americans' graves by burning and shaming their religion. Cross burning isn't protected by the first amendment because of the intent, so this shouldn't be protected either because the intent is blatantly racist.

Edited by Mishelle, 16 October 2010 - 05:08 PM.

[Mishelle]

Cross burning isn't protected if it's done with the intent of intimidation, the supreme court upheld a Virginia law banning cross burning even on their own property they're not allowed to burn crosses if they're able to prove it was for purposes of intimidation.

Before the Court were two separate Virginia cases that arose under the law. In one, a cross was burned at a Ku Klux Klan rally on a farm. The farm was fairly isolated and apparently relatively few people saw the incident. In the other, individuals burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family's home.

The Court's decision allowed both prosecutions to go forward - but required specific proof of the intent to intimidate in each. Such proof will likely be easy to provide in the case of the cross-burning in the family's yard - plainly a threatening tactic, meant to be understood as such. But the requisite may be much harder to provide in the case of the Ku Klux Klan rally, since rally attendees, far from being intimidated, were probably there voluntarily to support the cross-burning.

http://writ.news.fin...hemerinsky.html

I think this is pretty much the same circumstances since they're blatantly attacking a religion and trying to fault every single Muslim for the acts of 9/11. This can obviously lead to hate speech, and hate crimes against Muslim Americans.When people burn flags they're attacking the American political system, they're not attacking Americans, since they're American citizens themselves. If someone burns a Bible they're usually attacking Christianity, if they're attacking Christians and trying to intimidate them and religiously persecute them then that wouldn't be allowed under laws against intimidation, since intimidation is assault under the law. But this Quran burning is baselessly attacking Muslim Americans, specifically ones of Middle Eastern decent. Obviously a hate crime.

Edited by Mishelle, 16 October 2010 - 05:52 PM.

[Mishelle]

There is a difference there. This man is burning books on his own property in the name of freedom of expression. Burning a cross on someone's lawn to intimidate them is a completely different action. Even in the supreme court case you cited it was stated that not all cross burnings are illegal.

The argument that burning these Qur'an's is of intimidation is inherently flawed. Muslims have no reason to fear for their safety in their own country because some loony is trying to disparage their religion by making a political statement.

They allowed the prosecution against the KKK members who burned the cross on their own property as well. Even though it's on his property, he still got a lot of media attention for this. Someone going in their back yard and burning a Quran is different than this Church getting world wide media attention for attacking someone elses' religion. He's doing this as a protest against the Islamic community center being built in Manhattan. The only reason he canceled it was because he was under the impression that if he didn't do it they wouldn't build the center, this is blatant intimidation.

Jones said an idea came to him while praying that he would call off the planned burning of the Quran, if Muslim leaders in New York City would agree to move the site of Islamic center away from site of the 2001 terrorist attacks in lower Manhattan.

http://www.voanews.c...-102571464.html

Edited by Mishelle, 16 October 2010 - 05:59 PM.

[Mishelle]

He basically said that "if you don't move this Islamic center, I'm going to stage a massive protest against your ethnicity/religion and get as many people as I can to join in." He had press coverage, so obviously he could get any American who thinks this stupid idea is ok to go along with it. This would've definitely lead to violence/threats if not in America then definitely overseas. He basically used the fear of the consequences of Quran burning to push a political agenda, how can you say that's not intimidation?

Edited by Mishelle, 16 October 2010 - 06:11 PM.

[Mishelle]

His actions would not directly be violent. If I make a hateful statement, and someone hears it and goes out and kills someone, would I be held responsible legally? No. That's what it ultimately boils down to.


Another example are the nazi and KKK rallies. You don't think that they preach all kinds of disgusting hateful messages? Why are they allowed then? It's a case of fundamental freedom of expression.

Actually yes you will. If you say something that encourages illegal violence then you'll be prosecuted for it. Fighting words are not protected by the first amendment.

He's saying that every Muslim is violent, is going to hell, and that we should burn the Quran and organize against their religion because they're bad people. Even if they have a freedom of speech does this not infringe upon their rights to freely practice their religion without being targeted and persecuted?

[Mishelle]

You keep trying to say it's not intimidation when it blatantly is. It has press coverage, it's racist intimidation, provocation. There's certain things that are not protected under free speech, just like cross burning isn't because of the intimidating implications this should be either because he's blatantly attacking an ethnic minority purely based on their religion. America was founded because people wanted the freedom to practice their religion without being persecuted, so why would we allow shit like that now?

[xavarn]

I think that people are making such a big deal over religion when it doesnt even exist in the first place.

[iargue]

Actually yes you will. If you say something that encourages illegal violence then you'll be prosecuted for it. Fighting words are not protected by the first amendment.

He's saying that every Muslim is violent, is going to hell, and that we should burn the Quran and organize against their religion because they're bad people. Even if they have a freedom of speech does this not infringe upon their rights to freely practice their religion without being targeted and persecuted?

No. Our freedom of speech allows you to say as many hateful and illegal violence inducing things you want. You can go and say, "Kill humans" all day long. Its your right to do it. Unless you explicitly plan or commit the murder, you are not legally accountable. ITs a thing called, PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU.

In -america- You can say anything you want, as long as it does not directly cause someone to die. An example of something not protected. Is yelling fire, causing a stampede, and getting someone killed, or causing property damage. Thats illegal because you directly caused that to happen. Another thing that is illegal is to directly threaten someones life. If you say, "I'm going to kill Muslims" Then that is illegal, but if you say, "I am going to burn their favorite book" Your not committing a crime.

Nothing he is doing illegal. Regardless of if its wrong or not, he isn't breaking the law.

Burning a cross on someones lawn is obviously illegal because its not your property. You can burn crosses on your lawn every single day and its fine. You can also burn whatever book you want. So long as your not burning the person holding the book too. You can also tell people, "IF you dont stop doing something, I will burn a book" And thats not illegal to. ITS JUST A BOOk.

You keep trying to say it's not intimidation when it blatantly is. It has press coverage, it's racist intimidation, provocation. There's certain things that are not protected under free speech, just like cross burning isn't because of the intimidating implications this should be either because he's blatantly attacking an ethnic minority purely based on their religion. America was founded because people wanted the freedom to practice their religion without being persecuted, so why would we allow shit like that now?

And there we go, the racist card played by a black person. I was waiting!. You dont know what racist is. Because Muslims are not a race. They happen to be a religion. Whereas racism deals entirely with race. RACE. Not RELIGION. Hes not being racist. Hes being.... Religionist?.

Let me again clarify what freedom of speech doesnt cover.

(1) Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another person. Our right to freedom of expression is restricted when our expressions (whether a spoken slander or written libel) cause harm to the reputation of another person. The courts recognize that words can hurt us, for example, by harming our ability to earn a living (economic harm).

Doesnt apply in this case, because hes burning a book.

(2) Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. This is narrowly limited to situations in which a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her speech would really cause harm to others. We can imagine works of art which might cause real panic among the audience, perhaps a contemporary version of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, which caused considerable panic when it first aired on the radio, and in turn was based on H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds.

Clearly, hes inviting people to burn a book, and if he yells fire when the book is fine. I think hes okay?

3) Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 [1942]) This famous exception is much discussed in recent decades, but rarely the basis for a decision upholding an abridgement of free speech.

He doesnt say, "I'm going to burn a muslim", or anything at all against someone to cause harm. Therefor, hes not under this category.

(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Now, if he said anything about killing muslims, this would be it. But even if it was, its probably not. Due to the fact that rappers and nazi protesters and other people that say to "Kill white people" or "Kill police" and they are fine. This is because a general statement to a group of people isn't usually covered underneath this crime. Usually its directly telling someone else to do a crime, and not speaking to a group.

5) Sedition: Although not without controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld statutes which prohibit the advocacy of unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government. As with prohibitions discussed earlier, the expressions in question are assessed according to the circumstances. Academic discussion of the theories of, say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test, especially in this post-Soviet era. The theoretical consideration and even endorsement of these views could not remotely be considered to be reasonable expectations of the actual overthrow of the government. But it is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States (the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of success by contemporary Marxists.

While this is clearly against the consitution. The government makes the rules, and so this stand. Still. Hes not hating on the government, but on a book.

(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment:

(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Doesnt fall upon this one either.

(7) Establishment of Religion: Some speech is restricted because it constitutes the establishment of religion, which is itself prohibited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.") Prayer led by a principal in a public school would violate the establishment clause. Thus, a school policy prohibiting the principal from leading such prayers would not violate the right of free speech. This is controversial to some, who believe that banning prayer in the public schools limits an equally important right, freedom of religion. This tension illustrates the not-uncommon challenge of balancing competing and perhaps even irreconcilable values in the Constitution.

Er. Hes burning a book? Not creating a new religion.


Now. Feel free to link me a survey that proves your point.

Also, just for the record, America wasn't founded upon religion freedom... That's a nice tagline and all.. but it's inaccurate. America was founded upon the basis of money. Even the puritans who left England for freedom from religious persecution were actually coming to america to build a perfect society of absolute purity for their god... they would shun, publicly humiliate, and even banish/kill people who weren't of their belief systems. In fact, Calvinistic views of pre-determination was really the accepted credo at the time... and people like Roger Williams who tried to dispute it were banished to Rhode Island. It was a long time coming before we began to implement religious tolerance.

Yeah. People dont get that the people who left england, didn't leave so people could do whatever they wanted. They did it so -they- could make the religious rules.

[Noitidart]

I think Mishelle intimidation is on the right track. But maybe when it gets press coverage like that its getting a lot of a attraction from other people. People ask why he's doing it and they are reminded of 9/11. And because of 9/11 there were many many hate crimes committed. So with this kind of publicity it is possible that those crimes could happen again. At home and internationally, like in the past. << This was the reason they disallowed it no?

[Noitidart]

Oh no bro i totally understand. Im just trying to see where Mishelle is coming from.
I thought thats what his excuse was after he was publicly denounced by obama or some other officials?

[Noitidart]

Ohhh then why are people giving obama and that other official so much crap. In the vid above with that fat guy he's like "general betray us".