- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,750
- Reaction score
- 32,390
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That's not really what I meant by "dangerous". I meant more that banning Quran burning could be an incentive for groups to act violently thinking it's a way to get their religious texts more legal protection.Dangerous or not is for the courts to decide. Watts v. U.S. and Virginia v. Black: true threats are unlawful
But in black vs Virginia it was established a blanket ban against cross burning was unconstitutional because it doesn't always amount to a true threat. Also, the ruling was heavily based on the use of cross burning to convey threats, no such history around Quran burning exists.
Should the way people might react half a world away dictate what speech is protected and which isn't? Seems like a dangerous precedent and a near encouragement to behave brutally.
We cannot keep every piece of information or every message occurring w/in the US from being seen by those in other countries. We really can only be concerned about our own laws. If we're going to outlaw any speech that could be potentially offensive to those in other countries, we might as well abolish the 1st amendment all together.We have to show some degree of respect for all the world's people. What's important is to protect our citizens' right to be completely offensive to Americans, not some other country with different beliefs and customs and laws.
We cannot keep every piece of information or every message occurring w/in the US from being seen by those in other countries. We really can only be concerned about our own laws. If we're going to outlaw any speech that could be potentially offensive to those in other countries, we might as well abolish the 1st amendment all together.
We could enforce laws to protect the human rights of those who have no say in our matters. We could have laws that prohibit the intentional harm with the sole purpose being to inflame and ignite rage in other countries. It would show very clearly that we are a noble people.
We have to show some degree of respect for all the world's people. What's important is to protect our citizens' right to be completely offensive to Americans, not some other country with different beliefs and customs and laws.
This weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that he'd like to see Congress consider doing something about burning the Quran.
Lindsey Graham On Koran Burning: “Freedom Of Speech Is A Great Idea But We’re In A War.”
If legislation were proposed making it illegal to burn or destroy the Quran (at least publicly) would you support it?
Follow up question, would such legislation may survive a Constitutional challenge?
BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Senate and House of Representatives --
(1) Believes that freedom of religion is a basic human right and that all religions throughout the world are worthy of respect.
(2) Abhors the acts of those individuals who would defame another's religion in any manner.
Nope, freedom of speech means freedom of speech, no thought police please.
You have no freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowed theater, ya know. Can't you just live with that? Do you feel that your rights are being infringed upon?
What if I say "Mohammed was jerk off who had an inflated sense of his own importance" and some bunch of ignorant losers takes offense and kills our troops or other citizens? Do we ban me from saying that?
Bad comparison. Yelling fire in a theater creates the impression that there are circumstances, which deliberation of, could cause death. Such a scenario isn't created by burning a quran. people can deliberate after such an act and choose not to kill random people for it
Should we send the bill for the damage caused by your insuits to your home or to your office? Could we arrange for you to meet the families of the soldiers who were killed defending your right to free speach so you can thank them?
It's exactly the same! You are saying something with the purpose to cause panick and violence. It's the same thing/
If we were going to do that, then virtually every political, religious, and philosophical text would be banned. Almost any speech can inspire murder. Should we have banned Catcher in the Rye, because that guy shot John Lennon? If we put people's feelings, even crazy/extremist people's feelings, above freedom, we become their slaves. Terry Jones is an ass, but the only ones responsible for the violence in Afghanistan are the killers themselves.
How about a no burning books rule. Maybe a book burning license only to be given to proper disposal authorities?
I would prefer that Qu'rans and bibles weren't burned. How to effectively implement any way to do that is another question. Society sets the precedent. If people get up in arms 'literally' over it and begin killing other people. Maybe it should be illegal. Ya know. :shrug:
So you are saying Terry Jones taught these crazy nutjobs in the middle east to be hateful and murderous?What if a child was taught to be hateful and murderous.
Yes. Humans are not mindless machines.Would his killing spree be his fault alone?
Unless you think people in Afghanistan/Muslims lack all faculties of independent thought, and control over their action, then no, it's not the same.
If there is no other purpose than pissing off foreigners then it should be banned.
I have no doubt that any person who commits suicide hijacking passenger jets is without any independent thought or any faculties. They are robots.
Seriously, if anybody is so upset with the Koran that they would cause a war they should go to the mideast and preach the love of the bible. Do it under the guize of yoga fitness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?