- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,746
- Reaction score
- 32,386
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.
I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What do you think?
Who's saying that? Certainly no one here.
Who's saying that? Certainly no one here.
I've seen lots of people that want hate speech laws enacted and they invariably almost always speak up when talking about "burning the Quran"...along with many other topics which they believe "promotes hate" (at least in their views).
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.
I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What do you think?
Rights are not absolute and the right to free speech has limitations. For instance, the first amendment doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, nor does it protect the right to incite violence, insurrection or riots.
"...Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[25][26] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[27] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action"......read
Clear and present danger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"....In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6]....read
Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Burning Qurans is little different than burning a cross on someones front lawn. I doubt few people would say that burning crosses wasn't hate speech. So why wouldn't burning Qurans be hate speech, too?
Hate speech alone is not illegal here. How do you justify giving special protection to the Quran in light of the Establishment Clause?
Rights are not absolute and the right to free speech has limitations. For instance, the first amendment doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, nor does it protect the right to incite violence, insurrection or riots.
"...Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[25][26] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[27] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action"......read
Clear and present danger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"....In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6]....read
Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Burning Qurans is little different than burning a cross on someones front lawn. I doubt few people would say that burning crosses wasn't hate speech. So why wouldn't burning Qurans be hate speech, too?
Terry Jones wasn't arrested for "hate speech". He was arrested because 3000 kerosene soaked books violated Florida law for unlawful conveyance of fuel. It is required that large quantities of fuel be stored in proper tanks and containers during transportation for obvious safety reasons.
I was arguing the freedom of speech clause and really haven't given the establishment clause much thought since it mostly applies to the government.
Hate speech that incites violence is illegal. Cross burning is also illegal so why wouldn't burning the Quran be illegal, too?
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.
I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What do you think?
If this is true then i'd say they are just charging him just to charge him with something. If a person spills kerosene in the back of their pickup are they violating the law?
Cross burning is not illegal. KKK do it all the time.
As long as I can also burn the original copy of the declaration of independence without fear of arrest.
Try it in the state of Virginia.
Doesn't matter. It is protected speech via the 1st amendment. No matter what law VA has it cannot trump the 1st amendment.
Do your research because the Supreme Court upheld VA's ban on cross burning.
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.
I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What do you think?
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?