F*** me, Ray Bradbury (Burning the Quran)

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:22 am

This is rich. WBC is complaining about the amount of press Terry Jones is getting because they did it first.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:15 pm

Enough wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
Scuzz wrote:Just a weird fact but I have read today that this is Tim Tebow's preacher..............
I seriously doubt that's true; this church is pretty small and I believe Tebow went to a more mainstream place.
It's not his church. In Florida he attends the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville. And delta smelt are an endangered species native to California. Let's just say one should never trust what they read blindly.

Okay...now your just trying to confuse me.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:02 pm

Maybe we should burn copies of the Quran in protest of them burning American flags in protest of us getting ready to burn copies of the Quaran.

I can't say for sure whether or not aliens exist, but if they're watching us I'm pretty sure it's stuff like this that would keep them from establishing formal contact. We're all ridiculous.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:08 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Maybe we should burn copies of the Quran in protest of them burning American flags in protest of us getting ready to burn copies of the Quaran.

I can't say for sure whether or not aliens exist, but if they're watching us I'm pretty sure it's stuff like this that would keep them from establishing formal contact. We're all ridiculous.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:54 pm

I'm all for putting this preacher in front of a firing squad and shooting him but............on the other hand I'm so sick and tired of 1.5 billion Muslims hating the US and promising to hate us even more and do nasty things to us because of this one nut job too.
Turn the mid east into a sheet of glass and invest in natural gas, wind and solar power.
And yes, I'm in a lousy mood.

craterus · Post by **craterus** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:47 pm

Smoove_B wrote: I can't say for sure whether or not aliens exist, but if they're watching us I'm pretty sure it's stuff like this that would keep them from establishing formal contact. We're all ridiculous.

Dude we are the #1 most popular channel on their "TV" sets!!

Aliens wrote:Look! The humans are doing something funny AGAIN!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:08 pm

cheeba wrote: I already said condemning is fine. It's just as fine as burning books, it's a right. Condemning it because book burning is just a douchey thing to do is just peaches in my book. But the reason this is such a big story is because when you piss off Islam, unlike every other religion on the planet, they get all uppity and riot and attack/murder people for expressing themselves freely, etc. It's like my link in my last post of the Ground Zero Mosque. The Imam is practically threatening violence if things don't go his way. It's not from him, of course, but shit will go down, he says.

I have my own problem with Islam's culture of violence, and I've said so in the past.

But I don't think condemning the Koran burning is the same thing as tip-toeing around because we're afraid of Islamic violence. Opposing the book-burning is just the decent thing to do. Burning the Koran says nothing but "we are at war with your religion, not with your extremists." (It also says, "We burn books here in the Land of the Free.")

I do believe the idiot has a right to so it under the first amendment. But we should react to it the same way we would react to some asshole planting swastika flags in the property he owns next to a synagogue.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:11 pm

Paul Roberts wrote: I do believe the idiot has a right to so it under the first amendment. But we should react to it the same way we would react to some asshole planting swastika flags in the property he owns next to a synagogue.

I think that's cheeba's point. Under your scenario, we wouldn't tell Americans that our soldiers will be put in danger from the extremist Jews.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:10 pm

Looks like the asshole is canceling his foray into his 15 minutes of famedom (and complete and utter stupidity). I have no doubt he would have met an untimely death had he followed through with his brilliant idea.

Thanks be to God (and Allah)

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:17 pm

The Beeb

Terry Jones said he was calling off the Florida event after the group behind a planned mosque close to Ground Zero in New York agreed to relocate it.

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Supposedly he's going to meet with the imam on Saturday. Seriously? This guy, who by all accounts is a cult leader in the vein of the WBC, is going to be a representative for the US?

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:34 pm

I'm not sure that I agree that someone who knowingly incites violence cannot be stopped. Not that anyone is asking me.

I mean, there SHOULD be limits to the amount of freedoms that we have, if only to stop stupid assholes like this guy from causing...who knows what. At the LEAST, his dealio would have disturbed the local peace, and certainly put our troops more at risk, when they are actively trying to stabilize two countries (well, one now). Just doesn't seem right that someone can do that really.

Would this not be the equivalent of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? You can't do that either (without repercussions), or am I mistaken?

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:44 pm

Wait, what?

"We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans," Jones said during a news conference. We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it."

He was for it before he was against it!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:46 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:I'm not sure that I agree that someone who knowingly incites violence cannot be stopped. Not that anyone is asking me.

I mean, there SHOULD be limits to the amount of freedoms that we have, if only to stop stupid assholes like this guy from causing...who knows what. At the LEAST, his dealio would have disturbed the local peace, and certainly put our troops more at risk, when they are actively trying to stabilize two countries (well, one now). Just doesn't seem right that someone can do that really.

Would this not be the equivalent of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? You can't do that either (without repercussions), or am I mistaken?

I believe that the act is too far from causing immediate, demonstrable harm to be covered by "Fire"-in-a-crowded-theater. (I'm sure that one of OO's attorneys will be along to explain it for reals.)

This is the kind of issue that has to be debated in the public forum. It's a stupid, probably harmful thing to do, but he does have a right to do it. And reasonable people have a responsibility to oppose this kind of thing using their own freedom of speech.

What's just as stupid is the argument that goes, "He has a right to do it, so quit saying he shouldn't!" The right to do a thing is not a reason to do it.

[edits for typos]

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:47 pm

Paul Roberts wrote:The right to do a thing is not a reason to do it.

QFT

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:59 pm

Exodor wrote:Wait, what?

"We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans," Jones said during a news conference. We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it."
He was for it before he was against it!

This guy is like Jack Thompson's crazier brother.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:19 pm

I don't think "moral outrage by your peers" is enough for cases like this. I was actually shocked (and pleased) when it worked out and the douche realized the implications of his actions (much like theater yeller thinking about the consequences of yelling "fire!", pre-yell) but it could have gone the other way, and undoubtedly people would have been hurt as a result of his actions.

I really believe he should not have the RIGHT to do it.

Interestingly, I read an article earlier today quoting some group (maybe Hamas? Definitely one of the more militant Islamic groups), threatening Mr. Dumb Ass. And they specifically stated "this is not an issue between Islam and Christianity, but an issue between Mr. Dildo and "Hamas" (or whatever group was). I really need to look that up to quote properly, but the general idea was that their anger was only directed at this one dude, not the US as a whole, or Christians, for instance, and they were making that clear.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:29 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:I mean, there SHOULD be limits to the amount of freedoms that we have, if only to stop stupid assholes like this guy from causing...who knows what.

I don't even know what to say to that, other than you're crazier than this pastor if you really believe this. That's about the most un-American sentiment I've heard from an American on these forums.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:33 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:I really believe he should not have the RIGHT to do it.

Luckily, we have the First Amendment to counter people who think as you do. But again, having the right is not the same as having a good reason.

Make no mistake, I think he's a right and proper tool for wanting to do it, as I think the same about people who burn the American flag, especially U.S. citizens, but the Constitution was written to protect everyone's speech from the majority, not just those with whom the majority agrees.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:35 pm

cheeba wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:I mean, there SHOULD be limits to the amount of freedoms that we have, if only to stop stupid assholes like this guy from causing...who knows what.
I don't even know what to say to that, other than you're crazier than this pastor if you really believe this. That's about the most un-American sentiment I've heard from an American on these forums.

Fine. I will be blowing myself up tomorrow. BUT I WILL BE ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. I'm sure the neighbors will be hurt too, but it's my right to do any stupid damn thing I want. Fuck everybody else, because it's my right to do whatever the hell I want to, at the expense of, and in this case, detriment of, others.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:39 pm

There ARE limits on our freedoms, including the purchasing and handling of explosives, so you don't actually have the freedom to blow yourself up on your own property. Now if you want to go out like the monks protesting Viet Nam and immolate yourself, knock yourself out. Just make sure you comply with the local fire codes while you do it.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:45 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:Fine. I will be blowing myself up tomorrow. BUT I WILL BE ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. I'm sure the neighbors will be hurt too, but it's my right to do any stupid damn thing I want. Fuck everybody else, because it's my right to do whatever the hell I want to, at the expense of, and in this case, detriment of, others.

...I have no words. Are you trolling? Is this serious? Because I don't think I've seen anyone this wacko on this forum in a while.

Clanwolfer · Post by **Clanwolfer** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:47 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:The Beeb

Terry Jones said he was calling off the Florida event after the group behind a planned mosque close to Ground Zero in New York agreed to relocate it.

10 to 1 he got phone-pranked on this - someone with an offensively stereotypical accent probably told him they'd move the mosque and that if Jones came to NY that he'd get a personal apology for the mosque location.

20 to 1 it was a radio station in Montreal that did it and it airs on tomorrow's morning show.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:48 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:I really believe he should not have the RIGHT to do it.
Luckily, we have the First Amendment to counter people who think as you do. But again, having the right is not the same as having a good reason.

Make no mistake, I think he's a right and proper tool for wanting to do it, as I think the same about people who burn the American flag, especially U.S. citizens, but the Constitution was written to protect everyone's speech from the majority, not just those with whom the majority agrees.

You guys are pointing at something that I am not concerned with...AGREEMENT. It doesn't matter if I AGREE with this guy or not. His actions would have directly resulted in harm, not only to our troops, and probably civilians in the US, but also to our country. I would feel the same way if someone was to publicly announce that they were going to do ANYthing that would harm so many people, not to mention completely (at least temporarily) fuck up international relations.

SHOULD people get hurt or killed because of this? Hell no, it's stupid (imo).
Should it cause problems for our troops abroad? No.

Would it? Yes, of course, and everybody knew it, which is why you had not only such a public outcry, but a rare, high level, direct denouncement from generals, diplomats and the president.

Do you guys think it's ok for someone to yell "fire" in a theater? Should someone have COMPLETE freedom to yell anything they want, even if others get hurt or killed as a result?

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:54 pm

I mean this only partially sarcastic.....but why isn't this a "hate" crime.........?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:55 pm

Too early for funny captions?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:11 pm

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater creates an immediate panic situation that would create a reasonable expectation of causing immediate harm due to natural reactions. burning a book that makes someone angry enough to attack our forces is not an immediate panic situation. And therein lies the difference as to why one is illegal and one is not.

The end result is that there will likely be injuries in both cases, but there are differences in time frame and personal responsibility that do not make these cases equal.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:15 pm

Scuzz wrote:I mean this only partially sarcastic.....but why isn't this a "hate" crime.........?

I don't understand the question.

Do you mean, why isn't this illegal?

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:19 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:
Do you guys think it's ok for someone to yell "fire" in a theater? Should someone have COMPLETE freedom to yell anything they want, even if others get hurt or killed as a result?

What do you mean by "ok" -- legal, or moral?

First Amendment law is pretty clear. Speech can't be criminalized on the "it may make someone do something violent" theory unless it poses a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. The danger that people might get angry on the other side of the world and launch an attack is almost certainly not imminent or clear and present enough. A good thing, too. Otherwise, I don't see why you couldn't punish people for printing Mohammed cartoons, like a damned Canadian or something.

The moral issue is somewhat more complex.

Edit: I'm a dummy, I forgot. The speech must not only be likely to create imminent lawless action, it must be intended to incite such action. See, e.g., Brandenburg.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater creates an immediate panic situation that would create a reasonable expectation of causing immediate harm due to natural reactions. burning a book that makes someone angry enough to attack our forces is not an immediate panic situation. And therein lies the difference as to why one is illegal and one is not.

The end result is that there will likely be injuries in both cases, but there are differences in time frame and personal responsibility that do not make these cases equal.

Law trivia: the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" analogy comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in a World War I era case. He employed the analogy to support the Court's conclusion that the government could criminalize passing out anti-draft literature during a war. That conclusion is no longer good law; it hasn't been for half a century, under the clear-and-present-danger standard above. But people keep talking about the fire in the theatre. (And, BTW, Holmes said you could only criminalize falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre.)

On a related note, people like citing the maxim "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Generally they don't realize they are quoting Justice Jackson dissenting in a free speech case -- that is to say, they are quoting the losing argument in a case that is a precursor to the clear and present danger standard.

Hence, when people employ the "shout fire in a crowded theatre" and "constitution is not a suicide pact" arguments to support suppressing speech, they are citing an arguments that were losers then or became losers later.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:33 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:
Scuzz wrote:I mean this only partially sarcastic.....but why isn't this a "hate" crime.........?
I don't understand the question.

Do you mean, why isn't this illegal?

It seems that the "hate crime accusation" is used for anything.....putting swastika's on churches or synagouges for examples....

Why isn't burning another groups "holy" book not a hate crime?

I don't like the idea mind you...just surprised some DA hasn't thought of it.

Clanwolfer · Post by **Clanwolfer** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:40 pm

Scuzz wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:
Scuzz wrote:I mean this only partially sarcastic.....but why isn't this a "hate" crime.........?
I don't understand the question.

Do you mean, why isn't this illegal?

It seems that the "hate crime accusation" is used for anything.....putting swastika's on churches or synagouges for examples....

Why isn't burning another groups "holy" book not a hate crime?

I don't like the idea mind you...just surprised some DA hasn't thought of it.

The other two things are vandalizing other people's property - that is, property that doesn't belong to them to deface.

If they broke into a mosque and burned all of THEIR Qurans, it would be a valid analogy. But they're not. I'm assuming they're going to their local Christian bookstore to the 'fiction' aisle and buying them properly, in which case, they own the things that they are burning.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:40 pm

Scuzz wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:
Scuzz wrote:I mean this only partially sarcastic.....but why isn't this a "hate" crime.........?
I don't understand the question.

Do you mean, why isn't this illegal?

It seems that the "hate crime accusation" is used for anything.....putting swastika's on churches or synagouges for examples....

Why isn't burning another groups "holy" book not a hate crime?

I don't like the idea mind you...just surprised some DA hasn't thought of it.

Because it's unconstitutional.

To (over)simplify, you can use motivation (including racial animus) as an aggravating factor (sometimes, under some circumstances) on things that are already illegal. So you might be able to charge a swastika on a synagogue as a hate crime, as a more serious form of vandalism. You can charge someone who assaults a victim based on race with a hate crime, as a more serious form of assault. Etc. Because those things are already illegal.

But you can't criminalize expression just because it's hateful.

Edit: Here's the Supreme Court case talking about the permissibility of using racial motive as an aggravating factor.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:49 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:I would feel the same way if someone was to publicly announce that they were going to do ANYthing that would harm so many people, not to mention completely (at least temporarily) fuck up international relations.

So what you're saying is you want us to go to jail for calling the French cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:55 pm

But you can't criminalize expression just because it's hateful.

What is this country coming to when you can't criminalize hate....?

Thanks for the explanation.....I think the term "hate crime" is an oxymoron anyway.
A PC invention.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:56 pm

Oh and kudos to Mr. Fed for including the Canada quip before I did

.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:04 pm

I don't know if Jones is crazy or crazy like a fox. This so-called "deal" with the iman in New York gives him the perfect excuse to burn the Quran next week - after the iman "renegs on the deal and refuses to move the mosque".

See it's not that he's a hater-it's those filthy mulsins what won't keep their word.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:22 pm

cheeba wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:I would feel the same way if someone was to publicly announce that they were going to do ANYthing that would harm so many people, not to mention completely (at least temporarily) fuck up international relations.
So what you're saying is you want us to go to jail for calling the French cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

Yup. Exactly. You nailed it.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:48 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:
cheeba wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:I would feel the same way if someone was to publicly announce that they were going to do ANYthing that would harm so many people, not to mention completely (at least temporarily) fuck up international relations.
So what you're saying is you want us to go to jail for calling the French cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
Yup. Exactly. You nailed it.

Okay. What is your guiding principle for exactly what speech can be censored because it might antagonize someone?

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:09 pm

What did I tell you?