Crap, now you're hitting below the belt, Sg
Seems like a Constitutional scholar should be able to use something under the guise of 'freedom of religion' that would enable the application of the STFU clause.

" he's not only willing to risk his own life, but also the lives of U.S. soldiers."

Sounds like a terrorist to me.

[/quote]

Yep, know a bunch of Fightin' Baptists that will swear the KJV 1611 is THE BIBLE and everything else is in error.

I for one won't be walking around on eggshells just to keep a bunch of turban wearing religious zealots happy. Hell, did you ever see people get so upset about burning an American flag? Nope..

I'm starting to feel like the entire world is so f'ked up there isn't much left worth saving. Maybe the Christians are right and this will all be over soon.

IFD



[/quote]

You beat me to it. I was going to bring up flag burning and book burning as having the same protections. Like it or not in this country we do have the right to do so no matter how much of an asshat the person doing so is.

Anything related to religion these days just further reinforces my thoughts that Sundays are a great day to go fishing.........

Can I get a hallelujah?

hallelujah

Couldn't agree more with SG's larger point. I do think there's a hard balance we fight between what we support, and what we allow. I absolutely believe we should allow this guy to do what he wants in this regard. I am not sure I support him, and clearly many others do not (well within their rights). Regardless, this is not yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.

IMO Obama's play here is "look he's a nimrod, but you're allowed to be a nimrod in a free country. It's how we guarantee that all views are heard, even unpopular ones".

I continue to be both astonished and saddened by the amount of war and violence that are caused by the combination of sky fairies, and people being pissed off because someone called them a name.

Not so fast on this one. We have had violent reactions to flag burning, and there have been multiple attempts to get it constitutionally prohibited.

Correct...the difference is that one, or both, or neither may have been inspired by a Supreme Being. If one was, well then I want to follow it. If they both were, well, I guess it may not matter. If neither were, well then...

Why not ?
They are both irresponsible acts that needlessly endanger citizens.

DD:

Well, you caused me to read up more on the case histories here and it's maybe a closer case than I'd thought.... The phrase originated in opinions from the supreme court (Schenck v. United States, circa 1919) was where Holmes used the example of someone falsely shoulding "Fire!" in a crowded theater... But this case interestingly is about a guy who was encouraging people to resist the draft, which Holmes concludes is was NOT protected speech. Why does Holmes conclude this? He writes:



In the late 1960's Brandenburg v. Ohio comes in front of the court (a case about the KKK). Brandenburg is on trial for hate-speech, on the grounds that it could incite violence, and as a result be restricted by the "clear and present danger" clause.

In this case, however, the court finds for Brandenburg, and establishes a new standard (unfortunately named for the case, and in this case, the KKK nutball himself). The standard is (and remains now) the "imminent lawless action" test, in three parts. Effectively the speaker must INTEND the violence as a result of his action (e.g. not be a comic telling a joke, which is protected), the violence must be IMMINENT (today, not next year), and the violence must be LIKELY.

It's hard to argue that our Koran Burner doesn't meet the test. He can claim he doesn't INTEND it, I guess. Also unclear if violence incited outside the USA should be considered in this case.

But, in summary -- burning the Koran appears much closer to UNPROTECTED speech/expression than I had thought. I still think it's ridiculous that the crazy guys in the room get to effectively set the standard for this--which I suspect would be the dicsussion point should this issue ever make its way to the courts.

More than just freedom of speech is involved in this, too, unfortunately...it's entangled with freedom of religion (which includes the freedom to decry it, or some faction of it), and probably some protected political speech, too, for that matter.

Hopefully he'll fall in the fire the next time it happens, and burn himself into ashes.

Fish on...

Todd

Good background research IR. My impression was that Jones action was protected. If not, it comes down to a reasonable interpretation of his intention. He probably didn't intend violence, but violence that was imminent and likely has by fact been verified.

I hate to conceed to DD on this issue. Ever since I heard the news of the murders in Afghanistan I've been in a "burn a Koran a day" mode. It's not that I give a damn about Korans or Afghans, but I think using the airplanes in DD's sig line to rid the world of intolerant @ssholes would simply contribute to making the world a better place.

If I must err, I'd prefer to err on the side of freedom than on the side of repression.

Sg

Long live the Fat Lip!

SG,

Totally agree that you break ties towards freedom.

An interesting line of thinking might also be -- is the Koran burner choosing this mode of expression because it communicates some meaningful opinion in a unique way? Or is he choosing this mode of expression to be intentionally inciting the other side? This is similar to burning the US Flag (an action I would have argued deserves protection) rather than using your own words to express your thoughts.

In BOTH of these cases, if you can find IMMINENT and LIKELY violence (even from wingnuts) then you could make the I-think dangerous argument that any intent to incite means the burning of either is NOT protected. That's unfortunate, as again the wingnuts are setting the line.

Dude, easy...

Incite means to PROVOKE. He knew this would provoke people (because many people made that abundantly clear to him before he ignored them). There is a world of difference between "walking on eggshells" and deciding after a great deal of warning, that you want to commit a symbolic act to provoke a reaction from those you disagree with.

My point -- which you allude to later -- is that this test (intent, imminent, liklihood) seems to fall apart at the extreme -- because the unspooled guys get to define the line.

I also believe, that if you think my reading of the test is correct, that the soldiers families ought to THREATEN A MASSIVE VIOLENT REACTION to the Baptist Church if they continue this. They should go ape-nuts and stir up a huge media storm. Then, very cleverly with the cameras pointed, argue that the test for UNPROTECTED speech is "Intent, Imminence, and likelihood" and that the hateful speech of the Baptist Church is intended to incite them, and should therefore be restricted.

I'd love to see it!

The answer is "no" to all the questions...

Fish on...

Todd

Proving intent could be difficult although protecting ignorance is a tough pill to swallow.
I don't see why resulting violence that occurs outside the US would not be admissible. It's global now and precedents need to be adjusted.


I still think that it boils down to protecting the citizenry from the crazy guys.
Now, if they can be found crazy they would need protection from themselves and then the citizenry would be protected by default.
< sound of gavel >

Sg, that's a transport.
I'll find something that can blow sh!t up

When they're talking about "hate speech" that incites imminent violence in the law...they are typically talking about a scenario where the speaker is purposely inciting his audience to go out and commit acts of violence...like a KKK rally where the speaker is telling people to go out and lynch blacks.

It's not the same as when we are talking about someone exercising their right of free speech, and someone out there doesn't like it and does something stupid.

Fish on...

Todd

What are you saying then? Go after the alleged bad guys before they commit a thought crime? This is called a totalitarian government. This goes beyond what our founding fathers probably would have ever envisioned.

Reading Orwell might clear your head of these thoughts.