Quran burning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

That's at least a principled position, although I disagree with you. I think the moral accountability for violence falls solely on the head of the person who commits that violence.

Interesting. So the Unibomber's brother who alerted authorities that he may be the perpetrator -- do you think the brother is a hero or a backstabber? Do you think he had a moral obligation to protect citizens or protect his brother? Or neither?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Not if you actually know anything about that particular First Amendment doctrine, Mr. Steele. That is not a reasonable argument. As far as I know Mr. Jones was thousands of miles away from anyone who reacted to his actions with violence, and they responded some time later. "Fighting words" as a concept deals with words that by their nature prompt immediate violence -- such as the kind of exchanges of insults that lead to a bar fight.

And let's go back to flag-burning. Would you raise the same argument that that might constitute "fighting words"? If so, you are at least being consistent, if misguided. If not, I wonder why...?

I said that you could make the argument that burning a Quran in today's environment is a form of "fighting words". I didn't say that you would win the argument. I would agree that people could argue that burning a flag in certain circumstances could be construed as fighting words. But, that argument has been lost in the courts. The fact that I recognize an argument as being reasonable does not mean that I agree with the argument. While I would not want to restrict the right to burn any holy book -- or the flag for that matter, I still recognize that others might support such a restriction based on the doctrine of "fighting words." I can disagree with someone while still recognizing that they are not being unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

That's at least a principled position, although I disagree with you. I think the moral accountability for violence falls solely on the head of the person who commits that violence.

Interesting. So the Unibomber's brother who alerted authorities that he may be the perpetrator -- do you think the brother is a hero or a backstabber? Do you think he had a moral obligation to protect citizens or protect his brother? Or neither?

I'm not quite sure that I see the connection, but I think he is a hero for coming forward, which must have been a terribly difficult thing to do. People caught between moral obligations and loyalty to their family are in a very difficult bind, one that is not of their own creation, and I am sympathetic.

[Anonymous]

I would agree that in this particular instance Mr. Jones KNEW that burning the Qur'an was equivalent to "fighting words" or JS Mill's angry mob. There's plenty of evidence that Mr. Jones knew exactly what the consequences of his action would be, especially since top political and military officials pled with him personally not to burn the Qur'an the last time he threatened to do so. We are currently at war (or the military equivalent) in three Muslim-majority countries. This context is very important.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not if you actually know anything about that particular First Amendment doctrine, Mr. Steele. That is not a reasonable argument. As far as I know Mr. Jones was thousands of miles away from anyone who reacted to his actions with violence, and they responded some time later. "Fighting words" as a concept deals with words that by their nature prompt immediate violence -- such as the kind of exchanges of insults that lead to a bar fight.

And let's go back to flag-burning. Would you raise the same argument that that might constitute "fighting words"? If so, you are at least being consistent, if misguided. If not, I wonder why...?

I said that you could make the argument that burning a Quran in today's environment is a form of "fighting words". I didn't say that you would win the argument. I would agree that people could argue that burning a flag in certain circumstances could be construed as fighting words. But, that argument has been lost in the courts. The fact that I recognize an argument as being reasonable does not mean that I agree with the argument. While I would not want to restrict the right to burn any holy book -- or the flag for that matter, I still recognize that others might support such a restriction based on the doctrine of "fighting words." I can disagree with someone while still recognizing that they are not being unreasonable.

No, I understood what you meant, I just don't agree. It is not a reasonable argument, because it proves far too much. If burning a Koran could be fighting words, so too with burning a flag, burning a draft card, hell, even burning a bra. ;-p All traditional forms of political protest.

Once you start allowing the line between political protest and "fighting words" to blur, you're on indefensible ground, because someone can always claim to be so offended by any particular statement that it constitutes "fighting words" and if the test is a subjective one, who is to say that is wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would agree that in this particular instance Mr. Jones KNEW that burning the Qur'an was equivalent to "fighting words" or JS Mill's angry mob. There's plenty of evidence that Mr. Jones knew exactly what the consequences of his action would be, especially since top political and military officials pled with him personally not to burn the Qur'an the last time he threatened to do so. We are currently at war (or the military equivalent) in three Muslim-majority countries. This context is very important.

This context is utterly unimportant, because if you allow it to be important, you give every potentially violent group a veto on the boundaries of acceptable discourse. In a free country, that is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

That's at least a principled position, although I disagree with you. I think the moral accountability for violence falls solely on the head of the person who commits that violence.

Interesting. So the Unibomber's brother who alerted authorities that he may be the perpetrator -- do you think the brother is a hero or a backstabber? Do you think he had a moral obligation to protect citizens or protect his brother? Or neither?

I'm not quite sure that I see the connection, but I think he is a hero for coming forward, which must have been a terribly difficult thing to do. People caught between moral obligations and loyalty to their family are in a very difficult bind, one that is not of their own creation, and I am sympathetic.

Not the PP, but I think the connection is that it sounds as though under your theory a person who knows a bomb is about to go off in downtown Washington and decide not to warn anyone hasn't done anything morally wrong as long as that person didn't plant the bomb. So did the Unabomber's brother have a moral obligation to come forward or not? And if he did, then why doesn't the pastor in Fla. have any moral accountability at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would agree that in this particular instance Mr. Jones KNEW that burning the Qur'an was equivalent to "fighting words" or JS Mill's angry mob. There's plenty of evidence that Mr. Jones knew exactly what the consequences of his action would be, especially since top political and military officials pled with him personally not to burn the Qur'an the last time he threatened to do so. We are currently at war (or the military equivalent) in three Muslim-majority countries. This context is very important.

This context is utterly unimportant, because if you allow it to be important, you give every potentially violent group a veto on the boundaries of acceptable discourse. In a free country, that is unacceptable.

Of course context is important. The law recognizes this as well. A burning cross in KKK territory in Alabama means something entirely different than a burning cross in Malibu, CA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

That's at least a principled position, although I disagree with you. I think the moral accountability for violence falls solely on the head of the person who commits that violence.

Interesting. So the Unibomber's brother who alerted authorities that he may be the perpetrator -- do you think the brother is a hero or a backstabber? Do you think he had a moral obligation to protect citizens or protect his brother? Or neither?

I'm not quite sure that I see the connection, but I think he is a hero for coming forward, which must have been a terribly difficult thing to do. People caught between moral obligations and loyalty to their family are in a very difficult bind, one that is not of their own creation, and I am sympathetic.

Not the PP, but I think the connection is that it sounds as though under your theory a person who knows a bomb is about to go off in downtown Washington and decide not to warn anyone hasn't done anything morally wrong as long as that person didn't plant the bomb. So did the Unabomber's brother have a moral obligation to come forward or not? And if he did, then why doesn't the pastor in Fla. have any moral accountability at all?

The pastor in Florida has no moral accountability, because free speech is not immoral. Burning a Koran is not the equivalent to putting a bomb in the mail. Facilitating a crime through silence is immoral. This is not a hard distinction to draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP, but I think the connection is that it sounds as though under your theory a person who knows a bomb is about to go off in downtown Washington and decide not to warn anyone hasn't done anything morally wrong as long as that person didn't plant the bomb. So did the Unabomber's brother have a moral obligation to come forward or not? And if he did, then why doesn't the pastor in Fla. have any moral accountability at all?

The pastor in Florida has no moral accountability, because free speech is not immoral. Burning a Koran is not the equivalent to putting a bomb in the mail. Facilitating a crime through silence is immoral. This is not a hard distinction to draw.


You need to take a philosophy or ethics class. I think it's fairly easy to make an argument that what Mr. Jones did was, in fact, immoral. Free speech in and of itself may not be immoral, but actions (and speech is an act) may be immoral as a result of consequence and/or intention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP, but I think the connection is that it sounds as though under your theory a person who knows a bomb is about to go off in downtown Washington and decide not to warn anyone hasn't done anything morally wrong as long as that person didn't plant the bomb. So did the Unabomber's brother have a moral obligation to come forward or not? And if he did, then why doesn't the pastor in Fla. have any moral accountability at all?

The pastor in Florida has no moral accountability, because free speech is not immoral. Burning a Koran is not the equivalent to putting a bomb in the mail. Facilitating a crime through silence is immoral. This is not a hard distinction to draw.

You need to take a philosophy or ethics class. I think it's fairly easy to make an argument that what Mr. Jones did was, in fact, immoral. Free speech in and of itself may not be immoral, but actions (and speech is an act) may be immoral as a result of consequence and/or intention.

Then make the argument. I can assure you, I'm reasonably well-versed in such areas, and I don't think there is a particularly good argument, utilitarian or otherwise, to treat speech as immoral because other people retaliate with violence. I'm all ears. Is that really where your morality comes out when you do the math?

[Anonymous]

12:31, are you willing to defend Nazi propoganda as free speech that is not immoral as a result of its consequences and intention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:31, are you willing to defend Nazi propoganda as free speech that is not immoral as a result of its consequences and intention?

I'm not sure that anything the Nazis did can be characterized as "free speech," as it was part of a coordinated effort that engaged in plenty of violence as well. So I question your premise there, in the same way that I think the criminal mastermind who does nothing but give orders to his subordinates is still guilty when they go out and shoot people on his instructions. That is somewhat different.

To take an environment where something that can meaningfully be described as "free speech" exists, however, I don't believe it is immoral for, say, Neo-Nazi groups to circulate propaganda in the United States, even though they are, of course, deeply incorrect about things.

[Anonymous]

So, sometimes free speech is free speech and sometimes it's not? An order given under duress, sure, is different from free speech. But, German propaganda was not the same as a direct order. Recall, civilians participated in Kristallnacht even though they were not ordered to do so.

It's clear that some free speech leads to immoral consequences. Just because the act in and of itself can be distinguished from its consequences does not liberate it from its consequences.

[Anonymous]

Muslims are hanging on to machettes and religion with antipathy for those who think differently. think Obama would ever say that? no...he's a muslim.