Quran burning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

But that is not the end of the moral inquiry, is it? One must also consider the immoral consequences of giving people the power to determine which views are moral to speak and which are not. Take the Inquisition, for example.

Any yes, sometimes free speech is "free speech" and sometimes it is not. No one thinks the criminal kingpin can claim his order to kill is "free speech", nor can someone who commits fraud argue that they were merely engaged in "free speech." But this is not the case for political advocacy, however distasteful. And that is distinct from Kristallnacht, which is much closer to the criminal kingpin scenario than the political advocacy scenario. Sure there are close calls and grey areas, the world is a complex place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But that is not the end of the moral inquiry, is it? One must also consider the immoral consequences of giving people the power to determine which views are moral to speak and which are not. Take the Inquisition, for example.

Any yes, sometimes free speech is "free speech" and sometimes it is not. No one thinks the criminal kingpin can claim his order to kill is "free speech", nor can someone who commits fraud argue that they were merely engaged in "free speech." But this is not the case for political advocacy, however distasteful. And that is distinct from Kristallnacht, which is much closer to the criminal kingpin scenario than the political advocacy scenario. Sure there are close calls and grey areas, the world is a complex place.

Which is why you cannot state that free speech is not immoral. It can be, it's usually not, but it can be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But that is not the end of the moral inquiry, is it? One must also consider the immoral consequences of giving people the power to determine which views are moral to speak and which are not. Take the Inquisition, for example.

Any yes, sometimes free speech is "free speech" and sometimes it is not. No one thinks the criminal kingpin can claim his order to kill is "free speech", nor can someone who commits fraud argue that they were merely engaged in "free speech." But this is not the case for political advocacy, however distasteful. And that is distinct from Kristallnacht, which is much closer to the criminal kingpin scenario than the political advocacy scenario. Sure there are close calls and grey areas, the world is a complex place.

Which is why you cannot state that free speech is not immoral. It can be, it's usually not, but it can be.

A wise man once said to me that the existence of problematic boundary cases is not an argument against the existence of principles. So too here.

I completely disagree with you, I think there is something called "free speech," it can be differentiated from things like fraud or criminal conspiracy, and its exercise is not immoral, without regard to its content, because it is a fundamental human right. So just because there are some tricky factual cases where it is not certain whether the principle applies does not mean that the principle does not exist or is incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Here is the error though: The quote that started this is:

"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 are defending not just the principle of free speech (which I agree is a fundamental human right), but arguing that that this man has no moral accountability because he has the right to freedom of speech. No. Child pornographers have freedom of speech, but just because a human has a right to a principle does not render that person free of moral accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, in America you get to choose your religion. And he's chosen to be Christian. Try living somewhere else where you "don't" get to choose your religion and maybe you'll understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the error though: The quote that started this is:

"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 are defending not just the principle of free speech (which I agree is a fundamental human right), but arguing that that this man has no moral accountability because he has the right to freedom of speech. No. Child pornographers have freedom of speech, but just because a human has a right to a principle does not render that person free of moral accountability.

No, freedom of speech is a legal right. What you do with that right could be moral or immoral. Protected speech does not guarantee that the content is itself good. Hate speech is protected and yet immoral.

I have a right to own a handgun. What I do with that handgun can range from target practice to homicide.

[Anonymous]

They r so stupid if they think killing U N forces had any effect on the burners. Rofl copter,

[Anonymous]

We are at WAR with radical Islam. Obama's generals have indicated that the burnings make it more difficult for us to kill radical Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and lybia. For petes sake stop obstructing obama's radical Muslim extermination campaign you stupid paster!

[Anonymous]

I cringe at the idea of criminalizing speech, even symbolic speech. But if that speech has a foreseeable effect that causes damage to someone, that person can surely sue in civil court. This case is complicated by jurisdictional issues, since the damage did not occur in the country, but could the family of one of the victims hire a Florida lawyer to bring suit in Florida for damages resulting from an act performed in Florida?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the error though: The quote that started this is:

"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 are defending not just the principle of free speech (which I agree is a fundamental human right), but arguing that that this man has no moral accountability because he has the right to freedom of speech. No. Child pornographers have freedom of speech, but just because a human has a right to a principle does not render that person free of moral accountability.

We aren't talking about child pornography, we are talking about a form of expression that is a time-honored method of political protest, as my references to the burning of flags, draft cards, and, yes, bras illustrated. Burning people or things in effigy is another example. Expressing such views is not immoral, and it is in no way similar to child pornography. Criticizing Islam, or any other religion, is not immoral, not even when done in such vivid way. Would you call the weird guy who protests the Catholic church out on Mass Ave. immoral if he burned a Bible to make his point? If not, what is the difference? Would it be immoral if Sarah Palin was burned in effigy at a political protect? If not, what is the difference?

[Anonymous]

For petes sake stop obstructing obama's radical Muslim extermination campaign you stupid paster!

like this!

I don't think it is immoral to burn a Quran. I do think it was immoral for the pastor to put lives at risk given the very clear warnings from people who are in a place to know that that would follow. But obviously those who did the killings are the true nuts - they are the most immoral of all for terrorizing innocent people in return for "violence" against an object.

[Anonymous]

So I'm watching CNN and apparently nobody knew about the Qur'an burning until Karzai opened his big mouth and incited everyone in hearing distance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For petes sake stop obstructing obama's radical Muslim extermination campaign you stupid paster!

like this!

I don't think it is immoral to burn a Quran. I do think it was immoral for the pastor to put lives at risk given the very clear warnings from people who are in a place to know that that would follow. But obviously those who did the killings are the true nuts - they are the most immoral of all for terrorizing innocent people in return for "violence" against an object.

I'd say that there is more than one set of true nuts in this story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/church-that-torched-koran-has-divided-pastors-family-and-others/2011/04/03/AFuXx6XC_story.html