Happy Face 29 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If you're someone who wants to vest the state with the power to punish the expression of certain views on the grounds that the view is so wrong and/or hurtful that its expression should not be permitted -- as European countries and Canada routinely do -- then you're someone who does not believe in free speech, by definition; what you believe is that one is free to express only those viewpoints which the majority of citizens (and the State) allow to be expressed No, it means your legal system is based around a more developed moral framework than the ones that predominated during the writing of the US constitution. I think they do curb such speech in the US too don't they? Don't they have libel and defamation/slander laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If you're someone who wants to vest the state with the power to punish the expression of certain views on the grounds that the view is so wrong and/or hurtful that its expression should not be permitted -- as European countries and Canada routinely do -- then you're someone who does not believe in free speech, by definition; what you believe is that one is free to express only those viewpoints which the majority of citizens (and the State) allow to be expressed No, it means your legal system is based around a more developed moral framework than the ones that predominated during the writing of the US constitution. I think they do curb such speech in the US too don't they? Don't they have libel and defamation/slander laws? Yes they do but you could argue that burning a Koran is neither since no factually incorrect statement with words is made. However, it does make Greenwald's point just about completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 "one word of truth outweighs the whole world" Solzhenitsyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 1. So if free speech should be unlimited as argued in the first part of that article, then freedom itself should be unlimited. 2. Rules always bang up against other rules, which is why our morality should be consequentialist, not dogmatic (thou shalt say what the fuck you want). If the consequences of you eating a bible are that your diet is a bit weird, then who gives a fuck. If people die because of it, it changes the morality of doing it. You would rightly argue that its the insanity of the reaction to a harmless act that is the moral idiocy, that still doesnt make saying 'go ahead burn the koran' knowing that it will lead to deaths somehow fundamentally right because it relates to an abstract idea of freedom which we have to uphold. 1. Non-sequitur monsieur. Freedom of speech and other freedoms are separate things and can be treated as such. 2. I don't think burning a Koran is fundamentally right or wrong. I think it's wrong in some instances, but this is on grounds of public disorder, and would apply to burning anything. In this instance, which I believe was part of an organized event and a symbolic gesture, I have no problem with it. People only start dying when the religious leaders preach hatred to their congregation and whip them into an insane fury. This has happened in cases where a Koran was not actually burnt, it was just rumoured to have happened, and the religious leaders used this to ignite said violence. We could bend to their whim and not burn any Korans, criticize Islam, or dress provocatively, but their hatred and opposition to our culture is so deep-rooted that they would still find something to be violent about. The other option is to not be cowardly and not to appropriate the blame for the murder of innocents on people who were not responsible for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 1. Look up the definition of non-sequitur. Drawing a comparison of the use of the word 'freedom' in its application to words and actions is perfectly reasonable argument. The key to the argument is in the bit you dropped off. Its a million miles from a non-sequitur. 2. I agree but the act is still wrong if you know it will lead to deaths. If murder can be morally right because of its consequences, then the opposite can be true; a morally right (or not wrong act in itself) can be wrong because of its consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 I don't think the pastor in this case believed it would, even though many had predicted a violent reaction. So where does that leave us? If you know that an act may possibly lead to violence, do you believe those acts to be wrong also? How far do you extend this principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 We dont leave it to the pastor to decide, thats what the legal system is for. As the US legal system allows it, then he can go ahead and say what he wants. Debating whether its right or not is pretty fundamental though, otherwise legal systems would remain unchanged over the centuries. I believe verbally abusing a child is wrong, these lot believe verbally abusing their prophet/god is wrong. Offence is in the eye of the beholder. In the US, am i allowed to sit a 5 year old boy down and repeatedly call him a cunting faggot shit for brains? If not, why not? To answer your question, of course the violent acts are wrong. As my mam always said though, two wrongs dont make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I believe verbally abusing a child is wrong, these lot believe verbally abusing their prophet/god is wrong. Offence is in the eye of the beholder. In the US, am i allowed to sit a 5 year old boy down and repeatedly call him a cunting faggot shit for brains? If not, why not? I think you can...and you can give them a sign to do it to others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) I like the Westboro Baptist Church in a way, because they display religion in its intended form. They could quote you the bible verbatim and they take it literally, as intended by those who wrote it. It's always amusing to see Christians trying to attack them, because their arguments are destroyed by the WBC lot. You can only attack them legitimately if you believe the bible is not the word of god. With regards to Chez, he's obviously read some French book, John Paul Sartree or something, that's where he's got all these words like 'consequentialist' and 'morality'. He used to be a pleasant man, a self-confident bald man; women wanted to be him, men wanted to be in him. Then he moved to France and it's all changed. Too many croissants and frog's legs have driven him insane. Just goofing. "We dont leave it to the pastor to decide, thats what the legal system is for. As the US legal system allows it, then he can go ahead and say what he wants. Debating whether its right or not is pretty fundamental though, otherwise legal systems would remain unchanged over the centuries." Since these riots over such things have repeatedly culminated in violence and murder, even when sparked by mere rumours, is the onus not on them to prohibit these riots (according to your logic)? Edited April 5, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Image the riots if there was some hitch in croissant production in Francais. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8689 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Maybe we should just nuke (neutron bomb preferably) Afghanistan, it's been getting people killed since Alexander the Great and has given nowt to the world. It's a waste of good mountains and scrubland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Maybe we should just nuke (neutron bomb preferably) Afghanistan, it's been getting people killed since Alexander the Great and has given nowt to the world. It's a waste of good mountains and scrubland. Err the best heroin on earth fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 A former soldier has been sentenced to 70 days in prison for setting fire to a copy of Muslim holy book the Koran in the centre of Carlisle. Andrew Ryan had previously admitted religiously aggravated harassment and theft of a Koran from a library. The 32-year-old, of Summerhill, said he had been "shocked" watching a Muslim burning a poppy on Remembrance Day. Shoppers and schoolchildren witnessed the burning, outside the old Town Hall, on 19 January. Sitting at Carlisle Magistrates' Court, District Judge Gerald Chalk described it as a case of "theatrical bigotry". He said: "It was pre-planned by you as you stole the book deliberately. "You went out to cause maximum publicity and to cause distress." Ryan struggled with security guards in court after the sentence was passed. While being handcuffed he shouted: "What about my country? What about burning poppies?" About 10 people were in court to support Ryan, and as they left the court they shouted "do you call this justice?". After sentencing, Insp Paul Marshall, of Cumbria Police, said: "This incident was highly unusual for Cumbria as we have such low levels of hate crime in the county." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-13119241 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 18, 2011 Author Share Posted April 18, 2011 Be sad if he actually served time for that, is it a suspended sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 164 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 A former soldier has been sentenced to 70 days in prison for setting fire to a copy of Muslim holy book the Koran in the centre of Carlisle. Andrew Ryan had previously admitted religiously aggravated harassment and theft of a Koran from a library. The 32-year-old, of Summerhill, said he had been "shocked" watching a Muslim burning a poppy on Remembrance Day. Shoppers and schoolchildren witnessed the burning, outside the old Town Hall, on 19 January. Sitting at Carlisle Magistrates' Court, District Judge Gerald Chalk described it as a case of "theatrical bigotry". He said: "It was pre-planned by you as you stole the book deliberately. "You went out to cause maximum publicity and to cause distress." Ryan struggled with security guards in court after the sentence was passed. While being handcuffed he shouted: "What about my country? What about burning poppies?" About 10 people were in court to support Ryan, and as they left the court they shouted "do you call this justice?". After sentencing, Insp Paul Marshall, of Cumbria Police, said: "This incident was highly unusual for Cumbria as we have such low levels of hate crime in the county." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-13119241 Honestly man, thats fuckin disgraceful! all he did was burn a book. ffs! this country sometimes......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Be sad if he actually served time for that, is it a suspended sentence? Don't think so. He's got a record. His parole officer saw him do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 why do I get the feeling that one or two muslim apologists will be quite pleased at the amazing double standards applied here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 16511 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 The poppy burner got a £50 fine. I'm about as far from a Daily Mail mouth foamer that you can get but the difference in sentancing is fuckin shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I think the punishment here reflects recidivism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 well he HAD stolen it.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Should've got a fine from the court AND the library in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 His parole officer saw him do it. Not the best idea ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Should've got a fine from the court AND the library in that case. that, young shaver, is a very interesting point Would it be justice or double jeopardy?? Could he offset one fine against the other???? We need an opinion from one of m'Learned Friends I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now