[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

andyt andyt:

My thoughts exactly. But, if he's allowed to do what he wants and people do get hurt, do we just shrug our shoulders? I see this as a real dilemma. And what if Neo-Nazis attack people demonstrating for racial harmony? Are we going to ban that too? Hate to be the judge in this case.

See, if we have Neo-Nazis attacking people for voicing their opinion...the Neo-Nazis go to jail!

In the end, the people responsible for the violence are the people causing the violence. Cowering to assholes who threaten violence when their views are challenged or offended, then what's stopping other groups from acting in the same way?

People, even douchefucks like the Westboro Baptist Church, or this guy, or Neo-Nazis should have the right to voice their opinion, even if it's idiotic, and they should have the right to do so without being oppressed by the state.

All true. But if you get a 1000 people out bent on violence cause of this guy, and you've got 10 cops to deal with them, what then?

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

All true. But if you get a 1000 people out bent on violence cause of this guy, and you've got 10 cops to deal with them, what then?

Hire more cops. I do know and understand what you're saying, but still. I have a hard time justifying freedom of speech to satisfy a mob. Especially considering the mob is thousands of miles away. Dearborn's Muslim population will not riot over this.

Basically, this is a few politicians pandering to future election campaigns.

[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Hire more cops. I do know and understand what you're saying, but still. I have a hard time justifying freedom of speech to satisfy a mob. Especially considering the mob is thousands of miles away. Dearborn's Muslim population will not riot over this.

Basically, this is a few politicians pandering to future election campaigns.

Who's going to pay for those cops so some numbnuts can have his fun? I thought the issue was that the local Muslims would riot.

If it's Muslims in their own country, who cares? Except of course then we get the soldiers weighing in to say that this Koran burning endangers them in Astan. Pretty wierd world we live in. The soldiers are supposedly in Astan to bring democracy to those benighted people, or so we're told, so we should give up our democratic rights back home so the soldiers can be effective in their job.

Curiouser and curiouser!

[EyeBrock]

At the end of the day andy, burn a poppy and chant that soldiers are baby killers at a Rememberance Day parade and you are fine.

Just don't burn a Koran or draw cartoons of Allah. Then you will be in all kinds of shit.

[andyt]

Yep, I get it Brock. Haven't really seen a solution to it that isn't censorship tho. When one side plays way rougher than the other, it's a problem. If the other side starts playing equally rough they're no better than the original rough side, and their own team gets hurt. If you can follow that.

[EyeBrock]

I can. Accountability is something I'm comfortable with.

Maybe specific laws for specific situations? IE, no burning poppies and no demos at soldiers funerals.

We have made specifics for numerous other special interest groups without batting an eyelid. Why not for our vets and those who gave up their lives in the Service?

[GreenTiger]

andyt andyt:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Those riots were in Muslim countries -

Really? Denmark and Sweden are Muslim nations....news to me.

OK. Well, still nothing to do with the US, they make their own decisions. Same with England and the poppies. Doubt if any of those countries "allowed" them to riot. As I say, I would like to allow all this stuff - have free speech. But then if there is a riot, the police get hurt having to deal with it, as well as innocent bystanders.

This Pastor needs some mental help. That everybody agrees with. He is entitled to free speech everybody agrees with that as well. This is a bit like yelling fire in a crowded theater to be sure. This Pastor is a trouble making attention whore to be sure.

[GreenTiger]

The US Supreme Court however feels that any speech is fine. They feel that Demonstrators at soldiers funerals is entirely appropriate, so having a Koran barbecue should be nothing at all.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I can. Accountability is something I'm comfortable with.

Maybe specific laws for specific situations? IE, no burning poppies and no demos at soldiers funerals.

We have made specifics for numerous other special interest groups without batting an eyelid. Why not for our vets and those who gave up their lives in the Service?

I don't agree with those specific laws, the less the better. I'm not sure I want to legislate respect for soldiers - either the population has it, 'cause it's deserved, as is the case now, or they don't. In the latter case I don't want Big Brother enforcing it.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

Who's going to pay for those cops so some numbnuts can have his fun? I thought the issue was that the local Muslims would riot.

If it's Muslims in their own country, who cares? Except of course then we get the soldiers weighing in to say that this Koran burning endangers them in Astan. Pretty wierd world we live in. The soldiers are supposedly in Astan to bring democracy to those benighted people, or so we're told, so we should give up our democratic rights back home so the soldiers can be effective in their job.

Curiouser and curiouser!

But see, that's the problem. Muslim groups in the United States aren't threatening murder and violence if this guy does the Qu'ran burning. Why? Because, they'll go to jail. In the end, we're stopping this guy from carrying out free speech because Muslims in Afghanistan are threatening MORE violence over this guy.

That's the issue. Violence in America over this guy isn't the problem, the court is basically stopping this protest over threats from Afghanistan.

Picture it without the Muslim context. If let's say, the Mao's Cocksucking Brigade in China (just making up something here) threatened violence against Western civilians over some group in the United States making anti-Mao art or statements, should we bow down to those pressures by the Mao's Cocksucking Brigade? Hopefully all of our answers is no.

[Gunnair]

commanderkai commanderkai:

andyt andyt:

Who's going to pay for those cops so some numbnuts can have his fun? I thought the issue was that the local Muslims would riot.

If it's Muslims in their own country, who cares? Except of course then we get the soldiers weighing in to say that this Koran burning endangers them in Astan. Pretty wierd world we live in. The soldiers are supposedly in Astan to bring democracy to those benighted people, or so we're told, so we should give up our democratic rights back home so the soldiers can be effective in their job.

Curiouser and curiouser!

But see, that's the problem. Muslim groups in the United States aren't threatening murder and violence if this guy does the Qu'ran burning. Why? Because, they'll go to jail. In the end, we're stopping this guy from carrying out free speech because Muslims in Afghanistan are threatening MORE violence over this guy.

That's the issue. Violence in America over this guy isn't the problem, the court is basically stopping this protest over threats from Afghanistan.

Picture it without the Muslim context. If let's say, the Mao's Cocksucking Brigade in China (just making up something here) threatened violence against Western civilians over some group in the United States making anti-Mao art or statements, should we bow down to those pressures by the Mao's Cocksucking Brigade? Hopefully all of our answers is no.

On the surface of it, no.

I personally think there are limits to free speech - the ability to be a fuck face does not mean that being a fuck face is permissable. I think this guy should not be able to carry out his idiocy any more than Phelps. That being said, the idiots in London that were bruning poppies at Rememberance Day should also be sorted out with a big bag of rust shackles (I seem to recall that some of the avid freespeechers were not out there supporting those idiots right to dickheadish protest, but were instead tossing out the usual forum heroics of what they'd do to them if they were in London)

I get the whole fine line on rights and censorship, but let's face it, we have and embrace censorship in our culture. That's why you don't take your 7 yr old to a Jackass movie or let your 12 year old download a few gigs of porn a week.

[commanderkai]

Gunnair Gunnair:

On the surface of it, no.

I personally think there are limits to free speech - the ability to be a fuck face does not mean that being a fuck face is permissable. I think this guy should not be able to carry out his idiocy any more than Phelps. That being said, the idiots in London that were bruning poppies at Rememberance Day should also be sorted out with a big bag of rust shackles (I seem to recall that some of the avid freespeechers were not out there supporting those idiots right to dickheadish protest, but were instead tossing out the usual forum heroics of what they'd do to them if they were in London)

Fair enough. My issue is that being a fuckface is subjective. I'm sure that every single person on this site thinks Phelps is a fuckface, and shouldn't be allowed to be a fuckface at funerals. He's too easy though. Soon enough, we'll hit issues like people who make ethnic or religious jokes or "art" (Piss Christ is an example) where it's easy to get a large amount of people to call said comedians or artists fuckfaces. Should we censor those individuals as well? Who chooses who should be censored or banned?

I wasn't around when that protest was occurring, but in the end, forum heroics about what they'd like to do isn't censorship. Thinking and fantasizing about kicking somebody's ass isn't the same as saying "Well let's just make what they do illegal". At least, in my opinion

$1:

I get the whole fine line on rights and censorship, but let's face it, we have and embrace censorship in our culture. That's why you don't take your 7 yr old to a Jackass movie or let your 12 year old download a few gigs of porn a week.

I do accept SOME limits. Things like child porn can be considered censorship, but considering how it's made, it's certainly acceptable to ban. Same goes with yelling "Fire" in a theater, or libel, etc. These things can cause massive harm to individuals, be it physical (as in the first two) or financial/psychological.

In my view, I prefer letting idiots speak, so we can easily show how stupid they are. As such, we know who to mock or ignore.

[ShepherdsDog]

Based on what some have said Orson Welles' broadcast of War of the Worlds should have been banned. It caused mass panic and hysteria. We need to consider intent.

[CommanderSock]

Umm....what exactly did he do wrong?

Don't get me wrong he's a douche but burning a book (symbolic in fascist/police states btw) is not a crime in the USA.

This is...disturbing, if we take away his right to protest, then...who's next?

[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Gunnair Gunnair:

On the surface of it, no.

I personally think there are limits to free speech - the ability to be a fuck face does not mean that being a fuck face is permissable. I think this guy should not be able to carry out his idiocy any more than Phelps. That being said, the idiots in London that were bruning poppies at Rememberance Day should also be sorted out with a big bag of rust shackles (I seem to recall that some of the avid freespeechers were not out there supporting those idiots right to dickheadish protest, but were instead tossing out the usual forum heroics of what they'd do to them if they were in London)

Fair enough. My issue is that being a fuckface is subjective. I'm sure that every single person on this site thinks Phelps is a fuckface, and shouldn't be allowed to be a fuckface at funerals. He's too easy though. Soon enough, we'll hit issues like people who make ethnic or religious jokes or "art" (Piss Christ is an example) where it's easy to get a large amount of people to call said comedians or artists fuckfaces. Should we censor those individuals as well? Who chooses who should be censored or banned?

I wasn't around when that protest was occurring, but in the end, forum heroics about what they'd like to do isn't censorship. Thinking and fantasizing about kicking somebody's ass isn't the same as saying "Well let's just make what they do illegal". At least, in my opinion

$1:

I get the whole fine line on rights and censorship, but let's face it, we have and embrace censorship in our culture. That's why you don't take your 7 yr old to a Jackass movie or let your 12 year old download a few gigs of porn a week.

I do accept SOME limits. Things like child porn can be considered censorship, but considering how it's made, it's certainly acceptable to ban. Same goes with yelling "Fire" in a theater, or libel, etc. These things can cause massive harm to individuals, be it physical (as in the first two) or financial/psychological.

In my view, I prefer letting idiots speak, so we can easily show how stupid they are. As such, we know who to mock or ignore.

Maybe you're right. Maybe we have to let him do his thing. Then, if the Michigan Muslims do go ape, that would bounce back on them, let's hope, rather than leading to them passing more restrictive, PC type laws - a real possibility.