[Gunnair]

commanderkai wrote:

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)

$1:

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.

Easy is correct, and not quite so subjective since it would be a pretty tiny minority that thought what he did was acceptable. Easy enough then to choke off that idiot.

$1:

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?

Phelps is not joking in poor taste nor is he doing art in poor taste. When he protests a funeral he does it in order to cause hurt.

$1:

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

Correct. Nor is it supporting free speech, however. I don't recall hearing one tired cliche of "I disagree with what they are saying, but I'd fight to the death to support their right to say it."

$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.

$1:

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.

Fair enough, but I didn't say child porn, I said allowing your 12 year old to watch porn.

$1:

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.

For the most part, we agree here.

[commanderkai]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Correct. Nor is it supporting free speech, however. I don't recall hearing one tired cliche of "I disagree with what they are saying, but I'd fight to the death to support their right to say it."

Maybe, but you know political forums. If you say something like that, those who personally or politically oppose you will be using any sort of defense of said asshole as some sign of support for said asshole. I mean, the distinction is that, this pastor is not being allowed to express himself, thus creating a free speech issue, while the Phelps and the poppy burning events basically is "I wish I could beat the hell out of them", but in all realism, they know they can't.

$1:

Fair enough, but I didn't say child porn, I said allowing your 12 year old to watch porn.

True, but child porn is a clear cut sign of censorship. Not allowing a child access to porn doesn't feel like it's the same thing, because the porn is still allowed to be made and consumed, just with some limitations on the market.

No idea if the last chunk made any sense. I'm hugely pissed upon the Habs loss.

[Gunnair]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Correct. Nor is it supporting free speech, however. I don't recall hearing one tired cliche of "I disagree with what they are saying, but I'd fight to the death to support their right to say it."

Maybe, but you know political forums. If you say something like that, those who personally or politically oppose you will be using any sort of defense of said asshole as some sign of support for said asshole. I mean, the distinction is that, this pastor is not being allowed to express himself, thus creating a free speech issue, while the Phelps and the poppy burning events basically is "I wish I could beat the hell out of them", but in all realism, they know they can't.

$1:

Fair enough, but I didn't say child porn, I said allowing your 12 year old to watch porn.

True, but child porn is a clear cut sign of censorship. Not allowing a child access to porn doesn't feel like it's the same thing, because the porn is still allowed to be made and consumed, just with some limitations on the market.

No idea if the last chunk made any sense. I'm hugely pissed upon the Habs loss.

I hear ya. The Canucks are soon to make the list.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Ok, here's my take on all this. Jones has every right to burn whatever book he wants. Just like the muslims have burned Bibles on more than a couple of occassions. Curiously, there were no muslims killed over it on this side of the world. If muslims had been killed, it would be curious to see how many people would blame the perpetrators of the violence instead of the Bible burners, since apparently, some white idiot in Florida is to blame for the actions of some brown idiots in A-stan.
However, Jones' little sortie into Michigan seems to be more about creating and/or inflaming a situation and less about a protest that makes a point.

Why Phelps is allowed his bullshit though is beyond me. "God hates fags" is hardly a valid point of protest. It's still hate mongering no matter how you slice it.

Change it to "God hates Jews" while they protest in front of Jewish establishments and see how fast phuckhead Phelps would get shut down.

[GreenTiger]

Well Said PA9.

[ShepherdsDog]

[Taseko]

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.

Ultimately you are right.

To date I've read that 24 people have been murdered senselessly as a indirect result of the actions taken by Terry Jones. The people who murdered the UN workers and the others will never be brought to justice.


Terry Jones has had death threats, and a fatwa appears to have been taken out on his life. Pastor Jones is still alive! 24 are dead.

I think we should be a little more circumspect when we consider provoking fanatics regardless of the righteousness of our point of view.

[EyeBrock]

To lay those deaths at Jones's feet is just a cop out. There is evidence out there that the UN attacks were planned by Iranian backed Tallies just looking for an excuse, any excuse to attack the UN team.

I think we should realise that these murderous lunatics would have found another good 'reason' to murder these workers. Pandering to their whims out of misguided PC guilt just makes them bolder.

A Predator with a Hellfire AGM would be a better way to 'pander' to them.

[Taseko]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

To lay those deaths at Jones's feet is just a cop out. There is evidence out there that the UN attacks were planned by Iranian backed Tallies just looking for an excuse, any excuse to attack the UN team.

I think we should realise that these murderous lunatics would have found another good 'reason' to murder these workers. Pandering to their whims out of misguided PC guilt just makes them bolder.

A Predator with a Hellfire AGM would be a better way to 'pander' to them.

You could also go to Afghanistan with your message and tell them yourself. Those missiles are just a tad expensive.

Let us know how it all turns out.

[EyeBrock]

I've done my time in dusty Third World shit-holes with a rifle. How about you new guy who knows fuck-all about me but judges?

[Taseko]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I've done my time in dusty Third World shit-holes with a rifle. How about you new guy who knows fuck-all about me but judges?

I'm not judging you. Why would you assume from what I wrote that I'm judging you? Good grief!

I'm just making a suggestion, is all.

[GreenTiger]

Put this creep together with the Imam who was deported from Canada 3 years ago Said what-ever-the-hell-his-name. Let them kill each other.

[EyeBrock]

Yea, 'go to Afghanistan and tell them yourself' is hardly a suggestion. It's more of a veiled 'fuck off'. Your message’s content is how it’s received by the recipient.

I suggest you have a trot there yourself and tell me all about it as you obviously haven't been anywhere. That's a veiled fuck-off too.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

To lay those deaths at Jones's feet is just a cop out. There is evidence out there that the UN attacks were planned by Iranian backed Tallies just looking for an excuse, any excuse to attack the UN team.

I think we should realise that these murderous lunatics would have found another good 'reason' to murder these workers. Pandering to their whims out of misguided PC guilt just makes them bolder.

A Predator with a Hellfire AGM would be a better way to 'pander' to them.

You sound as confused as I am. Gen Petraeus certainly had a problem with Jones' action because it endangered his troops. And that's really the same situation now in Michigan - do you censor Jones because of the threat of harm from the other side. You want to ban poppy burning, then surely you agree with banning Koran (or Bible) burning. I want to allow all of it, but am wringing my hands about the possible violence that comes as a result.

I mean if he burns his Koran and gets killed by a mob of angry Muslims as a result, my heart doesn't really bleed for him. But if then no Muslims are charged with the crime because it was a mob and nobody can be identified, what's going to be the upshot of that? More Muslim mobs causing more trouble, when they see there are no repercussions.

Of course maybe Michigan Muslims are peaceful and would just ignore him, setting a clear example to other Muslims. I just wouldn't take that bet, is all.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

To lay those deaths at Jones's feet is just a cop out. There is evidence out there that the UN attacks were planned by Iranian backed Tallies just looking for an excuse, any excuse to attack the UN team.

I think we should realise that these murderous lunatics would have found another good 'reason' to murder these workers. Pandering to their whims out of misguided PC guilt just makes them bolder

Exactly. They will always find something or other to excuse violence. If not for this guy, it's for some other dipshit, or for American bases in Saudi Arabia, or for the Crusades or something.

This isn't the fault of the pastor, even if he is an asshole.