Symmetry wrote:
The pastor, of course, did not directly harm any individual if you take a very strict definition of the phrase. He did of course know that people would be killed if he continued. There really is no getting away from that fact.
He doesn't know that. One can make a fair assumption, but one can't know that. That is beside the point anyway.
Just because the possibility may incite other people to violence that disagree with the speech is no reason to disallow that speech.
Martian Luther King knew his free speech was likely to get himself and/or others killed or injured. Should he then have withheld speaking what he believed?
symmetry wrote:Well- he was told that it would happen by a huge number of people. Generals, world leaders, experts in the Middle East.
Oh, he was warned. So was MLK, so was Gandhi, so were a multitude of others whom the world looks favorably on today but certainly had their detractors. MLK was branded as "radical" (so was Gandhi for that matter). But thankfully, he had free speech. You see, we have to be careful thinking "limit the radical's free speech". Radicals today, heroes tomorrow. Not saying the Pastor will ever be considered a "hero", he is a loony toon, that is my free speech. My opinion.
I think he is daft, but if I were to say he can't burn a book then I would be the truly daft one. I would be the tyrant trying to shut a man up.
Those of you quick to judge, quick to call for the limiting of speech, for shame on you.
I pray that no one ever tries to take away your speech one day, just because they may disagree with your point of view.
For you have something in common with the murders in Afghanistan that used this incident to commit atrocities. You and they are willing to use your own personal judgments to limit others.
Do not stink yourselves with such hypocrisy. Freedom of speech for all or no freedom of speech at all. Which one would you have?