Burning the Koran - Pastor Terry Jones

[mgconstruction]

He did of course know that people would be killed if he continued. There really is no getting away from that fact.

I don't agree with that. Even if it IS true, the problem isn't his, but the people who killed other people.

Well- he was told that it would happen by a huge number of people. Generals, world leaders, experts in the Middle East. There is a chance, of course, that he didn't believe them and truly believed that there wouldn't be any killings.

However, I think this is kind of disproved by the fact that he'd earlier threatened to burn it and then called it off. The protests against that threat resulted in deaths. I suppose there is a remote possibility that he hadn't heard of that, but we're really into the minor realms of probability here.

So, no, I'm pretty certain he knew that people would die based on the warnings he was given and his past experience.

His hands, of course, are as clean as Pilates.

Quote from news article below "Despite warnings by several high-level American officials that his actions will endanger U.S. troops and American aid workers overseas, the pastor of a Gainesville church who plans to protest Islam with a bonfire of Qurans on Sept. 11 vowed Tuesday to carry on."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/07/1 ... press.html

[patches70]

but I don't believe in it as an absolute freedom to say and do whatever you want without taking responsibility for the consequences.

But thanks for equating me with murderers, and Pastor Jones with Gandhi. I think your moral compass is a little off.

You are the one who says speech should be limited if people are going to be harmed from it. So it is, Gandhi and MLK both knew before hand that what they were going to say would lead to violence. People were going to get hurt. People DID get hurt and killed. If they listened to your argument then they would never have stood up for what they believed for fear of the repercussions.

Damn the repercussions. If it is what you believe then stand by it. Gandhi nor MLK nor the stupid Pastor ever told anyone to go out and harm others. But each of them, by your reasoning, are responsible for many deaths and violent acts. I say they are not. None of them. Each practiced free speech.

[Symmetry]

He did of course know that people would be killed if he continued. There really is no getting away from that fact.

I don't agree with that. Even if it IS true, the problem isn't his, but the people who killed other people.

Well- he was told that it would happen by a huge number of people. Generals, world leaders, experts in the Middle East. There is a chance, of course, that he didn't believe them and truly believed that there wouldn't be any killings.

However, I think this is kind of disproved by the fact that he'd earlier threatened to burn it and then called it off. The protests against that threat resulted in deaths. I suppose there is a remote possibility that he hadn't heard of that, but we're really into the minor realms of probability here.

So, no, I'm pretty certain he knew that people would die based on the warnings he was given and his past experience.

His hands, of course, are as clean as Pilates.

Quote from news article below "Despite warnings by several high-level American officials that his actions will endanger U.S. troops and American aid workers overseas, the pastor of a Gainesville church who plans to protest Islam with a bonfire of Qurans on Sept. 11 vowed Tuesday to carry on."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/07/1 ... press.html

Indeed- thanks for the link. Those warnings plus the previous violence kind of put to bed the argument that he didn't know people would die.

CBS news link from 2010

He knew it. He didn't care. He washed his hands and walked away.

[bedub1]

but I don't believe in it as an absolute freedom to say and do whatever you want without taking responsibility for the consequences.

His actions are burning a book. He polluted the environment, pissed off people.
He can't be responsible for OTHER peoples actions. They have to be held accountable for their OWN actions.

He didn't yell fire, he didn't order people to kill other people. Your level of cause and effect is flawed.

If he lit the book on fire, and it burned down a building and killed a bunch of people, then YES, he's responsible. In this case, no.

[Pirlo]

I live in the middle east and I can tell you he's contributed to the death of those people. I know free speech is one of the most important things in our lives as humans. I didn't hear of the incident because my region is busy with revolutions. those revolutions were started few months ago in order to have the right to free speech. does this tell you how important the free speech is?

however, I find the Quran burning offense for 1 billion muslims around the world. if you don't feel offended when your Holy Book is burnt, it doesn't mean other won't get offended when their own is.

the best example I can offer to help you understand how awfully muslims get offended is to tell you that burning Quran is like a white man walking in Harlem and yelling "f*ck You Niggers", especially when that man is aware that those guys carry guns and would shoot white men for that offense.

I mean African American people will find this offense & racism, not free speech.

sorry moderators, no bigotry or racism meant at all. just had to put a close example.

[Symmetry]

but I don't believe in it as an absolute freedom to say and do whatever you want without taking responsibility for the consequences.

But thanks for equating me with murderers, and Pastor Jones with Gandhi. I think your moral compass is a little off.

You are the one who says speech should be limited if people are going to be harmed from it. So it is, Gandhi and MLK both knew before hand that what they were going to say would lead to violence. People were going to get hurt. People DID get hurt and killed. If they listened to your argument then they would never have stood up for what they believed for fear of the repercussions.

Damn the repercussions. If it is what you believe then stand by it. Gandhi nor MLK nor the stupid Pastor ever told anyone to go out and harm others. But each of them, by your reasoning, are responsible for many deaths and violent acts. I say they are not. None of them. Each practiced free speech.

I am indeed saying that free speech should be limited if it harms others. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's pretty much the test of free speech. Fire in a crowded theatre is the classic example, but it's come up plenty of times. You are aware of it, I guess.

I don't think that yelling "fire" is the same as telling someone to go out and harm others. I think that yelling "fire" would cause you to be responsible, at least in part, for any deaths that followed in the stampede.

The comparisons with Gandhi and Doctor King are just lame, and really a little bit disgusting.

I actually had a whole set of paragraphs written detailing why Terry Jones is not a modern day Gandhi or Martin Luther King. I removed them from this post. I won't persuade you, and I'm reasonably certain that other people will dismiss your awful awful comparisons.

[Symmetry]

but I don't believe in it as an absolute freedom to say and do whatever you want without taking responsibility for the consequences.

His actions are burning a book. He polluted the environment, pissed off people.
He can't be responsible for OTHER peoples actions. They have to be held accountable for their OWN actions.

He didn't yell fire, he didn't order people to kill other people. Your level of cause and effect is flawed.

If he lit the book on fire, and it burned down a building and killed a bunch of people, then YES, he's responsible. In this case, no.

Of course he can. What a bizarre argument. If you told someone you would pay them to kill your wife and they did so, you would be responsible even if you didn't kill her yourself. You don't have to perform the deed yourself to have a degree of responsibility for the actions of another person.

Weird argument.

[mgconstruction]

We can all argue our opinions on whether this pastor is responsible directly or indirectly for all the deaths that become of this.

What we can not argue is the fact that what he did had absolutely no Positive effect on our world, It did nothing but fuel the fire of Muslims world wide in a time where their entire region is fragile & many are uprising amongst their own governments to fight for their own freedoms. I see no positive coming out of his actions. To me, this makes for a shitty human being at the least.

[bedub1]

The next time a bible or American flag is burned by Muslims extremists, and Americans/Christians kill non-extremist Muslims living in America, is it the fault of the muslim extremists that burned the bible/flag?

[radiojake]

The next time a bible or American flag is burned by Muslims extremists, and Americans/Christians kill non-extremist Muslims living in America, is it the fault of the muslim extremists that burned the bible/flag?

I think you are forgetting that at no point has anyone condoned or considered reasonable the actions of the lunatic extremists who attacked the UN compound - They are just as fucked up as the pastor who first burned the Koran.

[patches70]

I am indeed saying that free speech should be limited if it harms others. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's pretty much the test of free speech.

Let's limit free speech then, and follow it to a logical conclusion, you shall be the example.


In YOUR town, the KKK (Christian Soldiers for Kids, Allah for America, Midget porn actor's guild, whatever, any group) has gotten the permits and are going to march through the center of YOUR town.

YOU decide that you want to organize a counter protest. But wait, if you do that, violence will erupt. so you would have to decide not to organize the counter protest. You have just let them run right over you because you fear for the consequences.

So, since you are just a pussy, you decide that you will just have the group labeled as extremists and force the local government to shut them down and not allow them to march.

Months later, you want to organize a march for gay rights, but those very same people, citizens in your town, that you had labeled as extremists, go and have YOU labeled as an extremist and now you can't march.

Or

Maybe you do go to march instead of backing down. However, you have successfully lobbied to have free speech legally impeded if violence could happen. So, when you go to get your permit to have the counter march you are told- "Oh, so sorry, you can't march that day because it could incite violence. Your right to free speech is denied until another time."

You see where this goes? In the end, it just ends up no one has free speech.


Let the extremists talk, let them have their free speech. They come out of the woodwork and people know them for what they are. If you advocate the taking away of liberty from people, even asshole people, you end up just breeding more radicals and extremists.

[Symmetry]

I am indeed saying that free speech should be limited if it harms others. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's pretty much the test of free speech.

Let's limit free speech then, and follow it to a logical conclusion, you shall be the example.


In YOUR town, the KKK (Christian Soldiers for Kids, Allah for America, Midget porn actor's guild, whatever, any group) has gotten the permits and are going to march through the center of YOUR town.

YOU decide that you want to organize a counter protest. But wait, if you do that, violence will erupt. so you would have to decide not to organize the counter protest. You have just let them run right over you because you fear for the consequences.

So, since you are just a pussy, you decide that you will just have the group labeled as extremists and force the local government to shut them down and not allow them to march.

Months later, you want to organize a march for gay rights, but those very same people, citizens in your town, that you had labeled as extremists, go and have YOU labeled as an extremist and now you can't march.

Or

Maybe you do go to march instead of backing down. However, you have successfully lobbied to have free speech legally impeded if violence could happen. So, when you go to get your permit to have the counter march you are told- "Oh, so sorry, you can't march that day because it could incite violence. Your right to free speech is denied until another time."

You see where this goes? In the end, it just ends up no one has free speech.


Let the extremists talk, let them have their free speech. They come out of the woodwork and people know them for what they are. If you advocate the taking away of liberty from people, even asshole people, you end up just breeding more radicals and extremists.

Thanks for downgrading me from murderer to pussy. Or maybe upgrading.

[bedub1]

The next time a bible or American flag is burned by Muslims extremists, and Americans/Christians kill non-extremist Muslims living in America, is it the fault of the muslim extremists that burned the bible/flag?

I think you are forgetting that at no point has anyone condoned or considered reasonable the actions of the lunatic extremists who attacked the UN compound - They are just as fucked up as the pastor who first burned the Koran.

I completely understand that. Now, in my above example, would you blame the extremist Muslims that burned the bible/American Flag? Would they be "directly or indirectly" responsible?

[john9blue]

I am indeed saying that free speech should be limited if it harms others. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's pretty much the test of free speech.

Let's limit free speech then, and follow it to a logical conclusion, you shall be the example.


In YOUR town, the KKK (Christian Soldiers for Kids, Allah for America, Midget porn actor's guild, whatever, any group) has gotten the permits and are going to march through the center of YOUR town.

YOU decide that you want to organize a counter protest. But wait, if you do that, violence will erupt. so you would have to decide not to organize the counter protest. You have just let them run right over you because you fear for the consequences.

So, since you are just a pussy, you decide that you will just have the group labeled as extremists and force the local government to shut them down and not allow them to march.

Months later, you want to organize a march for gay rights, but those very same people, citizens in your town, that you had labeled as extremists, go and have YOU labeled as an extremist and now you can't march.

Or

Maybe you do go to march instead of backing down. However, you have successfully lobbied to have free speech legally impeded if violence could happen. So, when you go to get your permit to have the counter march you are told- "Oh, so sorry, you can't march that day because it could incite violence. Your right to free speech is denied until another time."

You see where this goes? In the end, it just ends up no one has free speech.


Let the extremists talk, let them have their free speech. They come out of the woodwork and people know them for what they are. If you advocate the taking away of liberty from people, even asshole people, you end up just breeding more radicals and extremists.

Thanks for downgrading me from murderer to pussy. Or maybe upgrading.

patches: 1
sym: 0

[Pirlo]

The next time a bible or American flag is burned by Muslims extremists, and Americans/Christians kill non-extremist Muslims living in America, is it the fault of the muslim extremists that burned the bible/flag?

I think you are forgetting that at no point has anyone condoned or considered reasonable the actions of the lunatic extremists who attacked the UN compound - They are just as fucked up as the pastor who first burned the Koran.

I completely understand that. Now, in my above example, would you blame the extremist Muslims that burned the bible/American Flag? Would they be "directly or indirectly" responsible?

I'd blame them if they burnt the bible on any day, and I'd blame them if they burnt a flag in peace time.

I sometimes meet muslim extremists in my real life and I see them sometimes on TV. a noteworthy point is that religion is more important than country for muslim extremists. this is why they would not make a bible burning party in order for their Koran not to be burnt in return. if you ever see, in anytime in future, "muslim extremists burning bible" before media, trust me they would be fake. it's not like they respect other people's religions, but rather, they would just avoid causing their book getting burnt. even extremists, although I don't agree with/appreciate any brand of them, have some orders some times

[BigBallinStalin]

I am indeed saying that free speech should be limited if it harms others. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's pretty much the test of free speech.

Let's limit free speech then, and follow it to a logical conclusion, you shall be the example.


In YOUR town, the KKK (Christian Soldiers for Kids, Allah for America, Midget porn actor's guild, whatever, any group) has gotten the permits and are going to march through the center of YOUR town.

YOU decide that you want to organize a counter protest. But wait, if you do that, violence will erupt. so you would have to decide not to organize the counter protest. You have just let them run right over you because you fear for the consequences.

So, since you are just a pussy, you decide that you will just have the group labeled as extremists and force the local government to shut them down and not allow them to march.

Months later, you want to organize a march for gay rights, but those very same people, citizens in your town, that you had labeled as extremists, go and have YOU labeled as an extremist and now you can't march.

Or

Maybe you do go to march instead of backing down. However, you have successfully lobbied to have free speech legally impeded if violence could happen. So, when you go to get your permit to have the counter march you are told- "Oh, so sorry, you can't march that day because it could incite violence. Your right to free speech is denied until another time."

You see where this goes? In the end, it just ends up no one has free speech.


Let the extremists talk, let them have their free speech. They come out of the woodwork and people know them for what they are. If you advocate the taking away of liberty from people, even asshole people, you end up just breeding more radicals and extremists.

Thanks for downgrading me from murderer to pussy. Or maybe upgrading.

patches: 1
sym: 0

Yeah, patches did catch ya there, Sym (assuming patches didn't subvert your argument into a strawman).

[Symmetry]

I am indeed saying that free speech should be limited if it harms others. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's pretty much the test of free speech.

Let's limit free speech then, and follow it to a logical conclusion, you shall be the example.


In YOUR town, the KKK (Christian Soldiers for Kids, Allah for America, Midget porn actor's guild, whatever, any group) has gotten the permits and are going to march through the center of YOUR town.

YOU decide that you want to organize a counter protest. But wait, if you do that, violence will erupt. so you would have to decide not to organize the counter protest. You have just let them run right over you because you fear for the consequences.

So, since you are just a pussy, you decide that you will just have the group labeled as extremists and force the local government to shut them down and not allow them to march.

Months later, you want to organize a march for gay rights, but those very same people, citizens in your town, that you had labeled as extremists, go and have YOU labeled as an extremist and now you can't march.

Or

Maybe you do go to march instead of backing down. However, you have successfully lobbied to have free speech legally impeded if violence could happen. So, when you go to get your permit to have the counter march you are told- "Oh, so sorry, you can't march that day because it could incite violence. Your right to free speech is denied until another time."

You see where this goes? In the end, it just ends up no one has free speech.


Let the extremists talk, let them have their free speech. They come out of the woodwork and people know them for what they are. If you advocate the taking away of liberty from people, even asshole people, you end up just breeding more radicals and extremists.

Fine- two posters who I respect called me out on not replying to you properly, so I'll let the flaming and quoting out of context stuff slide and give you a proper response.

You appear to be labouring under an assumption that free speech is not limited. It is. Always has been, always will be, and placing limits on it is something that is right. Free speech should have limits. The example I gave is the classic one of "fire" in a crowded theatre. You edited that out and ignored it.

No one has free speech. Its an ideal, and a worthy one, but none of us have a right to say or act however we want without fear of legal repercussions. In reality, limits on free speech and rights to free speech are always in opposition to one another and it's the balance between the two that is a matter of debate.

You've essentially created a kind of strawman here by concluding that "If you advocate the taking away of liberty from people, even asshole people, you end up just breeding more radicals and extremists". This is pretty lame stuff based on a vague definition of liberty. I fully advocate taking away liberty from convicted murderers. I don't consider that position to be a breeding ground for radicalism.

So, unless you truly believe that free speech actually exists without limits, and that liberty should never be curtailed (or that when it is it creates radicals), I would argue that your basic premises are false.

I absolutely support liberties being taken away from people. I absolutely support limits on freedom of speech. Where you've gone wrong here is in thinking that:

1) I'm opposed to freedom of speech and liberty.
2) You don't already support limits to both.

Urgh- long post. Getting to your example. I actually think you have a few good points here, ignoring the flaming. The right to protest is something I value very highly. I don't think it's a valid comparison. The idea that organising a counter protest to an extremist group that might cause violence would seem to be more of a justification of those who organised the counter protests that resulted in deaths in response to Pastor Jones' book burning.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the Taliban were justified in organising a violent counter protest because not doing so would result in Pastor Jones letting them "run right over them", I just don't see this as a valid comparison. The Taliban would not have been pussies if they'd avoided stirring shit. It was absolutely what they wanted.

As I've argued before, and throughout this thread, both sides want exactly the same result.

Conflict between Islam and Christianity, or more widely the West. The Taliban absolutely wanted this to be the end result, and Pastor Jones knew it would happen. Neither side saw violence as being an uncomfortable problem that might happen. Pastor Jones knew it would happen, and the Taliban wanted an example of American's fundamentally hating all Muslims.

Anyway- I've gone on long enough. I suspect I haven't addressed all of your points, but hey- long post. I'll try to clarify anything that is unclear, or address points that you think I haven't dealt with.

[patches70]

The limits already in place on free speech do not apply in this case. You are proposing new limits, advocating more limits. You do not see that your proposed limits are moving toward tyranny, the taking away of liberty.

I am addressing your contradictory statements. Pastor Jones burning the Koran was an expression of protest against Islam. You yourself have already stated that what he did was legal. Therefore, Pastor Jones exercised Free Speech, not the kind of "crying fire in a theater" because that is not legal and therefore is not free speech. Pastor Jones exercised legal speech, therefore Free Speech.

Now, we have established that Jones used free speech. You then go to say that even though what he did was legal, that he should be punished or limited because people got hurt and killed. You say what he did was offensive.

Certainly, when people protest and exercise free speech, someone always gets offended. If you march against a King or a tyrant, the tyrant is offended, to the point he might well have you imprisoned or killed. I reject limiting free and legal speech due to the "offence principle". The simple fact that someone might get offended at the exercise of legal Free Speech is no reason to limit that speech.

As for the possibility that free speech may incite others to violence, "hate speech", the law is very clear on this in regards to free speech. So long as Jones does not speak to obscenity, defamation or incite riot.
It is not obscene to burn a book by the definition of the law of the land in which the act was done.
He did not defame anyone, he stated his opinion.
He did not incite riot, at no point did he ask for others to rise up in violence. There was no reprisals against those who practice Islam. If Pastor Jones had burned the Koran and called for like minded people to burn Muslims, then that would certainly be considered hate speech, and thus illegal and not free speech. Jones is not responsible for the opposition rising up to violence.

You may disagree, but that matters none. Jones speech was legal and free speech, thus, should not be limited or infringed upon.

Free speech can lead to dissension, in fact it often does. That is why tyrants limit free speech, to discourage dissent. It was the longing of liberty for things such as free speech that led to war between the American Colonists and England. From your point of view England was right in trying to limit such liberties.

That is what the groups in Afghanistan, they are trying to quell free speech. It is well understood that there are some serious cultural differences when the President of Afghanistan is urging the POTUS to prosecute Pastor Jones. Jones can't be prosecuted, because his speech was legal and free.

You find yourself on the wrong side of history when you call for limits to free speech.


Hell, if people were pissed about the Koran burning, wait till they get wind of what Pastor Jones is going to do next! Maybe you ought to take matters into your own hands, Symmetry, and go on down to Florida and stop Jones yourself. You will go to prison but in your mind you will have saved untold numbers of people. Wouldn't that be worth the rest of your life in prison?

For my part, I find that ignoring fools like Jones if far more effective. If the message is not a worthy one, then it will die like a candle burning out in the night. That is the nature of Free Speech. That which is worthy moves people, that which is not is forgotten.

[patches70]

I can put it to rest once and for all actually. We should follow your assertions to the logical conclusion, starting with the burning of the Koran is not protected Free Speech.

-The people decide that burning the Koran incites violence, so it is made a crime to do so.
-The Christians say "Burning the Bible is as offensive to us as burning the Koran is to Muslims. They get violent so you reward that by giving in to their demands. We want the burning of Bible's to be a criminal offense as well. It is only fair."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more burning the Bible either.
-The secularist say, "Well, we don't care about the Bible or the Koran, but we care about the Flag. It is offensive to us that our Nation's flag is burned. It is only fair that our views be addressed as well."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more burning the flag.
-The Obamaphile's say- " Well, we love our President, and protests against him are offensive to us. We want our views to be addressed. It is only fair."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more speaking out against President Obama.
-The Bushphiles say- "We like Bush, he protected us but Obama demonized him but we can't retort. It is only fair that the same protections given Obama be given to Bush as well."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more speaking out on any future, current or past President.
-The Congress say, "Wait, we get criticized over and over as well. Since one branch of Government is now protected from Free Speech, we deserve to be protected as well. It is only fair."
-Fine, fine, the people say. In the interest of harmony, no speech will be allowed in criticism of government.
-The gays say-

You get the point now?

Pretty soon it gets to the point where no one can say anything lest it disrupt harmony and cause dissension.

I say, let the dissension come. Let the debate be fierce and heated and brought to light. For only when we are honest to ourselves and are allowed to speak our mind can people truly have a chance to find common ground eventually. Though, often, to get there will almost always be a struggle. It is a struggle worth having IMO.

[Johnny Rockets]

For my part, I find that ignoring fools like Jones if far more effective. If the message is not a worthy one, then it will die like a candle burning out in the night. That is the nature of Free Speech. That which is worthy moves people, that which is not is forgotten.

Thats nice and all, but in this world of global exposure, and the media havng a hard on for every story that weeps controversy, that which is not worthy is not forgotten.

They won't let us forget it.

They replay it ad replay it, and interview everyone and their dog to air their reaction and they keep it alive because we don't watch the news for pure information anymore.

We watch it to be entertained, and controversy does that. No controversy, no watchers. No watchers, no advertising revenue.

Jones did this for the publicity. Not to exercise free speech, or anything else he states. He did it for attention.

And people died for it.
And he knew they would.

If you think you can justify that and sleep at night, then God help you.

JRock

[patches70]

Thats nice and all, but in this world of global exposure, and the media havng a hard on for every story that weeps controversy, that which is not worthy is not forgotten.
They won't let us forget it.
They replay it ad replay it, and interview everyone and their dog to air their reaction and they keep it alive because we don't watch the news for pure information anymore.
We watch it to be entertained, and controversy does that. No controversy, no watchers. No watchers, no advertising revenue.
Jones did this for the publicity. Not to exercise free speech, or anything else he states. He did it for attention.
And people died for it.
And he knew they would.
If you think you can justify that and sleep at night, then God help you.

JRock

And God help you if you can sleep at night knowing that every person on the planet has their opinions, beliefs and views properly and duly authorized. Every word spoken, written or acted out shall be categorized, submitted for approval, judged, resubmitted, labeled, numbered, denied, amended, appealed, contradicted, and in the end lawfully revoked from seeing the light of day save for those that speak to only a single train of thought. Obedience to The State.

God save us all from those who would push for such a society.

[Johnny Rockets]

Oh, I'm pretty sure there’s a little room between callously endangering others to voicing ones opinion.

JR

[john9blue]

you are both different types of people.

patches does not presume to know what is good and bad. he lets other people decide for themselves.

rockets thinks he knows what is good and bad. he will tell/force others what to do.

it is that simple.

[bedub1]

you are both different types of people.

patches does not presume to know what is good and bad. he lets other people decide for themselves.

rockets thinks he knows what is good and bad. he will tell/force others what to do.

it is that simple.

interesting idea.

I still can't make the leap of faith that some people make saying "he burned the book for it, and people died because of it."
I say NO. He burned a book, and people died because other people reacted in non-rational ways and murdered people. Just because they said they would react in that non-rational way, doesn't mean you should believe them or change your actions because of it. If you do that, then the terrorists have won.

[Symmetry]

The limits already in place on free speech do not apply in this case. You are proposing new limits, advocating more limits. You do not see that your proposed limits are moving toward tyranny, the taking away of liberty.

Again you seem to be using very hazily defined words here. It makes for great rhetoric, but a poor argument. I take it that you now at least concede that limits should exist on free speech and liberty though. I'm not certain that I'm proposing new limits. I may well have done earlier in the thread, but I've said that what he did was legal in the US. I'm pretty sure I've proposed no new laws. What I am arguing is that Pastor Jones bears responsibility for the deaths. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

I am addressing your contradictory statements. Pastor Jones burning the Koran was an expression of protest against Islam. You yourself have already stated that what he did was legal. Therefore, Pastor Jones exercised Free Speech, not the kind of "crying fire in a theater" because that is not legal and therefore is not free speech. Pastor Jones exercised legal speech, therefore Free Speech.

You've become lost here. What he did was indeed legal, and therefore free speech, but that does not mean it should be legal or free. The "fire" argument is precisely about whether exercising free speech that would lead to deaths is acceptable or not. Pastor Jones can be considered to have done this. Dismissing the argument based on the fact that what he did was legal, and yelling "fire" is illegal is a bit lame. I'm rather more interested in the reasoning behind it.

Now, we have established that Jones used free speech. You then go to say that even though what he did was legal, that he should be punished or limited because people got hurt and killed. You say what he did was offensive.

What I'm saying is a little stronger than that. I'm saying that he was told by any number of experts that people would die if he went through with his book burning. And that he had prior experience telling him that people would die. I'll go a bit further and say that he did the absolute best he possibly could to make his statement public. Furthermore he knew that what he was doing would destabilise large sections of the Middle East. Offensive doesn't quite cover it. The UN is considering pulling staff out of Afghanistan because of this. It was pure gold for the Taliban.

Certainly, when people protest and exercise free speech, someone always gets offended. If you march against a King or a tyrant, the tyrant is offended, to the point he might well have you imprisoned or killed. I reject limiting free and legal speech due to the "offence principle". The simple fact that someone might get offended at the exercise of legal Free Speech is no reason to limit that speech.

I agree with this, but I don't think that what he was doing was simply about offence. I would say incitement to violence.

As for the possibility that free speech may incite others to violence, "hate speech", the law is very clear on this in regards to free speech. So long as Jones does not speak to obscenity, defamation or incite riot.
It is not obscene to burn a book by the definition of the law of the land in which the act was done.
He did not defame anyone, he stated his opinion.
He did not incite riot, at no point did he ask for others to rise up in violence. There was no reprisals against those who practice Islam. If Pastor Jones had burned the Koran and called for like minded people to burn Muslims, then that would certainly be considered hate speech, and thus illegal and not free speech. Jones is not responsible for the opposition rising up to violence.

He did of course, incite riot. He did not, of course, call for violence, but he certainly started these riots. He knew what the reaction would be. His speech was incendiary.

You may disagree, but that matters none. Jones speech was legal and free speech, thus, should not be limited or infringed upon.

Free speech can lead to dissension, in fact it often does. That is why tyrants limit free speech, to discourage dissent. It was the longing of liberty for things such as free speech that led to war between the American Colonists and England. From your point of view England was right in trying to limit such liberties.

Nice. Save it for another thread and try to cut back on the personal attacks a little bit. I'm not a "pussy", or a tyrant, or even pro-tyranny any more than I am the moral equivalent of a murderer.

That is what the groups in Afghanistan, they are trying to quell free speech. It is well understood that there are some serious cultural differences when the President of Afghanistan is urging the POTUS to prosecute Pastor Jones. Jones can't be prosecuted, because his speech was legal and free.

You find yourself on the wrong side of history when you call for limits to free speech.

Hell, if people were pissed about the Koran burning, wait till they get wind of what Pastor Jones is going to do next! Maybe you ought to take matters into your own hands, Symmetry, and go on down to Florida and stop Jones yourself. You will go to prison but in your mind you will have saved untold numbers of people. Wouldn't that be worth the rest of your life in prison?

For my part, I find that ignoring fools like Jones if far more effective. If the message is not a worthy one, then it will die like a candle burning out in the night. That is the nature of Free Speech. That which is worthy moves people, that which is not is forgotten.

Cute rhetoric. Unworthy messages do not simply die, nor is the worth of a message defined by how long it lasts. Ultimately, when I say that there should be limits to free speech, I think I find myself on the right side of history, and I think that you've misunderstood the term "free speech" in relation to limits placed on it. When you define it entirely by what is legally allowed, well, then everyone has free speech throughout the world, it's not a problem.

I'm on the right side of history because as far as I know, there has never been a society that did not limit free speech in some way. I firmly believe there never will.