Burning the Koran

[coadie]

Originally Posted by repconackd

They may not have the legal right to do it if it is considered that the "speech" will incite violence. If the "speech" would cause imminent lawless action, it is not protected under the First Amendment, Brandenburg v. Ohio. The other exception it may fall under is "Fighting Words" (Keep in mind that demonstration is considered speech under the First Amendment.) "...those (words) that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

Give us a break. What a sloppy to oppose something. It is the Muslims threatening violence that is wrong. They are whiners and babies. Burning garbage doesn't tell a single person to create a violent deed against a Muslim. Listen to chants at football games if you want insight. The games don't incite violence after games.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by coadie

Give us a break. What a sloppy to oppose something. It is the Muslims threatening violence that is wrong. They are whiners and babies. Burning garbage doesn't tell a single person to create a violent deed against a Muslim. Listen to chants at football games if you want insight. The games don't incite violence after games.

First let me correct an error on my part. My daughter was logged into AFF and I didn't realize I was posting under her name.

I am not sure what "Sloppy" is but I am pretty sure it doesn't apply to over 70 years of Supreme Court decisions many of which were unanimous on the topic. Personally, I don't see this as free speech I see it as a deliberate attempt to stir up violence. Complete ignorance.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

First let me correct an error on my part. My daughter was logged into AFF and I didn't realize I was posting under her name.

I am not sure what "Sloppy" is but I am pretty sure it doesn't apply to over 70 years of Supreme Court decisions many of which were unanimous on the topic. Personally, I don't see this as free speech I see it as a deliberate attempt to stir up violence. Complete ignorance.

How do you explain Phelps victory in Nebraska? Or Bill ayers also desecrating the flag? Theirs is free speech and protected. The opposing party is responsible for their own behavior. I understand Muslims from a different perspective. We supported a mission in a Muslim country since the 50's as a family. You are limited to the media. winning a muslim to the Lord incites violence. They get a death threat. If they return to their country they go to jail. Baron you also like the media can't read minds. Even when we send a medical doctor into the Jungle, we sometimes incite violence by the shamans and witchdoctiors.
Casting the demons out of a girl incited violence in Acts and got a couple apostles tossed in jail.

Muslims play the blame game because the the political correct crowd enable them.

Burn the quran
Create a cartoon
Convert a soul

Honor killings are actually unprovoked violence.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by coadie

How do you explain Phelps victory in Nebraska? Or Bill ayers also desecrating the flag? Theirs is free speech and protected. The opposing party is responsible for their own behavior. I understand Muslims from a different perspective. We supported a mission in a Muslim country since the 50's as a family. You are limited to the media. winning a muslim to the Lord incites violence. They get a death threat. If they return to their country they go to jail. Baron you also like the media can't read minds. Even when we send a medical doctor into the Jungle, we sometimes incite violence by the shamans and witchdoctiors.
Casting the demons out of a girl incited violence in Acts and got a couple apostles tossed in jail.

Muslims play the blame game because the the political correct crowd enable them.

Burn the quran
Create a cartoon
Convert a soul

Honor killings are actually unprovoked violence.

If your behavior either 1. will incite other to violence through the fighting words doctrine or 2. If your speech will incite those who are listening to violence then it is not protected speech.

As to Phelps, the Supreme court had already ruled on flag burning as speech and what was being challenged was the state law against desecration of the flag.

Saying the opposing party is responsible for their behavior doesn't apply if it falls under fighting words. Flag burning has been declared Constitutional. Incidental Scalia voted in favor of allowing flag burning as a form of speech that did not and Stevens voted against it.

It is not free speech to burn a cross with "an intent to intimidate."

[whoami]

I really REALLY hope this church doesn't go through with this.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by whoami

I really REALLY hope this church doesn't go through with this.

I think people should read some of the quran. It explains a lot of the mess we see in the Muslim religion. Burning it serves no benefit.

[whoami]

Originally Posted by coadie

I think people should read some of the quran. It explains a lot of the mess we see in the Muslim religion. Burning it serves no benefit.

I've read it. Don't like it, but think what this church is doing is ignorant and pointless.

[Maximilian]

Shameful. Awful. Antithesis of Christian.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

First let me correct an error on my part. My daughter was logged into AFF and I didn't realize I was posting under her name.

I am not sure what "Sloppy" is but I am pretty sure it doesn't apply to over 70 years of Supreme Court decisions many of which were unanimous on the topic. Personally, I don't see this as free speech I see it as a deliberate attempt to stir up violence. Complete ignorance.

lol..I thought we had another lawyer on our hands.

The idea of that being hate speech is pretty subjective. We need clear guidelines.

They aren't saying "hurt muslims". They are claiming this as protest reminder of 9/11

Im curious though why the flag can be burned. That could incite violence against Americans in other nations. But it's a protected freedom. What about putting a cross in a jar of urine?

Is it really a deliberate attempt to stir up violence? I mean, what kind? Against Muslims or by Muslims against Americans? The cross in the jar is offensive to Christians but Christians don't riot so they are free to walk all over our religion.

If we drew a satirical cartoon of Mohamed that can also now be seen as inciting violence, though the intent is to make a political or religious statement about Mohamed.

I think that is too dangerous and way to subjective. I do support this churches right to do that. I support that artist's right to do what he did. I support the cartoonists right. I support anyone's right to speak up and out against the religion of Islam. I support Muslims to speak up and out against Christianity. If they want to hold a bible burning rally, I support their right to do so. I don't support their right to make speeches at that rally and advocate harm to anyone, same goes for those Christians.

I really do believe that such a ruling is a slippery slope and will lead to the stuff they had happen in Australia where a pastor was jailed under the law for defining Islam as an evil religion. A Muslim was in attendance and reported the incident.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

lol..I thought we had another lawyer on our hands.

The idea of that being hate speech is pretty subjective. We need clear guidelines.

They aren't saying "hurt muslims". They are claiming this as protest reminder of 9/11

Im curious though why the flag can be burned. That could incite violence against Americans in other nations. But it's a protected freedom. What about putting a cross in a jar of urine?

Is it really a deliberate attempt to stir up violence? I mean, what kind? Against Muslims or by Muslims against Americans? The cross in the jar is offensive to Christians but Christians don't riot so they are free to walk all over our religion.

If we drew a satirical cartoon of Mohamed that can also now be seen as inciting violence, though the intent is to make a political or religious statement about Mohamed.

I think that is too dangerous and way to subjective. I do support this churches right to do that. I support that artist's right to do what he did. I support the cartoonists right. I support anyone's right to speak up and out against the religion of Islam. I support Muslims to speak up and out against Christianity. If they want to hold a bible burning rally, I support their right to do so. I don't support their right to make speeches at that rally and advocate harm to anyone, same goes for those Christians.

I really do believe that such a ruling is a slippery slope and will lead to the stuff they had happen in Australia where a pastor was jailed under the law for defining Islam as an evil religion. A Muslim was in attendance and reported the incident.

The violence must be expected from the speaker not the one reacting to it. If the speech is likely to incite those that are participating in the rally to violence OR make others fear that violence is impending (such as what often followed cross burning).