Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You act like Freedom of Speech is absolute and has never been limited...
True, but there have been countless examples of "blasphemy" that have been considered protected speech. Stuff like "**** Christ" and the movie "Dogma" offended thousands of people, but were never in any danger of being censored. It would be inconsistent to suddenly censor this.
It's also ironic that this happened soon after the SC ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church are protected. If they are free to protest funerals and deeply offend grieving families, then Terry Jones if free to burn a holy book.
No, its like yelling fire in a crowded theater then 2 weeks later people got trampled to death.
I'd rather not give the hateful barbarians an excuse for willful acts of violence. yes--burning a koran is definitely bad taste, and is mean-spirited (however evil a book it is) but that does not justify murder.
True, but there have been countless examples of "blasphemy" that have been considered protected speech. Stuff like "**** Christ" and the movie "Dogma" offended thousands of people, but were never in any danger of being censored. It would be inconsistent to suddenly censor this.
It's also ironic that this happened soon after the SC ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church are protected. If they are free to protest funerals and deeply offend grieving families, then Terry Jones if free to burn a holy book.
I don't think Phelps is the same case. He's within legal protesting limits, and as of yet, has not increased the risk of harm to anyone. He's as verbally offensive as anyone can be, but words alone aren't deemed harmful (in most cases - the fighting words doctrine is an exception). Burning a sacred book of another religion to intentionally stir up trouble while we're in the middle of war, despite being told not to by the Federal Government due to increasing the risk of harm to soldiers overseas and interfering with national security is beyond mere offensive words.
I'd rather not give the hateful barbarians an excuse for willful acts of violence. yes--burning a koran is definitely bad taste, and is mean-spirited (however evil a book it is) but that does not justify murder.
In our minds, no. In theirs, yes. To them it is blasphemy, an offense punishable by death. Those who go on these murderous rampages believe they are fully justified in doing so.
In our minds, no. In theirs, yes. To them it is blasphemy, an offense punishable by death. Those who go on these murderous rampages believe they are fully justified in doing so.
I realize that. And we shouldn't be afraid to call that religion what it is. You see stuff like this and it's hard to believe that people actually got upset when they held congressional hearings on it.
"Willful Negligence. Intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. Willful negligence usually involves a conscious indifference to the consequences. There is no clear distinction between willful negligence and gross negligence."
I don't think Phelps is the same case. He's within legal protesting limits, and as of yet, has not increased the risk of harm to anyone. He's as verbally offensive as anyone can be, but words alone aren't deemed harmful (in most cases - the fighting words doctrine is an exception). Burning a sacred book of another religion to intentionally stir up trouble while we're in the middle of war, despite being told not to by the Federal Government due to increasing the risk of harm to soldiers overseas and interfering with national security is beyond mere offensive words.
So what you're saying is, because radical muslims are worse butchers than, say, the vast majority of Chritians, their wishes must be respected? That the only way to get special "protections" are through violence? Sorry, but you're 180* off. These people are the most vile and deserving of contempt (again, note that I specified Radical Muslims, not Islam as a whole). Burning something they care about and slaughter over is a perfectly reasonable form of protest and a way to show contempt for their actions.
I don't think Phelps is the same case. He's within legal protesting limits, and as of yet, has not increased the risk of harm to anyone. He's as verbally offensive as anyone can be, but words alone aren't deemed harmful (in most cases - the fighting words doctrine is an exception). Burning a sacred book of another religion to intentionally stir up trouble while we're in the middle of war, despite being told not to by the Federal Government due to increasing the risk of harm to soldiers overseas and interfering with national security is beyond mere offensive words.
Yeah, but like I said, people have made movies and artwork that is offensive to Christians for years, and it has always been protected speech. I don't like the idea of censoring speech based on irrational peoples reactions. That goes against the very idea of free speech, and also sets up an arbitrary standard. By that logic, the KKK could shut down a civil rights event by threatening to kill people. Do we really want our freedom of speech to depend on the worst element of society?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....pedophile priests help, too!
