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.
Sure, it pisses my neighbors off. Might incite violence.
But thats not what you said. You said burning the Qu'ran or the flag should be illegal, not when doing it to incite violence.
Still a slippery slope, who determines when it is to incite violence. My opinion may not be shared with others. Its why the Constitution protects all free speech, not some.
Again I understand what you are saying. But constitution clearly does not protect hate speech, I guess i am trying to figure out if burning Koran or burning flag = hate speech.
In all fairness, I understand what you are saying.
The only point I am trying to make is that
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not murdering either, however, it is illegal" for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic.
If this is the logic behind it, then why burning Koran or any religious symbol or any national flag should be legal.
It simply doesn't make any sense to me.
But that is in OUR country.
Shouting fire here and a bunch of people reading that someone shouted fire in Carnagie hall, then stomping people to death to try and get out of a bar in downtown London is not grounds to cause anyone in our country a problem.
South Park showed a drawn picture of Muhammad. It supposedly incited some people to violence, because any picture of Muhammad is an afront to the world of Islam.
Most muslims in this country don't go out and hurt people, because they know we have laws. Its Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan that gets all pissy about it, and I'm not about to restrict someones free speech here, to possibly not offend people over there.
30 folks supposedly died due to this. Know how many Iraqis we killed in a single day, on average in Iraq? Way more then 30. I think that has a slightly higher chance of causing them to hurt Americans, the burning of a book or the drawing in a comic is simply the excuse they use.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not murdering either, however, it is illegal" for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic.
No, it is not. This is a BS example used all the time.
Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.
[MOD CUT/copyright]
Shouting fire here and a bunch of people reading that someone shouted fire in Carnagie hall, then stomping people to death to try and get out of a bar in downtown London is not grounds to cause anyone in our country a problem.
South Park showed a drawn picture of Muhammad. It supposedly incited some people to violence, because any picture of Muhammad is an afront to the world of Islam.
Most muslims in this country don't go out and hurt people, because they know we have laws. Its Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan that gets all pissy about it, and I'm not about to restrict someones free speech here, to possibly not offend people over there.
30 folks supposedly died due to this. Know how many Iraqis we killed in a single day, on average in Iraq? Way more then 30. I think that has a slightly higher chance of causing them to hurt Americans, the burning of a book or the drawing in a comic is simply the excuse they use.
My thread is not just limited to Muslims though.
Let's say somebody burn Chinese flags or German or British or any flags, this action by itself may or may not cause riots. We are becoming citizen of the world, believe it or not, admit it or not.
We can no longer hold on to the idea that as long as we are living in OUR country, we can do whatever the hell we want to do to other people's national symbol or religious symbol.
Flag is not just a piece of cloth to a lot of people.
My thread is not just limited to Muslims though.
Let's say somebody burn Chinese flags or German or British or any flags, this action by itself may or may not cause riots. We are becoming citizen of the world, believe it or not, admit it or not.
We can no longer hold on to the idea that as long as we are living in OUR country, we can do whatever the hell we want to do to other people's national symbol or religious symbol.
Flag is not just a piece of cloth to a lot of people.
Then **** on the Chinese, the Germans, and the British. If they want to start a war over burning their flag, bring it.
Again, I will not sacrifice anyones free speech in my country, for the delicate ego of foreign citizens. Not going to happen
Again, **** the flag, its a piece of ****. Burn baby burn.
Are you going to hurt me now?
Allah is a punk wimp fictional character.
Everything I just said, you would make illegal. Thats just stupid.
The fighting words concept, IIRC, has much to do with location.
When a local chapter of The American Nazi Party parades through a Jewish neighborhood or gathers in front of a synagogue, and chants "Hitler had the right idea", is that a practice of free speech, or is the very nature of the location an in your face confrontation?
If I stand in front of your house and scream sick and vile things about your wife or daughter, is that an exercise in free speech, or a confrontation designed to tick you off?
The problem with this topic in general is that one has to resort to extreme examples in order to get to the heart of the matter.
You can burn the flag all you want ... in your back yard. You show up at the 4th of July parade in my town, expect some trouble.
You can express your opinion about Islam all you want. Stand in front of a mosque shouting your opinions as people exit their worship service, expect some trouble.
Walk through the hood shouting the N word, expect some trouble.
The first amendment is NOT absolute. As has been ruled over and over again in case law. You may be entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to express it whenever and wherever you want.
No, it is not. This is a BS example used all the time.
Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.
The latest example comes from New York City councilmen Peter Vallone, who declared yesterday "Everyone knows the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," as he called for charges against pseudonymous Twitter @ComfortablySmug for spreading false information during Hurricane Sandy. Other commentators have endorsed Vallone's suggestions, citing the same quote as established precedent.
In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. In September, commentators pointed to it when questioning whether the controversial anti-Muslim video should be censored. Before that, it was invoked when a crazy pastor threatened to burn Qurans. Before that, the analogy was twisted to call for charges against WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. The list goes on.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."
Prove to me that those who shout fire in a crowded theater are attempting murder.
If shouting fire in a crowded theater is made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic, Then burning flag or Koran or any national flags or religious symbols should be considered illegal for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic as well.
Unnecessary panic here are the key words.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-19-2014 at 12:35 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
I personally believe flag burning should be illegal and it should never be protected by 1st amendment right.
1. The flag, does not represent a specific idea or opinion, but rather the entire nation. Flag burning therefore does not express a legitimate form of speech and should be unlawful.
2. Some people may argue that flag burning is a form of freedom of speech and it should be protected by constitution. However, "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."
Setting flag on fire can cause unnecessary panic as well. As a matter of fact, playing fire in public is very dangerous.
"Horry County Police confirm that a suspect has been taken into custody in connection with today's flag burning at St. James High School.
Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler identified the suspect as 17-year-old Nick Newell. According to the J. Reuben Long Detention Center website, he's charged with third-degree arson. As of Monday night he remains in jail, awaiting a bond hearing.
3. Burning flag, or religious symbol like bible, cross, or the Koran may have serious consequences.
"Jones' threatened burning of a Quran in 2010 enraged Muslims around the world.
After backing down from his planned demonstration in New York, Jones eventually burned a book at his Gainesville church, which 10 days later sparked riots in Afghanistan, where 20 people died, including seven United Nations workers."
"Stirred up by three angry mullahs who urged them to avenge the burning of a Koran at a Florida church, thousands of protesters on Friday overran the compound of the United Nations in this northern Afghan city, killing at least 12 people, Afghan and United Nations officials said."
In circumstances such as the desecration of the flag, the question raised is: How much more will America tolerate-today? In circumstances such as burning the Koran, the question also raised is: How much more soldiers, Marines, and innocent people's lives we can afford to lose? When people decide to revolt against the government and in doing so burn the flag, they fail to understand the American flag is not a representation of the government, yet a representation of themselves. These people fail to comprehend that the freedom they believe themselves to be protecting is a freedom in result of the flag they now burn.
For those who burn the Koran, Are you just saying something or are you trying to incite violence? That kind of becomes the dividing line.
It is just so ridiculous to me that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is illegal, but burning flag (can clearly cause damage) and burning religious symbol like Koran (can clearly cause violence) are all considered legal in the United States.
Your thoughts?
"I personally believe flag burning should be illegal and it should never be protected by 1st amendment right."
I believe the courts were wrong when they INCLUDED "freedom of expression" which the Bill of Rights does NOT say.
"Freedom of speech" is words spoken NOT expressions by actions.
The fighting words concept, IIRC, has much to do with location.
When a local chapter of The American Nazi Party parades through a Jewish neighborhood or gathers in front of a synagogue, and chants "Hitler had the right idea", is that a practice of free speech, or is the very nature of the location an in your face confrontation?
If I stand in front of your house and scream sick and vile things about your wife or daughter, is that an exercise in free speech, or a confrontation designed to tick you off?
The problem with this topic in general is that one has to resort to extreme examples in order to get to the heart of the matter.
You can burn the flag all you want ... in your back yard. You show up at the 4th of July parade in my town, expect some trouble.
You can express your opinion about Islam all you want. Stand in front of a mosque shouting your opinions as people exit their worship service, expect some trouble.
Walk through the hood shouting the N word, expect some trouble.
The first amendment is NOT absolute. As has been ruled over and over again in case law. You may be entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to express it whenever and wherever you want.
Exactly. Burning Koran during war time, what are these people thinking?
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.
