Florida Pastor Terry Jones Burns Quran After Mock Trial (w/ video)

I never said you stated that. I was pointing that out because that is the only instance in which it would be reasonable to hold the pastor accountable for the murders. (and not even really in the 2nd case, but it would help your cause)

It doesn't look like *my* reading comprehension is what's holding this conversation back, you probably ought to heed your own advice and read my post again.

 

According to...? Your own opinion.

 

No one stated the pastor was accountable for the murders. What has been stated numerous times is that the pastor holds some responsibility for what happened. Can you grasp this simple statement? Or are you going to misconstrue that as well?

His actions were borderline hate speech.

The extremists' actions were murder.

The pastor should be held accountable for his incitement and the extremists should be held accountable for the brutal murders.

Really simple to understand.

 

I believe that fortunately, the majority of Muslims, at least in the Western world, is not like the bad apples Hydhypedplaya, adeelsiddiqui, trustme and (to some extent, even though he tries to hide it by putting in a million qualifiers) Mathloom.

It's just that the reasonable ones like sammy, dmc89, BrownBeast99 etc. are not nearly as outspoken here on the forum.

 

accountable how?

would a really angry blog post against what he did suffice?

 

there are several reasons why the actions made by that Pastor are stupid:

- It was from a Pastor from the U.S, the same country that have started several wars in the Middle East. The talibans and other terrorist groups number one ennemy is the U.S.

- Burning the Quran will only give the terrorists more reasons to do more terroristattempts etc.

- In todays globalised media it isn't that difficult for people to know when these kind of things happens.

What does burning the Quran has to do with Freedom of speech? I see this more like Hate Speech.

I'm muslim not a very religious one but anyway I really felt offended by the Pastors actions. I can't defend the action of what is now happening in Afghanistan but I can certainly understand their anger given what situation and what society they live in.

 

What legal sanction do you think he should face? Please explain in detail how you would construe that under U.S. law. Thanks in advance.

 

Dude, don't play semantics. Of course no one did. However, we're talking what is reasonable to blame him for.

And that's untrue by law and ridiculous by reasonable standards of logic.

Can you grasp the concept that it is unreasonable to kill people for burning a book, therefore, the book burner shouldn't be held reasonably responsible for the unreasonable actions of the murders?

Well, at least you've got this one half-right.

 

The fact that you equate me and a few others with people like the ones who killed the UN workers only shows what type of ignorance you enjoy spewing. And then gets upset when he is called a Nazi/Hitler/Führer-lover.

 

I don't actually know, right this second, the ins and outs of the "fighting words" doctrine, I know that CHaplinsky v. New Hampshire is the leading case, I'm sure there's a wikipedia article somewhere.

That said, it doesn't really matter to much as applied to our particular circumstance since we're conflating two legal doctrines (which don't apply in Afghanistan in any event) - that of free speech and that of novus actus intervenienus-whatever w/respect to causation in criminal cases.

I think it's worth highlighting, though, that our system of laws differentiates between speech and deliberately provocative speech designed to incite a reaction, affording it a lesser level of protection - For this reason, among others, making this clown a poster boy for first amendment issues is ill-advised.

 

It is reasonable to blame him for his hateful speech/actions. You were the one who suggested I said it was reasonable to hold him fully responsible. Maybe stop the false attributions and you won't look so foolish.

Coming from you, this doesn't mean much. He knowingly did something with the knowledge that other lives would be put at risk.

 

This is where I think a lot of people are tripping up.

Blame is finite thing in my eyes.

You can't just say "the murderers are 100% to blame, but the pastor should be blamed a little bit as well".

It doesn't work like that.

For every little bit you blame the pastor, you are absolving the murderers of some portion of the responsibility of their actions.

Ergo, if you think the pastor is *at all* to blame for this, then you are, in one way or another, removing some of the responsibility of the murderers actions from themselves. If you think the pastor is 5% to blame for this, then that means that you think it is, at minimum, *somewhat* reasonable/understandable/acceptable behavior to kill someone (even a random person) because somebody burned a book.

That is bogus dude. Bo-gus.

 

If burning a book is considered fighting words, then maybe so. But I can't see how it would be. That seems like it would just unload a can of worms.

 

There are more reasons than that and nobody is arguing how idiotic his actions were --but you don't on a murder spree because someone makes you mad.

 

No.

The murderers are responsible for the murders.

The pastor is responsible for inciting the murderers.

 

That means that you think it is at least somewhat reasonable to respond to somebody burning a book by killing somebody.

There is no logical way around that. They are tied together. You cannot have one without the other.

 

It was a stupid thing to do however I do support the preachers right do what he did. Under US law he did nothing wrong however it was not wise. It is sorta like the ground zero mosque. They have every legal right to build wherever they want to however I do not believe it is wise to build it so close to ground zero. Both of these things are legal under US law however the actions cause a lot of hard feelings.

 

The burning of a religious book, like the burning of a cross, is probably more like hate speech (which is also less protected) than fighting words. Either way it's something that we've deliberately tried to discourage by giving it lesser protection.

Look, the idea that the koran is a bunch of garbage is perfectly fine to express, hell I agree with it, in general. But expressing it in a way that this clown does is treated differently under the law, with good reason.

 

No, I don't. What types of leaps in logic are you taking to make these asinine posts? I think his actions incited those people to commit even more stupid actions. You keep failing epically to grasp this simple concept.

 

Where in that post you quoted did I equate you with those people?

You are the message board angry mob.

They are the murdering angry mob.

There is a huge difference between the two - I hope.