Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 09-14-2013, 05:48 AM   #81
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
So you would say that Salman Rushdie is a terrorist? Or that the Danish cartoonists were guilty of treason?

If they knew that their actions would cause deaths, and if representatives of their governments had begged them not to do it, like in the case with Jones... possibly. I don't recall representatives of their governments begging them not to carry out actions that are likely to cause deaths to others and them going ahead and doing it anyway against their government's wishes though.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 09-14-2013 at 05:49 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 06:02 AM   #82
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
If they knew that their actions would cause deaths, and if representatives of their governments had begged them not to do it, like in the case with Jones... possibly. I don't recall representatives of their governments begging them not to carry out actions that are likely to cause deaths to others and them going ahead and doing it anyway against their government's wishes though.


I think it's safe to say that every author and artists who has written or drawn controversial pieces about Islam or Islamic figures/customs since Salman Rushdie has known that their work could very well lead to deaths. It's simply beyond you, though, to confuse offense taking on the part of the violent for incitement on the part of their critics.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 06:23 AM   #83
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
I think it's safe to say that every author and artists who has written or drawn controversial pieces about Islam or Islamic figures/customs since Salman Rushdie has known that their work could very well lead to deaths.


I disagree, people who live in a western society where criticising or making fun of things is an everyday occurence are not always aware of the dangers of criticising or making fun of certain people in different countries where things are different.
Rushdie was one of the first to find out that his comments about Islam could cause serious consequences, so it wasn't as if he had a previous example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
It's simply beyond you, though, to confuse offense taking on the part of the violent for incitement on the part of their critics.


There's a difference between criticising and deliberately causing offence. People openly criticise Islam and Islamic extremism all the time without fear of repercussions, because criticism can be done with respect as part of open debate. But blatently trying to offend Muslims by burning something that they consider as sacred cannot possibly be considered as anything other than pure incitement.

I could burn 2,700 Bibles, in the same way that Jones intended to burn the Qur'ans, one for every victim of the 'Massacre at Acre' carried out by Christians during the Crusades where 2,700 old men, women and children were bunched together, tied with ropes and subjected to a charge by Frankish infantrymen and 'hacked' to pieces and 'pierced' with lances, but I wouldn't do it because a) it would be disrespectful to every decent Christian and b) it would almost certainly cause serious repercussions because there will always be some Christian who's crazy enough to retaliate in a vicious way. In other words I wouldn't do it because it would be incitement.

Doesn't stop me respectfully criticising Christianity though.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 09-14-2013 at 06:25 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 11:24 AM   #84
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
 
Arby911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
I'd like to respond more at length later but for now please consider the difference between direct and indirect harm and further examine the implications of making concessions to blackmail.
__________________
The man who holds to a belief because of tradition, or hides it because he fears he may be shown to be wrong, does not love the truth but manifests a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices.
Arby911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 01:37 PM   #85
Jackal58
Pit Daddy
 
Jackal58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: If I was up your ass you'd know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
And that's the point right there... contradictory to the first part of your post that I bolded, the second bolded part clearly shows that there IS a 'difference'... unlike the WBC Islamic extremists DO kill people in retaliation for the kind of stunts that Jones keeps pulling. And the other important point to remember is that Jones KNOWS this and is still willing to do anything he can to anger people who he KNOWS are likely to go and kill someone else over it.

As the link that you provided says;
"Jones repeatedly has ignored pleas from the U.S. military asking him not to stage his protests. Military officials say his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger."

If he KNOWS that his actions are likely to cause harm to American troops, and he goes ahead and does it anyway, isn't that tantamount to treason? Doesn't it essentialy make him a terrorist?


C'mon man, it's just a common sense point. A black and white statement, something that everyone knows, are you gonna prove it wrong or come up with a completely unrelated scenario that could possibly be an exeption to the general rule?

You and I agree on damn near everything except this topic. We even agree that Jones is a douche bag of the highest magnitude.
The editors of Jyllands-Posten in Denmark were aware that if they published their series of Mohamed cartoons it would cause problems. They did it any ways citing freedom of the press and expression. I agree with them. Rushdie published his Satanic verses knowing Khomeini would issue a fatwa against him. I agree with his right to publish. Jones helped finance that incredible horrible piece of cinematic expression called Innocence of Muslims. I support his right to do so. The problem isn't what these people do. The problem is how a bunch of morons react to it. None of those mentioned are responsible for the irresponsible reactions they get. In their minds they are proving a point and from what I see radical muslims step right up and help them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
Jackal58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 01:39 PM   #86
Jackal58
Pit Daddy
 
Jackal58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: If I was up your ass you'd know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
There's a difference between criticising and deliberately causing offence. People openly criticise Islam and Islamic extremism all the time without fear of repercussions, because criticism can be done with respect as part of open debate.

You would have to show me examples of that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
Jackal58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 01:45 PM   #87
kaptink
whoa-oh-oh
 
kaptink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Alaska
Why not a round 3000?
__________________
This Used To Be Text. Now It Is Dicks



AAAAAAA!
ಠ_ಠ
kaptink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 03:57 PM   #88
Carnivean
UG Board King
 
Carnivean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: n.a.
I don't even think Nakoula Basseley, that guy who helped make that 'anti-Islam' video that sparked violence around the world, was arrested based on his perceived insults. Still protected by the first amendment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Carnivean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 05:13 AM   #89
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal58
You and I agree on damn near everything except this topic. We even agree that Jones is a douche bag of the highest magnitude.

I think we can probably put that down to cultural differences. You were raised in a culture that values freedom of expression in almost any form over pretty much everything else while I was raised in a culture that, while it still values freedom of expression, tends to be a bit more reserved about certain forms of that expression, especially forms of expression that are designed to deliberately cause offence or incite hatred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal58
You would have to show me examples of that.

How about the example of myself? How many times have you seen me openly but respectfully criticising Islamic extremism by quoting the Qur'an itself and showing how Islamic extremism actualy contradicts it? UG isn't the only place on the internet that I've done that and I've never recieved a death threat from a Muslim, I've never even been criticised by a Muslim for my comments.

Islam has a historical TRADITION of open debate. It even states in the Qur'an that any ideological criticism of the Qur'an's teachings are to be met with debate, not violence.

The Qur'an itself also states;
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)

That basically means that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe and that Muslims shouldn't attempt to force their beliefs upon other people.

Of course, Islam being Islam, like any other religion, it assumes that anyone who believes anything different from their own religion is wrong, but the Qur'an actualy acknowledges their right to be wrong and not be persecuted for being wrong, which was actualy a very important historical development in human rights.

Dunno if you've ever seen it before but this is a famous letter written during the 'Golden Age of Islam' written to someone by 'al-Hashimi', who was a cousin of Caliph (head of state) 'al-Ma'mun'. It quotes the 'no compulsion' Quranic verse I mentioned and pronounces the Islamic tradition of valuing debate over force quite nicely.

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arby911
I'd like to respond more at length later but for now please consider the difference between direct and indirect harm and further examine the implications of making concessions to blackmail.


Blackmail?
Blackmail is defined as 'coercion' (the practice of one party forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner) involving threats of some nature resulting in the first party gaining from the second party's involuntary actions.

It is not defined as threats of physical harm in 'retaliation' for blatent insults.

Go into any bar, walk up to any guy and blatently insult him to his face, if he turns around and hits you, didn't you deserve it? Wouldn't everyone else in the bar agree that you deserved it and even say that you 'asked' for it?
How about if instead of just hitting you straight away he said to you "If you insult me again I will hit you!" Wouldn't that be considered as 'fair warning' rather than 'blackmail'?

Infact, in American constitutional law there is a doctrine known as the 'fighting words' doctrine which is actualy a legal limitation on freedom of speech made in 1942 which has continued to be upheld to this day. 'Fighting words' are considered as written or spoken words or actions, generally expressed or carried out with the aim of inciting hatred or violence from their target. Under the 'fighting words' doctrine, Jones could theoreticaly be legaly prosecuted for attempting to incite hatred or violence from his target, namely, every Muslim on the planet.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 09-15-2013 at 06:43 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 07:45 AM   #90
AllJudasPriest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
The guy is literally no different then any other terrorist.

He's a religious extremist.
His solution to conflict is to blame it on an inanimate object.
He's a pastor, so everything he does here is made worse by that fact.
AllJudasPriest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 09:20 AM   #91
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
 
Arby911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllJudasPriest
The guy is literally no different then any other terrorist.

He's a religious extremist.
His solution to conflict is to blame it on an inanimate object.
He's a pastor, so everything he does here is made worse by that fact.



Except that, you know, he hasn't killed or even tried to kill anyone...

You're pretty liberal in your application of the term "terrorist".
__________________
The man who holds to a belief because of tradition, or hides it because he fears he may be shown to be wrong, does not love the truth but manifests a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices.
Arby911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 09:21 AM   #92
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllJudasPriest
The guy is literally no different then any other terrorist.

He's a religious extremist.
His solution to conflict is to blame it on an inanimate object.
He's a pastor, so everything he does here is made worse by that fact.


I swear you used to be quite insightful.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 09:45 AM   #93
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
 
Arby911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

Blackmail?
Blackmail is defined as 'coercion' (the practice of one party forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner) involving threats of some nature resulting in the first party gaining from the second party's involuntary actions.

It is not defined as threats of physical harm in 'retaliation' for blatent insults.

Go into any bar, walk up to any guy and blatently insult him to his face, if he turns around and hits you, didn't you deserve it? Wouldn't everyone else in the bar agree that you deserved it and even say that you 'asked' for it?
How about if instead of just hitting you straight away he said to you "If you insult me again I will hit you!" Wouldn't that be considered as 'fair warning' rather than 'blackmail'?

Infact, in American constitutional law there is a doctrine known as the 'fighting words' doctrine which is actualy a legal limitation on freedom of speech made in 1942 which has continued to be upheld to this day. 'Fighting words' are considered as written or spoken words or actions, generally expressed or carried out with the aim of inciting hatred or violence from their target. Under the 'fighting words' doctrine, Jones could theoreticaly be legaly prosecuted for attempting to incite hatred or violence from his target, namely, every Muslim on the planet.


You constantly bring up the "fighting words" concept, and then grossly misuse it. If you're going to cite it you should do more research about it. A public or general offense does not qualify, nor does mere offensiveness, it must be specific and individually directed.

And threat of violence against a 3rd party in order to coerce or prohibit an action falls under the general "blackmail" heading but would be prosecuted as criminal threatening or threat to commit depending on the actual jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that threatening to commit a crime of violence against a 3rd party due to the actions (especially the LEGAL actions) of another is indeed a crime.

Quit being an appeaser, Mr. Chamberlain.

I'll expand when I get near a conventional keyboard.
__________________
The man who holds to a belief because of tradition, or hides it because he fears he may be shown to be wrong, does not love the truth but manifests a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices.
Arby911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 10:31 AM   #94
AllJudasPriest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arby911
Except that, you know, he hasn't killed or even tried to kill anyone...

You're pretty liberal in your application of the term "terrorist".
Yeah, I used the wrong word. I'm sorry about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
I swear you used to be quite insightful.
And, just like now, was still a complete idiot then.
AllJudasPriest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 12:08 PM   #95
Jackal58
Pit Daddy
 
Jackal58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: If I was up your ass you'd know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
I think we can probably put that down to cultural differences. You were raised in a culture that values freedom of expression in almost any form over pretty much everything else while I was raised in a culture that, while it still values freedom of expression, tends to be a bit more reserved about certain forms of that expression, especially forms of expression that are designed to deliberately cause offence or incite hatred.


How about the example of myself? How many times have you seen me openly but respectfully criticising Islamic extremism by quoting the Qur'an itself and showing how Islamic extremism actualy contradicts it? UG isn't the only place on the internet that I've done that and I've never recieved a death threat from a Muslim, I've never even been criticised by a Muslim for my comments.

Islam has a historical TRADITION of open debate. It even states in the Qur'an that any ideological criticism of the Qur'an's teachings are to be met with debate, not violence.

The Qur'an itself also states;
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)

That basically means that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe and that Muslims shouldn't attempt to force their beliefs upon other people.

Of course, Islam being Islam, like any other religion, it assumes that anyone who believes anything different from their own religion is wrong, but the Qur'an actualy acknowledges their right to be wrong and not be persecuted for being wrong, which was actualy a very important historical development in human rights.

Dunno if you've ever seen it before but this is a famous letter written during the 'Golden Age of Islam' written to someone by 'al-Hashimi', who was a cousin of Caliph (head of state) 'al-Ma'mun'. It quotes the 'no compulsion' Quranic verse I mentioned and pronounces the Islamic tradition of valuing debate over force quite nicely.

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!"

I realize you have criticized extremism as have I. I have received no death threats either. I really meant examples of criticism leveid against Islam by mainstream media that did not create a reaction from extremists. Our audience is quite small. And yes I have read the al-Hashimi letter before and have shared it with people that believe all Islam is like the Taliban.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
Jackal58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 04:20 PM   #96
Carnivean
UG Board King
 
Carnivean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: n.a.
If you're gonna use fighting words doctrine as your argument then you cannot simply use a broad definition to justify a conviction in this case. You must look at precedence and case history. The fighting words doctrine itself has even upheld to this day, yes, but the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since the Chaplinsky case (1942). Convictions that its declined to uphold? Many of them are very much like this case. Since Chaplinsky, the Court has repeatedly determined that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words. For instance, in Street v. New York (1969), a man publicly burned an American flag and made defiant comments towards the flag. The Court declined a conviction and ruled that "The mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

So saying that the United States Supreme Court would convict Jones because of the fighting words doctrine is untrue, seeing is how the Court has already determined in a nearly (essentially) identical case that a conviction would be unconstitutional. If Jones's book burning causes Muslims in the Middle East to start blowing up churches and cars and lynching Americans overseas, then fine. But just because these people are generally less educated, less informed on how to reasonably deal with insult, and believe to have no other means of protest other than blowing things up, it does not mean that we start to restrict expression to prevent such retaliations.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard

Last edited by Carnivean : 09-16-2013 at 01:14 AM.
Carnivean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 03:12 AM   #97
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arby911
Except that, you know, he hasn't killed or even tried to kill anyone...

You're pretty liberal in your application of the term "terrorist".


You could certainly define it as 'terrorism by proxy'.
Terrorism is the use of violent terror as a means of coercion.

He's essentialy putting forward the view that Islam is evil. If he knows that his actions are likely to result in people being killed by Muslims, then he's using Muslim violence, triggered by himself, to as a means of coercing people into following his view. Ergo, 'terrorism by proxy'.

He may not have personaly killed or even tried to kill anyone, but we can certainly consider that he attempted to cause people to be killed. Consider this, Osama bin Laden apparently never personaly killed or attempted to kill anyone, he just got other people to do it for him, which is essentialy what Jones is doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal58
I realize you have criticized extremism as have I. I have received no death threats either. I really meant examples of criticism leveid against Islam by mainstream media that did not create a reaction from extremists. Our audience is quite small. And yes I have read the al-Hashimi letter before and have shared it with people that believe all Islam is like the Taliban.


There's probably thousands of examples of criticism leveid against Islam by mainstream media that did not create a reaction from extremists. Don't forget, it's pretty much only the cases that do create a reaction from extremists that make the news so we just don't get to hear about the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
If you're gonna use fighting words doctrine as your argument then you cannot simply use a broad definition to justify a conviction in this case. You must look at precedence and case history. The fighting words doctrine itself has even upheld to this day, yes, but the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since the Chaplinsky case (1942). Convictions that its declined to uphold? Many of them are very much like this case. Since Chaplinsky, the Court has repeatedly determined that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words. For instance, in Street v. New York (1969), a man publicly burned an American flag and made defiant comments towards the flag. The Court declined a conviction and ruled that "The mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

So saying that the United States Supreme Court would convict Jones because of the fighting words doctrine is untrue seeing is how the Court has already determined in a nearly (essentially) identical case that a conviction would be unconstitutional. If Jones's book burning causes Muslims in the Middle East to start blowing up churches and cars and lynching Americans overseas, then fine. But just because these people are generally less educated, less informed on how to reasonably deal with insult, and believe to have no other means of protest other than blowing things up, it does not mean that we start to restrict expression to prevent such retaliations.

I didn't say that the United States Supreme Court 'would convict' Jones, I said that using the the fighting words doctrine he 'could theoreticaly be prosecuted' for attempting to incite hatred or violence from his target. ('conviction' and 'prosecution' are two different things, a 'conviction' is an end result of a 'prosecution')

So, essentialy, you're telling me that inciting violence against fellow US citizens is perfectly legal in the US and should always continue to be perfectly legal?
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 09-16-2013 at 04:12 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 03:31 AM   #98
Skynyrd890
Registered User
 
Skynyrd890's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NC
I think he's being arrested for attempting to burn them in a park when he didn't have permits?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
This is why we need bullying in schools. It's a corrective social mechanism
Quote:
Originally Posted by UG AWARDS 2012
Best MS Paint/Photoshop Skills
2nd: Skynyrd890
Skynyrd890 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 03:36 AM   #99
Rossenrot
of Prison and Palace
 
Rossenrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Swerve City
Burning books isn't inciting violence. It's burning books. We don't bend laws around the sensibilities of extremists.
Rossenrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 03:39 AM   #100
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skynyrd890
I think he's being arrested for attempting to burn them in a park when he didn't have permits?

He was charged with 'transporting fuel illegally', mainly because the way he transported it (the fuel was kerosene which was soaked into copies of the Qur'an which in turn were placed on a large barbecue grill which was towed behind a truck that Jones was driving) was considered as a dangerous way to transport fuel and could be a possible hazard.
The arrest for him for attempting to burn them in a park without a permit would probably be an unsafe arrest because he didn't actualy get the opportunity to 'attempt' to burn them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossenrot
Burning books isn't inciting violence. It's burning books.

It is if you know for a fact that the books you burn are highly likely to incite violence and still do it anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossenrot
We don't bend laws around the sensibilities of extremists.

Any violent reaction to anything whatsoever is an 'extremist' reaction by definition.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action or constituted a "clear and present danger"."

As the link in the opening post says; "Jones repeatedly has ignored pleas from the U.S. military asking him not to stage his protests. Military officials say his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger."
So as you can see, it has already been established by the US military that his actions constitute a "clear and present danger" and not only that but Jones knows it does, which then makes his actions a purposeful attempt at inciting violence.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 09-16-2013 at 04:22 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:43 PM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.