Burn a Koran day

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't understand how anyone who passionately holds the banner for Freedom of Speech can burn books as protest.

I don't see how anyone who burns books is an advocate of free speech. I'm sure that this bigoted church doesn't believe in freedom of speech of religion for Muslims.

But those of us who defend freedom of speech have to support the right to burn books, because popular speech doesn't need defending. If the only speech that is free is that by which no one is offended, then we don't have or need any freedom of speech. Yes it is ugly and hateful, yes it is an illogical protest for no rational reason, and none of that matters as far as the speech issue is concerned.

 

[lrkun]

I don't understand how anyone who passionately holds the banner for Freedom of Speech can burn books as protest.

I don't see how anyone who burns books is an advocate of free speech. I'm sure that this bigoted church doesn't believe in freedom of speech of religion for Muslims.

But those of us who defend freedom of speech have to support the right to burn books, because popular speech doesn't need defending. If the only speech that is free is that by which no one is offended, then we don't have or need any freedom of speech. Yes it is ugly and hateful, yes it is an illogical protest for no rational reason, and none of that matters as far as the speech issue is concerned.

Um, if it's hateful, it's no longer covered by said free speech right. ^^,

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Um, if it's hateful, it's no longer covered by said free speech right. ^^,

Actually, it IS still covered. They are just as covered for hating Muslims as we're covered for calling them a bunch of asshole. You're allowed to hate people and let them know that you hate them.

 

[lrkun]

Um, if it's hateful, it's no longer covered by said free speech right. ^^,

Actually, it IS still covered. They are just as covered for hating Muslims as we're covered for calling them a bunch of asshole. You're allowed to hate people and let them know that you hate them.

Which law says that it is?

You have to distinguish freedom of thought from the other. The first is limitless, the second is not.

ex. I am free to hate muslims, but I am not free to act on it.

 

[TheSkepticalHeretic]

there was everybody draw mohammad day earlier and some of you guys must have participated in it. the everybody draw mohammad day was in protest of the south park censorship and censorship in general.

now we have this burn a koran day and everybody seems to be against it. it's to do with 9/11 and islam

(i assume)if we look at it from a muslims point of view the end result of both events are the same.

if we burned a picture of mohammad in protest of the south park incident and if they drew mohammad on the koran 11th of sept would it make a difference?

is the reason the only thing that's important and not the action?

The issue here, in my opinion, is the action as well as the motivation. Only those with ill motivations would think that the burning of a book, or the destruction of codified experience, would be a symbolic statement of purpose. Look at those who burn books and what they've brought into the world.

The Catholic Orthodox burnt the library of Alexandria thus beginning the dark ages.
The NAZI Party burnt books to prevent the spread of statements contrary to their political aims.
Stalin burnt the books of philosophies contrary to the Communist Socialism of the USSR.
"And then there's this asshole" who thinks that burning the Koran is perfectly acceptable as a symbol of protest.

Draw Mohammad day was a protest, burning a book is censorship. If you're for free speech, you'd never engage in an act of censorship.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Which law says that it is?

You have to distinguish freedom of thought from the other. The first is limitless, the second is not.

ex. I am free to hate muslims, but I am not free to act on it.

Here in America, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

ex. You are free to hate Muslims, AND you are free to act on it in all sorts of ways. You can wear a T-shirt, print up posters, write songs, publish books, and produce movies letting the world know you hate Muslims. You are even free to burn copies of the Koran, so long as you follow local ordinances about where and when you can create large fires. There are all sorts of actions that qualify as speech, and they are all protected by the First Amendment.

The one place that speech is restricted by the government is if you are planning a crime, or attempting to incite a crime. You can't physically attack Muslims or deface their property because you hate them. You can't conspire with others to do those things either. You can't incite a riot against Muslims either. Also, your speech is limited by zoning laws and noise ordinances. You can't put up signs wherever you want, and you can't get a bullhorn and scream outside of a mosque all day and night.

Besides those sorts of examples, you're allowed to hate Muslims AND your free speech rights let you express your hatred in all kinds of ways.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Draw Mohammad day was a protest, burning a book is censorship. If you're for free speech, you'd never engage in an act of censorship.

Burning a book isn't automatically censorship... does no one know what the word means?!?!

If you're for free speech, most of you seem to need to work harder to understand what it actually entails. And, no... Nephilimfree deleting your comments on his YouTube page doesn't count as censorship either. :facepalm:

 

[lrkun]

I see. Well, I won't criticize your country's Constitution. If you really want to burn a Koran, as long as you reasonably choose to do so as a man, do so. What I mean to say is, if you really want to exercise your right to do so. ^-^

Of course I think, your position is with respect to the right itself, and not that you wish to burn a Koran.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I see. Well, I won't criticize your country's Constitution. If you really want to burn a Koran, as long as you reasonably choose to do so as a man, do so. What I mean to say is, if you really want to exercise your right to do so. ^-^

Of course I think, your position is with respect to the right itself, and not that you wish to burn a Koran.

Well... I have no personal interest in burning anything. But I respect the right of other people to do so, even though I have no respect for the people in this situation at all.

That's the thing about rights. If they only extend to people you like and agree with, they aren't rights. This church has a right to burn the Koran, and I have a right to call them a bunch of bigoted assholes.

 

[RichardMNixon]

It's not about whether or not it's legal, it's about whether or not it makes sense.

The whole point of DMD was that it was silly, and in many cases extremely vague (one of my favorites was a black area captioned "Mohammad in the dark"), drawings against threats of bodily harm. It exposed the absurdity of the latter in light of the harmlessness of the former.

Burning things isn't a harmless gesture, it's extremely aggressive and condemnable. Perhaps not to the extent that death threats are, but still not a civil discussion.

We want our words and ideas to have weight on their own merit, to make people think. Trying to out-shout and out-violence one another is antagonistic to the cause of reason

 

[Andiferous]

Because burning something in protest (not a person or building) is freedom of speech.

Have you ever burnt love letters from an ex? Or a shitty cd from a band you thought you liked, or all of your homework assignments at the end of the school year? Its the same thing.

By this logic, a person could steal their neighbour's chickens and call it expression and freedom of speech, while books are trumped by theivery.

I don't understand how anyone who passionately holds the banner for Freedom of Speech can burn books as protest.

I don't see how anyone who burns books is an advocate of free speech. I'm sure that this bigoted church doesn't believe in freedom of speech of religion for Muslims.

But those of us who defend freedom of speech have to support the right to burn books, because popular speech doesn't need defending. If the only speech that is free is that by which no one is offended, then we don't have or need any freedom of speech. Yes it is ugly and hateful, yes it is an illogical protest for no rational reason, and none of that matters as far as the speech issue is concerned.

Despite the fact that this concept doesn't quite equate, there is a blaring problem. People do find the Koran offensive, and this is why they are protesting it with burning. If no one were offended by it, there would not be a protest. Freedom of Speech seems rather selective.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

there was everybody draw mohammad day earlier and some of you guys must have participated in it. the everybody draw mohammad day was in protest of the south park censorship and censorship in general.

now we have this burn a koran day and everybody seems to be against it. it's to do with 9/11 and islam

(i assume)if we look at it from a muslims point of view the end result of both events are the same.

if we burned a picture of mohammad in protest of the south park incident and if they drew mohammad on the koran 11th of sept would it make a difference?

is the reason the only thing that's important and not the action?

I equate the burning of books (ANY book) with vandalism.
If someone were to burn a quran or bible after having liberated themselves from it, I would consider that a symbolic act... but "lets all go run out and buy one so we can burn it" has a different character to me. YMMV.

The symbolism involved in drawing muhammad is a rejection of the imposed projection of one groups values of all other people. I dig that.
The symbolism involved in burning a quran appears to me quite different, and more of the reverse projection... Basically noting more than inciting offense.
Criticism must be offered and that is seen as offensive by many if not most, but the criticism should be criticism and not merely insult. Burning a quran does nothing to lend reason to the confrontation it only further provokes.

I won't be joining or supporting a book burning. I much prefer to deconstruct the scripture from reason.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Despite the fact that this concept doesn't quite equate, there is a blaring problem. People do find the Koran offensive, and this is why they are protesting it with burning. If no one were offended by it, there would not be a protest. Freedom of Speech seems rather selective.

I don't come close to seeing what you mean.

 

[Andiferous]

I was comparing by this statement:

But those of us who defend freedom of speech have to support the right to burn books, because popular speech doesn't need defending. If the only speech that is free is that by which no one is offended, then we don't have or need any freedom of speech.

Again, I'm not clear on your meaning of "popular" speech. In this context it sounds like Freedom of Speech is meant to protect "offensive' speech and not innocuous speech. The Koran is offensive to people and so will be burned, but this seems contrary to the idea of protecting offensive speech, and this is assuming that speech is represented by a variety of communications media.

If an act can be symbolic of speech, I don't understand why books can not represent speech.

I often have trouble getting my head around the concept. In previous arguements, I had the impression that 'hate literature' was also protected by freedom of speech.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Again, I'm not clear on your meaning of "popular" speech. In this context it sounds like Freedom of Speech is meant to protect "offensive' speech and not innocuous speech. The Koran is offensive to people and so will be burned, but this seems contrary to the idea of protecting offensive speech, and this is assuming that speech is represented by a variety of communications media.

If an act can be symbolic of speech, I don't understand why books can not represent speech.

I often have trouble getting my head around the concept. In previous arguements, I had the impression that 'hate literature' was also protected by freedom of speech.

I don't see where the Koran isn't protected speech. Burning the Koran is protected just as much as printing the Koran is protected speech.

Some church purchasing dozens of hundreds of copies of the Koran and setting fire to them doesn't in any sense prevent other people from buying their own copies and reading them. The Koran doesn't need to be protected from idiots who are stupid enough to PAY THEIR OWN MONEY to buy copies of the Koran and set fire to them. Hell, they are helping boost book sales! :lol:

Speech is protected from government intervention, and from certain situations where non-governmental parties are suppressing the rights of others. Speech is not protected from speech that counters it, and it is not protected from people who want to pay their money and destroy copies of it.

 

[Andiferous]

Again, I'm not clear on your meaning of "popular" speech. In this context it sounds like Freedom of Speech is meant to protect "offensive' speech and not innocuous speech. The Koran is offensive to people and so will be burned, but this seems contrary to the idea of protecting offensive speech, and this is assuming that speech is represented by a variety of communications media.

If an act can be symbolic of speech, I don't understand why books can not represent speech.

I often have trouble getting my head around the concept. In previous arguments, I had the impression that 'hate literature' was also protected by freedom of speech.

I don't see where the Koran isn't protected speech. Burning the Koran is protected just as much as printing the Koran is protected speech.

Some church purchasing dozens of hundreds of copies of the Koran and setting fire to them doesn't in any sense prevent other people from buying their own copies and reading them. The Koran doesn't need to be protected from idiots who are stupid enough to PAY THEIR OWN MONEY to buy copies of the Koran and set fire to them. Hell, they are helping boost book sales! :lol:

Speech is protected from government intervention, and from certain situations where non-governmental parties are suppressing the rights of others. Speech is not protected from speech that counters it, and it is not protected from people who want to pay their money and destroy copies of it.

Yeah, I found the financial benefit a bit funny too.

I can see the legal differentiation in this, and how burning books does not demand legal action. We do have hate laws here, and we don't have implied freedom of speech, But we let people burn books too. Speech laws are not enacted on a private level. The speech in question must be public and deemed 'inciting' on a hateful and criminal level. It's quite rare, actually. But I believe this sort of tempered but not absolute freedom keeps abuse of "speech" in check, and ensures a certain level of responsibility. But that's beside the point, I suppose

I am curious if those who practice book burning also strongly support the first amendment without question. This seems somewhat hypocritical to me, and makes me wonder if that right has been analysed and really understood by those who claim it. Or if it is sometimes just an easy justification for bad behaviour. Not questioning and understanding it seems like an invitation to hypocrisy.

That said, please know I am speaking as bluntly and clearly as I can to try to avoid confusion, and this is meant to be critical and not offensive.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah, I found the financial benefit a bit funny too.

I can see the legal differentiation in this, and how burning books does not demand legal action. We do have hate laws here, and we don't have implied freedom of speech, But we let people burn books too. Speech laws are not enacted on a private level. The speech in question must be public and deemed 'inciting' on a hateful and criminal level. It's quite rare, actually. But I believe this sort of tempered but not absolute freedom keeps abuse of "speech" in check, and ensures a certain level of responsibility. But that's beside the point, I suppose

Well, there's got to be a line somewhere. You can say that you hate someone, but if you make a direct threat of physical violence that's way over the line.

I am curious if those who practice book burning also strongly support the first amendment without question. This seems somewhat hypocritical to me, and makes me wonder if that right has been analysed and really understood by those who claim it. Or if it is sometimes just an easy justification for bad behaviour. Not questioning and understanding it seems like an invitation to hypocrisy.

That said, please know I am speaking as bluntly and clearly as I can to try to avoid confusion, and this is meant to be critical and not offensive.

I don't see why anyone would be offended, but I'm willing to defend your right to be offensive!

I'd say that most people who burn books aren't supporters of the First Amendment or free speech in general. They are all for THEIR speech to be protected, but wouldn't extend that right to people who disagree with them. I'd be surprised in this instance if the Koran-burning church would support my right to burn a Bible.

 

[Andiferous]

I'd say that most people who burn books aren't supporters of the First Amendment or free speech in general. They are all for THEIR speech to be protected, but wouldn't extend that right to people who disagree with them. I'd be surprised in this instance if the Koran-burning church would support my right to burn a Bible.

Wow. That is kind of twisted.

 

[borrofburi]

At any rate, the point of DMD was a cry against hatred. It's the very opposite of what is suggested in burning a book on 9/11.

Holy Carlin, it's "scheduled" on 9/11? That gives great credence to Joe's connecting it to blatant racism.

Because burning something in protest (not a person or building) is freedom of speech.

While burning books is freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily make sense to burn them as protest. I certainly don't want them to be stopped by an army or anything, but I will certainly point out how dumb their approach is. As Irkun sort of pointed out, that it's protected by law and accidentally reasserts that legal protection, does not make it reasonable. And as Joe pointed out, burning of books is symbolic of times when the purpose was to suppress the knowledge and speech within those books, and from that angle you certainly can't be a champion of free speech while symbolically suppressing it, even if you're asserting your right to freedom of speech.

ex. I am free to hate muslims, but I am not free to act on it.

You're free to say you hate muslims. You're not free to encourage people to kill muslims. But saying "I hate muslims because they're filthy people who live in deserts and are all sandy" is hateful, but still protected as free speech (as, I think, it should be). Well shit, joe beat me to this one already, and did it better too... :evil:

If you're for free speech, most of you seem to need to work harder to understand what it actually entails. And, no... Nephilimfree deleting your comments on his YouTube page doesn't count as censorship either. :facepalm:

I would argue that it is censorship, just not government censorship.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I would argue that it is censorship, just not government censorship.

And I would argue that you're wrong. The same way that if a post that breaks forum rules here is deleted, no one has been censored... the right to free speech doesn't extend so far as to force other people to provide you a forum to present your viewpoint. The person who owns or is responsible for a "private" forum can decide what is and is not acceptable in their own place.

In the case of YouTube, people have the privilege of posting and not much in the way of rights... privately owned website and all that. You certainly don't have a right to post comments on anyone's videos if they choose not to allow it. You're allowed to go ahead and post whatever response you like on your channel, or this site, or any one of a billion other places. False DMCA claims are an attempt a censorship, because it is using the power of the government to silence people.