Does "freedom of speech" equate to "freedom from consequences"

[northernlights]

If somebody deliberately and knowingly provokes an irrational person (or being, say Tatiana, the lioness), does that person not own, at least in part, some responsibility for the irrational person's response?

Or is the provocateur's behavior protected by "freedom of speech?" and damn the consequences?

Say somebody has murdered a child, and ends up doing time. And then is let out on good behavior.

The murderer now provokes the child's parent by burning a picture of the child, and puts it on U-tube, where it goes viral.

The parent totally loses it and goes off on his or her own rampage. Unable to get at the murderer, the parent gets at anybody who seems "close" to the murderer.

Yes, the parent is guilty of his or her actions. Is the murderer not also partially responsible for the rampage?

[Hosnon]

1. Only regarding the government, and then with some exceptions. nt.

[Modern_Matthew]

2. No. Individuals are solely responsible for their own actions, regardless of what incited it. nt

[cali]

3. in your hypothetical, the murderer is probably on parole and guilty of violating said parole

if not on parole, than loathsome as his/her actions are, he is probably not in violation of criminal laws. Morally, it's a different story.

[Edweird]

4. You're really hung up on this, huh?

You can't yell 'fire' in a theatre. You can't
threaten to kill yourself or others.
You *CAN* express your dislike with any or all religions.
You can heat your home with bibles, korans, talmuds
or whatever. Get over it.

[northernlights]

6. anybody who tells me to "get over it"

gets welcomed to my ignore party.

Buh-bye....

[Obamanaut]

8. Get over it.

Oh, darn. Now I've done it.

[Bold Lib]

10. deleted, wrong place

[Edweird]

9. Wow, what an amazing rejoinder. I'm truly and deeply crushed. Really.

[Bold Lib]

11. get over it. and lighten up Frances

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. GetOverItGetOverItGetOverIt

Get over it.

[supernova]

5. No the 18 Cent View

was "freedom of speech" means that you can say what you want in public about the government, how it operates and who's in office and your opinion of their job performance, without the government persecuting you in any way (harrassement, jail, torture and killing)

It does not mean that you can say and do what you want without verbal consequence from your peers -- other citizens.

[lynne]

7. Freedom of speech involves no consequences from the government only -

- and has nothing to do with reprimands from employers, loss of friends or other adverse consequences.

That also means that the government cannot reprimand anyone for an act of free speech be it burning a Bible or a flag. Subsequently, the one who actually IS responsible - the party who takes it a step further and inflicts injury or damage - is the one who will and SHOULD receive the reprimand.

Had catholics become enraged when Sinead O'Connor burned the Pope's picture on SNL and started beheading entertainers in another part of the world, would you have felt O'Connor responsible for their actions?

[northernlights]

18. If O'Connor's family had bombed and murdered the Catholics families

and then O'Connor announced she intended to burn the Pope's picture, and many people asked her to not do that because it would be inciting already nutty people into voilence. And O'Connor went ahead a did it to express her hatred for the Catholics, knowing it would incite relatiation by the already nutty...then yes, I would hold her partially responsible for their actions.

There are insane people everywhere. Deliberately inciting them to violence is wrong and someone who does that should be held accountable for it.

In the same way that if someone walked into my hospital to have their blood drawn to have their medication levels checked, and right before they came in, somebody else deliberately provoked them, knowing they were mentally ill...and I ended up injured by a provoked, insane person I would be inclined to hold the provoker partially responsible for the insane person's behavior.

[Rhythm]

12. These irrational, murderous bastards ALONE are responsible for their actions

And if it wasn't this incident that set them off, it would be something else. There always is.

Maybe unapologetic queers like me and Lyric holding hands in public.

Maybe women in bikinis.

Who the fuck knows.

[Puregonzo1188]

13. Let me get this straight I say something to someone and they don't like it.

Therefore they engage in act of physical violence against me.

And this is my fault?

Really? Because that seems to be what's implied by your Tatiana the Lioness example.

[Yo_Mama]

40. Yeah, and it's insulting to Muslims

Most Muslims don't want to kill people for these reasons. Drawing the comparison to a lion is to describe Muslims as less than human. This is not true, and it also exposes Muslims who don't believe in that form of Islam to being silenced via threat from those who do, doesn't it?

We have plenty of historical examples of violent, murdering mobs in our own history. Since when did we ever claim that they were justified because someone upset them?

Is the new rule going to be that if a bunch of nutty Catholics decide that insulting the Pope is a horrendous crime that merits murder as retribution, then Americans will be forbidden from saying that they don't believe the Pope is the direct mouthpiece of God?

If that's how we structure our society, we are rapidly going to spawn a society of witless, unreasoning fanatics.

[Xicano]

14. So if you burn the U.S. Flag and some teabagger flips out and shoots a group of liberals

Should YOU be held responsible for the teabagger's criminal actions?

:shrug:

[Yo_Mama]

41. Great one n/t

[NutmegYankee]

15. No.

Burning the photo would be despicable but it doesn't justify a parent going off and killing anyone. Period. Perhaps a suit for mental anguish, Yes? Murder, No!
The only people responsible for the UN deaths are their killers. I will never side with Right-wing Theocratic Fundamentalists, whether Christan or Muslim. Fuck them!

[Arrowhead2k1]

20. No one is talking about justifying the murderous actions.

Culpability does not have to be exclusive to only one party. Saying someone is indirectly responsible for a crime because they knowingly incited the violence does not absolve the party more directly responsible. To suggest that people who are angry about the incitement in Florida are providing justification for the murderous acts in Afghanistan is a fallacy.

[NutmegYankee]

21. There is no incitement here.

Burning a book half the world away cannot be used as an excuse to murder innocent people. And it's a Book! A mass produced machine made book! These murderous idiots have likely destroyed thousands of Korans in bombings through their campaign of terror. The OP has originally proposed that the pastor should be charged with a crime. He never incited violence or urged a crowd to riot and kill people. He never dehumanized a group and called out for them to "cut the tall trees" like in Rwanda.


He burned a book as an act of speech. Got it - He's a dickhead. So what?

[Arrowhead2k1]

23. In other words, don't believe your lying eyes?

An incitement doesn't have to be an excuse for the other side. You are again blurring the line between incitement and justification where none exists. The book burning was most certainly an incitement, and a purposeful one at that. You don't walk into a crowded room and purposely yell fire to incite people to panic. You may have a constitutional right to do so, but that does not make your actions any less inciteful. The pastor knew the implications of what he was doing, he was given ample warning not to do it for fear of the consequences. He irresponsibly went ahead with it and posted it online anyway knowing full well the potential for violence. He is culpable.

[NutmegYankee]

25. I still disagree.

If I went into a Church and burned a Bible, I would expect the crowd to be angry at me, but I would also expect to still be alive afterwards. I might even get punched by some very outraged person, but I'd live to be walked out. This pastor, though a nutjob he may be, did not go into a Muslim crowd and burn their holy book right in their face. He did it thousands of miles away. I would see a video of some guy in Pakistan burning a Bible and think "what an asshole" and move on.

This crowd was absolutely incited, but it was done by an imam or other leader with an agenda. A few people whipped that crowd into a frenzy using the burning of the Koran as their excuse and then directed that crowd onto the UN building. The leaders of the Mob are the culpable party.

Furthermore, I'm getting very irritated with some prudish fucks half the world away telling us what we can or can't draw (cartoons) or do (burn a book). It's up to them to act like Human beings and not animals.

[northernlights]

26. ohoh, the publicity whore pastor in Florida fully expected to be alive after his book-burning

He also knew well that innocent *others* would likely die as a result. He was forewarned, repeatedly, when he first threatened to do it last October or so.

[NutmegYankee]

29. That line of reasoning is SO ripe for abuse!

It's basically terrorism. "Don't you dare burn our holy book - we'll kill some innocent people." "Don't you dare pass that gun law - we'll shoot your staffers." "Don't you dare marry a same sex couple in your church - we'll burn it down." "I wouldn't support that bill if I were you - If you know what's good for you."

It's bullshit, and you know it is.

[northernlights]

31. you're confusing terrorism with holding hostages

and it underlies everything we do, every day. That is hardly bullshit.

My next door neighbors are livid because my dogs set foot on their property.

The fact that their dogs came over here first, not to mention their bull and two cows, is *not* what stops them from either shooting or poisoning my dogs. What stops them from shooting or poisoning my dogs is that they know if they do, they will never see their dogs again. (Not that I'd harm them, but I wouldn't think twice about luring them into a crate and dropping them off at the furthest no-kill shelter I have time to haul them too.)

My other neighbors no longer play their stereo full blast from 9am to 10pm, so loudly that to escape the noise I have to get in my car and drive a mile away, because they know I will retaliate. I know there is zero point in asking that they be civil neighbors and treat me with respect by turning the volume, or calling the police. Instead, I responded by blasting them with Jessye Norman and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra from by big stereo set up in my garage, concurrent with Kathleen Battle and Wynton Marsalis playing Baroque in my small stereo set up at the edge of my property nearest their front door. And let them listen to that cacaphony for 3 hours nonstop. So much for *their* freedom of expression :rofl:

Fear of punishment or retaliation is the biggest crime deterrent out there. Whereas tolerance of disrespect, insults and crimes (moral or legal) equals tacit approval of said behavior and encourages it.

That is a simple fact. The veneer of civility that prevents total chaos is very thin in many societies and cultures. The US included.

[NutmegYankee]

32. On the contrary -

Your neighbors have a right to not have your dogs on their property, one of the rights of landholders being to control access to their property. You have the responsibility as do they for theirs to control your animals, and both of the parties could enforce that through civil courts. No violence needed.

Fear of punishment does keep society in line, but we pass laws that are forced to meet certain standards to do just that. If gay marriage is legalized where you live, like it is in my state (Connecticut), gay couples know they can get married legally without fearing violent acts upon themselves because someone doesn't like what they did. Law enforces this. If a man gets upset and hurts them, it isn't their fault. The man violated multiple laws and chose terror as a manner to enforce his views on the hypothetical couple.

Our laws enforce freedom of speech. This pastor, while an ugly character all around, merely engaged in symbolic speech and burned his own property ( having purchased his own book). This does not incite violence to rational people.

If he can't practice his speech without fear of violence, then he really isn't free. It's no different than if a gay couple couldn't marry because they would be injured or killed in violence. The net result is they don't have the right after all.

I stand behind freedom.

[Arrowhead2k1]

27. The fact that he did this thousands of miles away makes him even more of a COWARD.

Come on. We all knew there would be riots out of this. The warnings were on the walls as clear as day. Until our people are out of harms way and this war is over, we have a responsiblity to be responsible here. We didn't win anything by antogonizing them. We lost. The Taliban sent home some foreigners in body bags over this. Good fucking job! Free speech lol...

[NutmegYankee]

28. I don't disagree that he is a coward.

But I still can't understand why they would riot over this little act just because it's on the internet. In the scheme of things, it's a non-event. Why riot over something you have no control over and which isn't even affecting you? I watched a man burn the US Flag several year ago, a flag symbolizing the country for which my father eventually gave his life. I didn't riot. I just frowned and walked away.

But then the answer presents itself:

"The protests here came a day after a mob overran the headquarters of the United Nations in Mazar-i-Sharif Friday, killing 12 persons, seven of them international staff. The mob gathered after three mullahs at Friday Prayer urged action in response to the Koran burning by a pastor, Terry Jones, in Florida on March 20."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/asia/03afghanistan.html

Oh right - Mullahs urging a crowd to action. But they don't bear the culpability? There would have been no riot without the Mullahs.

[freshwest]

16. Going at the questions one at a time:

"If somebody deliberately and knowingly provokes an irrational person (or being, say Tatiana, the lioness), does that person not own, at least in part, some responsibility for the irrational person's response?"

They are caught up in the same thing. Both are responsible. Both can be punished by each other. The circle of their action may spread, each one responsible. Only the ones who break the pattern will escape consequences.

"Or is the provocateur's behavior protected by "freedom of speech?" and damn the consequences?"

Freedom of speech is solely a concept to prevent the power in government from killing those they control from speaking against them in government. It does not exist purely without consequence in any other venue of life. Not random social interactions such as walking down the street and yelling, marriage, friendship, family, employment, religion or any other institution or activity in life. The consequences are as I stated above.

"Say somebody has murdered a child, and ends up doing time. And then is let out on good behavior.

The murderer now provokes the child's parent by burning a picture of the child, and puts it on U-tube, where it goes viral.

The parent totally loses it and goes off on his or her own rampage. Unable to get at the murderer, the parent gets at anybody who seems "close" to the murderer.

Yes, the parent is guilty of his or her actions. Is the murderer not also partially responsible for the rampage?"

See my first paragraph.

IMHO, the concept of freedom of speech has been abused so much in our corporatist society that speaking against the government or corporations or anything one person or their associates determine worthy of wrath, contempt or honest complaint has degraded into venting and changing nothing.

It is action and not words that are changing things. Actions reflect the state of heart and mind which are more powerful than words. When a forest is bulldozed, bombs are dropped, a baby is born or not, a prisoner executed, words are nothing more than noise preceding the change. But physical reality is changes for all those still alive. Deeds are what changes the world, words can spark several kinds of actions.

In the cases cited, I guess you're alluding to the Koran burning in the USA and the death of the UN employees abroad, which were the acts of fevered minds looking for a reason to protect their mental view of how the word should be, upon on someone else. The guy in Florida is a walking advertisement for using religion for profit and the ones who ran out of their worship service and killed those they deemed closest to them, as the example of the parent killing those closest to the murderer.

The parents had their reason to remove the source of their pain, more than the people running out of the mosque. Those are not comparable, but the results are the same in real life. Some people forgive the person who killed their family member, not for the benefit of the murderer, but their own peace of mind. Those who seek to gain peace of mind by copying the violent acts of others, are only borrowing it and something else will arise to enrage them.

I'm sure my opinion or viewpoint on this may sound cold, but Im not at the least bit cold. Hot-headed rhetoric and actions breed more of the same. It's an indulgence that feels good for while. But we need to be able to reflect and be cool-headed when dealing with others in order to show them the respect that the idea of freedom of speech was based upon.

Thanks for a thought provoking topic.

[Yupster]

17. Is this about Afghanistan?

My answer to that is that people all over the world should hold a formal ceremonial koran burning, one each day in a different place each day, today Lincoln Nebraska, tomorrow, Rostov, Russia, the next day Cajamarca Peru.

Eventually it might sink in that they don't remember who they're supposed to be enraged at any more and their religion survives even though a book got burnt.

I think that would be more effective that trying to appease the crazies every way you can think of.

[Arrowhead2k1]

19. Freedom of Speech only protects one from persecution by the authorities as per the constitution.

It has NOTHING to do with absolving the speaker from the consequences that come with speech.

[Unvanguard]

22. The answer to your title question is "yes." The answer to your final question is "no."

People of fundamentally sound mind who commit acts of violence are always solely morally responsible for those acts of violence.

[apocalypsehow]

24. So, in this (strained) metaphor the Koran is a child and the entire Muslim World are its parents?

And the moron down in Florida is the "murderer"?

I don't think this kind of metaphor is helpful, for all sorts of reasons.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. From some, but not all - specifically, it does include freedom from violent consequences.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you're not allowed to hate me or despise me on account of what I say.

It does mean that you're not allowed to resort to violence on account of it, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Ask Matthew Shepard.

I'm sure there are people who felt his being gay was a 'provocation', too.

[northernlights]

36. oh for cripes sake, Matthew wasn't killed for exercising "free speech"

he was killed for being gay by a bunch of haters. Who probably were incited to murder by another bunch of haters, like that piece of shit so-called pastor.

Ask Dr. Tiller whether he was killed in part as a result of "free speech" haters who pressed the nutcases buttons into killing so-called abortionists, along with the nutcases that pulled the trigger.

The fact is if the haters who incite violence were made to shut the fuck up, a lot of people would not have been senselessly murdered.

If that fuckhead Pisser Jones had not burned a holy book, the UN people would not have been murdered. But he did, and the nutcase targets of his hate retaliated and a bunch of people are dead as a result. All so some assholes can exercise their so-called "right" to be obnoxious assholes.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. "made to shut the fuck up". Yes, that's the answer.

You're justifying the actions of the homicidal assholes who were certain they were 'justified' in murdering because they didn't like what someone else said. Tiller and Shepard are perfect examples of other people who were killed, likewise, by folks certain they were 'justified'.

Sorry- the blame for the murders lies squarely with the people who did the murdering. Nice try.

[JVS]

34. So how much of Ike Turner's hitting her was Tina's fault?

Because that's the logic you're using.

[Mimosa]

35. Kill Team reports more likely to anger Muslims than Terry Jones

I've been yakking with a Muslim friend about this. He says the Kill team murders and trophy taking were behind the anger:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/28/2011-03-28_us_soldiers_kill_team_accused_of_murdering_afghani_civilians_for_sport_report.html?r=news

[Yo_Mama]

39. That's what I am hearing also

I think the Koran-burning thing is being used as an excuse only.

[Yo_Mama]

38. No

It's different if your speech provokes a rational fear. In other words, if I get pissed off because you don't agree with me or you insulted something that's very important to me, and I respond by telling you that I am going to kill you, you have a rational fear. You should contact the police about it who should, at a minimum, investigate the incident.

But unless I'm more than a bit bonkers, I will not interpret it as a threat of attack if you insult my flag, my political party, my religious symbol, my religious beliefs, or my dietary habits. Saying "you're wrong about that" is not the same as saying "You need killing and I'm on the job". The second provokes a rational fear of attack and the first just causes hurt or anger or both or perhaps, questioning of my own beliefs.

That last - the questioning of my own beliefs - is the reason why freedom of speech is so vital to our way of life. Most of our progress in civil society occurred after the west adopted rules of conduct that said individuals could not be attacked by society due to their beliefs or their advocacy of beliefs. It's not religion, because we were a Judeo-Christian society when we were burning people for heresy and holding slaves and executing or deporting children for petty thievery. The change and the bulk of the progress - even scientific progress - came when we changed the psychic relationship between society and individual so that there were not thought and speech crimes. We cannot sacrifice that.

Speech that provokes a rational and direct fear is criminal. Speech that merely offends me and hurts my feelings is not.

Failure to maintain that distinction will hand control of society to those who are least balanced. Our society will regress, because we'll be making the most unreasonable among us the ones with the most power to control society. That's not going to work.

So the answer to your hypothetical is that it hinges on whether a rational person would interpret a released child killer's apparent symbolic killing as being a threat. And here, I suspect the average psychiatrist would be a bit concerned. I strongly suspect that the police and judicial system would intervene.

For example, suppose the people involved in the Koran burning had a history of attacking Muslims on the street and beating them. Suppose they had been incarcerated for that crime. Then I think one would have a much better case for saying that the Koran burning constituted something that a reasonable person might interpret as a threat of bodily harm.

Personally, I think that holding a symbolic trial and condemning some of the beliefs laid out in the Koran is offensive, but virtuously so. I do not like the action of burning the book.

It is not clear to me that the trial/condemnation part would be any less offensive to certain Muslims than the book burning. The demand that they make is that no one should speak reprovingly of their religion, of their prophet, etc. But surely you cannot advocate forbidding criticism of a culture that believes in killing Muslim apostates?