If you want to argue against book burnings, don't use the "Yell fire in theater" analogy

[howard112211]

because it is not very logical. The implication of this analogy is that one should know better then to stir up the stupid responses of other people. This makes no sense, because ultimately the responsibility to not react in a stupid way lies with the people who are, well, reacting in a stupid way.

A better analogy to use, if one wants to make a case against the legality of book burnings, is to compare it to a hanged-man effigy. The historical context of book burnings, in the third Reich and other places, suggests that book burnings very often were used to set the stage for violence against humans. Some see them as implied violence. Thus the quote of Heinrich Heine "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.".

The rationale why Germany, among other places, sees outlawing book burnings as consistent with freedom of expression is because they view them as equal to saying "you are next!" to the targeted group, which is illegal in most legal systems.

Edit: Note, I am personally undecided on whether I think they should be illegal. Just making an academic point here.

[Modern_Matthew]

1. I don't think yelling fire should be illegal, either. Never seen an alarm cause alarm.

I've been in Wal-Mart when the fire alarms go off without warning. There's no stampede of people. People carry on about their business like the consumerist zombies they want us to be. I rarely see anyone react to alarms. When people freak out, they actually see a fire, tornado, etc.

[TheMadMonk]

6. The difference is that the human voice holds an emotional component, also...

...it has an eyes on the ground immediacy, which constantly misbehaving "inanimate" devices don't.

You don't have to see it for yourself. You simply have to believe SOMEONE has seen it.

[hlthe2b]

2. No... I think the argument against "hate speech" does just fine...

Those who would support or justify burning the Koran publicly can't fool anyone. It is bigotry and hate speech at its worse. Legal? Yes. But an act of pure hatred, just the same. No better than burning a cross in a black man's yard. I am so damned ashamed to see some so-called "progressives" jutifying such an act.

[hack89]

11. We don't justify it

we are simply alarmed that some would use this incident to limit our civil rights.

[hlthe2b]

24. How is denouncing the act and the "actor" limiting your civil rights.

This is a straw men argument that for some is used in the guise of supporting a hate agenda towards muslims.

[hack89]

25. Denouncing is fine

calls to prosecute is not. What he did was perfectly legal and should remain so. The fact that it is also despicable doesn't change that simple fact. There is no right to not have your beliefs questioned and your feelings hurt. It is Constitutional in America to say hateful things - explicit threats and acts are where we have rightfully drawn the line.

Not a single Muslim was hurt by his actions - not one.

[hlthe2b]

26. He has not had his civil rights violated, nor is there any move to do so.. This is pure..

hog shit. It is a straw man argument being used by many to foment Muslim hatred and yes, it is HATE speech, given that the audience in this country is NOT extremist factions, but ordinary American Muslims. I can not believe so many DUers are falling for this BS. Hate begets hate.

But, hate in this country has lead to the death of Muslims and those mistaken for Muslims. Just as hate speech targeted towards other races and gays has lead to their persecution and deaths. That is the intimidating factor of such blatant bigotry and intolerance.

It is shockingly amazing to me that only with this "Preacher," are DUers so "concerned about him potentially losing his civil rights"--so much that some will absolutely fail to denounce his actions. Yet, with Fred Phelps, they don't seem to have the same concerns. Why, if we tolerate Phelps nasty version of hate speech would you automatically conclude that this ass in Florida would not likewise be protected and why are DUers not denouncing this "Preacher," just as they would Phleps? I really have to wonder.

[hack89]

28. You misunderstand - my concern is not for his civil rights

it is for mine. I have denounced what he did just like I denounced Phelps. It when the talk veers towards limiting free speech that I get concerned.

[hlthe2b]

30. One of those civil rights you should be likewise concerned with protecting...

is freedom of religion (which likewise includes freedom NOT to hold religious views). It seems many here are forgetting that.

[hack89]

32. I agree with you that Muslim mob violence should have no impact on my rights. nt

[hlthe2b]

33. We are on the same page...

I'm still very concerned at the undertone of many posts and threads on this issue, though. There have been some that very much track with what is being said on that other RW site, that will remain unnamed. sigh...

[originalpckelly]

21. The original intent of his message was that of hate,

but in the long run it became a demonstration of the dangers of hatefilled theology in general.

I think he may have protested against himself as much as violent radicals in other parts of the world.

[Joe the Revelator]

29. Would you feel the same way if I burned a bible and the teabaggers got riled up and killed me?

Would it be my fault I was killed?

[Canuckistanian]

3. Tha analogy is valid, in a sense

In that the book-burner KNEW there would be a violent or dangerous reaction to his actions.

The same thing as someone who creates panic in an enclosed space - they KNOW and EXPECT a reaction.

[hlthe2b]

4. Not unlike intentionally provoking a paranoid schizophrenic with

known violent past. One can argue all you want that the ones provoking were not responsible, but I think most would vehemently disagree. One monster had mental illness as an exuse. The other--sheer unadulterated hatred and arrogance, but no less the monster.

[intaglio]

5. Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong

I posted an item on this and then enlarged it into a blog post. The text of my blog follows.

Sometimes event occurs which, it is claimed, was incited by the speech or actions of another. One of these was the recent murder of aid workers in Afghanistan which some have blamed upon the actions of a petty preacher in the USA called Rev. Terry Jones. What did Jones do that was so heinous? He burnt a Koran, probably because he chickened out of doing so last year.

Pastor Jones incites publicity.

Events like this put liberal minded people on the horns of a dilemma for do you criticise Jones for his disrespect towards another religion? Or perhaps become you angry because, you believe, his actions directly incited some mullah or Imam in Afghanistan to murder?

A few would, falsely, agree with Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is widely quoted quotation is an invention by a biographer of the playwright. Ignoring the dubious ancestry of this line it is a fine declaration of the right to free speech and is usually met with a response quotation of "you would not shout fire in a crowded theatre."

This too is a misquote, the real one being "You would not falsely shout Fire! in a crowded theatre," and was made by Supreme court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was an analogy he drew when applying the test of "Clear and present danger" as a limitation to free speech. That test came back to bite him when, later, he found himself in the minority when applying the "clear and present danger" test to rights of free assembly and that right was curtailed as well.

Christopher Hitchens once, memorably, opened his part of a debate by shouting "Fire!" in a lecture hall and then proceeded to destroy Holmes' analogy. The speech is on You Tube at the following links;

Debate on Free Speech. part 1
Debate on Free Speech. part 2
Debate on Free Speech. part 3

This talk is one of the best defenses of free speech I know and a great incitement to actually think. Note that Hitchens does not defend the views of holocaust deniers, racists or homophobes as right, just that if you remove their right to free speech you also remove your own right to free speech. Pastor Jones was foolish, ignorant and prejudiced to do what he did but the actions of the imams and their followers were worse - even allowing for their comparative ignorance.

That does not mean that incitement to violence cannot be punished, just that it must be proved that it is an incitement to violence. Crying out that homosexuals must be killed is hateful, but so is calling for the death of homophobes; but if a hater just says that they hate and do not lie about the thing hated or call for violence or give approval to the violence that results they must, unfortunately, be allowed to do so.

The laws of libel, slander and copyright have long been used by Scientology to defend itself from examination and prosecution. How much more would a law banning the defaming of religion or damage to religious texts defend that nasty little cult? Imagine that a law was in effect back in the 60's That said that defaming a religion or its writings was illegal.

Back in the 60s Mormonism was still exclusively white because of Book of Mormon said that blacks were a lesser race. It is easy to see how Mormonism and some Christian sects could fight laws on integration because such laws defamed their religion and their religious writings.

It would be impossible to prosecute Christians who believe that only Christ or God can cure you. Such people have been known to leave their children to die because of that belief. Under a blasphemy or religious defamation laws you would be defaming their faith and declaring it false by the mere act of prosecution.

Atheism or even agnosticism would not be going through their current resurgence if defaming religion or religious writings was illegal. Hitchens, Dawkins, Myers would all be silenced because of their non-criminal acts.

So, I'm afraid, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, respected jurist and Supreme Court Justice was wrong; falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a false analogy. It has no bearing upon free speech it is just a convenient excuse to stifle freedom.

[TheMadMonk]

7. The problem is not him burning books. Or them slitting throats.

The problem is that WE collectively allow the existence of fanatacism.

The ilk of Pastor Jones would be just as ready as the "unwashed savages" of Afghanistan to slit throats, blow up, burn, and shoot their enemies given the opportunity to get away with it. The "Aryans" all have their plans to conduct a cleansing popgrom if there's ever a sufficient breakdown of law and order. Only a few decades ago, these things were commonplace occurrences in America and conditions there are ripening for a repeat.

Simply curtailing the excesses of fanatacism is not enough, it's all too easy for conditions to change and allow it to break loose.

The real problem is the permission of any belief system which demands to intersect with everything whilst simultaneously refusing to be interstected by anything. The idea that I must comply with you, that non-intereference is not an option for you AND that the converse does not apply.

That IS NOT "free speech" that is an open campaign to limit multiple freedoms of others.

[intaglio]

8. I agree largely with what you say

But we have to be careful, for fanatics can be useful. Fanatics can drive forward causes that are beneficial with a zeal and tirelessness the normal supporter cannot match, but equally they can push harmful ideologies. If "the Aryans" do find the opportunity to begin their pogrom it is the fanatics by your side who will be your best defense.

Doing more than just "curtailing the excesses" of fanatics risks what you have gained because it is not impossible for a borderline fanatic to take on your cause. Would you then be anti-fanatical enough to avoid the sanctions?

Belief systems have for years used - and been used by - fanatics, that is not an excuse to limit their freedoms it is more a call to arms. Whatever laws are in place belief systems will find ways to misuse them but that is not a reason to abandon laws. Limiting freedom in any way is dangerous, be it the freedom to bear arms or the right of free assembly, and must only be done with extreme caution. A limitation on the freedom of speech does come back to bite you for you seek to limit the speech of those who seek to limit free speech - but you are one of those whose speech you are limiting

Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong, he placed a limit on free speech with the "Clear and Present Danger" test. The next year, another case, regarding freedom of assembly (which is concomitant with free speech) in a 7-2 judgment the Justices found that political dissidents protesting the war offered "Clear and Present Danger," to the war effort of the USA; Justice Holmes was one of the dissenters and said he did not agree that such danger was offered.

He was caught out by his own judgment and his dissent, which might be described as "reasonably shouting fire in a theatre," was overcome by the rule against "falsely shouting fire in a theatre."

[TheMadMonk]

13. That is not fanatacism. That's devotion.

A fanatic will spend any life for his cause. A "devotee" spends only his own.

[intaglio]

22. And how do you draw the line?

A fanatic will gladly spend his own life, Buddhist self immolators are fanatics just as much as suicide bombers. A devotee will often spend the life of others to further their cause - especially the lives of other devotees for devotees are uncritical of that they are devoted to and therefore are easily led. We do not live in a world of easily made divisions.

What, for example, is the difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter"? The answer is, only the people they who support them.

I repeat, make a law to restrict the freedom to oppose freedom of speech is to make a law against itself because that law, itself, restricts the freedom you are trying to protect. Assume you can make such a law, where do you stop? Is opposing that law itself to be banned? Is banning a silent protest against that law to be banned? Is a meeting of those who oppose the law in a private house to be banned? When do you set the FBI on them?

There is another legal maxim that applies, "Hard cases make bad law." That is it is difficult, if not impossible to make a law or a ruling because of difficult case that might otherwise judged against you. In this case people either have the freedom to speak or they do not.

[originalpckelly]

19. The best fire blanket for the very thing Terry Jones believes in...

is to protect his freedom of speech, but to universally preserve that for everyone, including those who profoundly disagree with him.

[intaglio]

23. Very true n/t

[cali]

9. My book, I have the right to burn it.

[originalpckelly]

20. Precisely.

It's completely different than a masse book burning by a large mob, because you are burning your copy alone.

If you stole every copy of the Qur'an in the area and burned it, that would be denying the freedom to read, and to think based upon what was read.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Religious fundamentalist nutjobs need to learn to control themselves and fucking deal.

If the Holocaust survivors and their families I knew in Skokie could grok that the freedom of speech which allowed Neo-Nazis to march there in the 70s was the same freedom of speech which is antithetical to everything the Nazis stood for, then you know what? I don't care how attached you are to your sacred special helping friendly book, you need to grow the fuck up and realizing that rioting and killing are NEVER acceptable responses to percieved insults to you or your faith.

People also need to stop playing this game of equating the symbol with the thing. The menu is not the meal. The map is not the territory. We don't outlaw "hate speech" but we do outlaw threats of violence- the danger in saying "some see book burnings as implied violence" is that some see all kinds of things in other things. Followers of Andrea Dworkin see rape in every act of heterosexual sex. I'm sure some anti-gay bigots see open gay sexuality as an assault upon their right to be homophobic dickheads. Etc. etc.

It's really pretty simple: if you own the book and you're on your own property and not violating any local fire codes, you have the right to burn it, eat it, or do whatever else you want with it. Sorry, but you do.

[JoeyT]

12. I'm not sure the hanged-man effigy works either.

Book burnings were usually large piles of books surrounded by a chanting mob or soldiers. This was one asshole burning one book.
No religion should be granted protection from mockery. Mockery may include having copies of your sacred texts destroyed.
Once we introduce religious protections into freedom of speech, freedom of speech will be completely gone. Everyone will object to absolutely every new or radical idea on religious grounds.

The fire analogy fails on many many levels. It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater because it will cause a panic not because someone has a religious objection to the word "fire" and will go berserk and kill an usher.

[athena]

15. Your argument is inconsistent.

You say that it is "illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater because it will cause a panic." There is no law saying that panic must be prevented in any situation. The point is that a state of panic inside a crowded theater tends to result in people getting overrun, hurt, and possibly killed. When you falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, you put people's lives at risk.

From a completely practical perspective, it would make sense to make it illegal to publicly insult Islam, as we have seen that this results in people getting killed.

Furthermore, I disagree that burning someone's religious texts can be seen as "mocking" the religion. You only claim this to try to draw a parallel between the Koran burnings and the cartoons that mocked Islam. There are indeed some parallels, but these parallels indicate that both the cartoons and the Koran burning were bad ideas. In both cases, Muslims felt insulted. In neither case was anything positive accomplished. Publishing cartoons mocking Islam and burning a Koran can only accomplish two things: non-Muslims who are already anti-Islam feel encouraged to openly hold negative views of Islam, and Muslims living in non-Muslim communities feel singled out and ostracized. An academic, reasoned criticism of a religion's precepts is very different from drawing cartoons to mock people of a certain religion or burning the texts of that relgion.

[originalpckelly]

18. That's what the court case ruling against someone doing that is.

It's a form of law.

Oi vey.

[JoeyT]

34. It's only inconsistent if you don't take the first amendment into consideration.

The "Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" rule is acceptable because there's no purpose served from yelling fire in a theater that isn't burning. You're not taking a position, arguing a stance, or protesting anything. Burning a Koran does have a purpose. Even if it's an unacceptable purpose from our point of view, the purpose is there. It's the same reason it isn't a violation of someone's first amendment rights if they're arrested for trying to talk a depressed person into suicide for the hell of it, but it is acceptable for someone to advocate for suicide or the option of suicide.

I can't believe the number of Democrats demanding blasphemy laws. Jesus tapdancing Christ. There may be a difference between burning a Koran and academic criticism morally, but if you're afraid to stand up for one you're not going to stand up for the other either. And yes, what you're advocating would end in anti-blasphemy laws. Any law banning the burning of the Koran or cartoons of Mohammed would, by necessity, required to ban burning any religious book, any cartoon, or any other mockery of ANY religious figure if it hoped to have any chance of not being an outright endorsement of a religion. Is that really what you want? A world where all religion is absolutely free of any kind of criticism? Who decides if criticism is academic criticism or mockery? The fanatical mob that would tear people apart for any perceived insult? Is that who you want to be arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable? No criticism of a religion is reasoned or reasonable to the members of that religion.

If they make it illegal to burn a Koran because crazy people might kill someone, how long do you think it would be before anti-war speech was illegal? Endangering the lives of the troops and all that. If we make "something positive accomplished" the bar for free speech, how long before it's illegal to criticize a corporation? These liberals aren't accomplishing anything positive, they're just hurting the economy because they hate freedom! How long before it's illegal to criticize the government in general? Who decides what is or isn't a "positive" result? A positive result for you may not be a positive result for me and vice-versa. A positive result for us may not be a positive result for that guy over there.

That's why freedom of speech has to be absolute. Once you step into "Freedom of only approved speech that doesn't upset anyone." there isn't any freedom of speech anymore.

Edited to add: I support the guy's right to do it, but not the guy. He's just an asshole screaming for attention. Supporting speech you agree with is easy. Supporting speech you despise is necessary, even when it sucks to have to do it.

[athena]

14. I don't understand why book-burning is considered speech.

Books are a form of speech. When you burn a book, you limit other people's speech and imply that you think the book should not be available for anyone to read. I can understand why Germany bans book burning.

Furthermore, it is important to try to understand why Muslims are so outraged by this. This is not to excuse the killings, which are unconscionable, but people should realize how offensive it is to Muslims to burn a Koran. Most Muslims respect each copy of the Koran as if it were handed down directly from heaven. Even moderate Muslims will perform a ritual cleansing before touching a copy of the Koran. They will not place a Koran on the floor, or even on a low table:
http://islam.about.com/od/quran/f/mushaf.htm

I don't think Jones should be arrested, but there should be a strong public condemnation of his actions. Americans cannot allow the Muslim world to think that Jones's actions, which are disrespectful of Islam, represent American values. They should reiterate that Americans respect everyone's religion, and that the U.S. constitution explicitly protects each person's right to practice the religion of his/her choice.

Despite being an atheist, I don't think that it is in any way helpful to insult someone else's religion. We can't control how small numbers of Muslims might react to a public insult against Islam. We can only control our own actions. Burning a Koran is as ill-advised as provoking a mentally unstable person. (This is not to suggest that Muslims are mentally unstable, but there are over a billion Muslims in the world, and a small fraction of all people are mentally unstable.)

[originalpckelly]

17. No, that's only true of mass book burnings, not ones where individuals...

burn their own private copy of the book.

He didn't check it out from a library, or buy every copy within a mile round radius, he burned just one copy.

[Zebedeo]

27. Are e-books a form of speech?

If so, should there be a law prohibiting the deleting of e-books? If not, why not? Isn't deleting an e-book "limiting other people's speech and implying that you think the book should not be available for anyone to read"? If I delete an electronic version of the Koran on my Kindle, should there be a "strong public condemnation" of my actions?

[originalpckelly]

16. I am a gay atheist, I could not disagree more with Terry Jones...

and yet I support his right to burn a book that is in his possession, and therefore does not deny the right of others to read it.

A mass book burning is an act of oppression, and not a method of expression because it seeks to deny people en masse the right to read that book. You'd not only burn a personal copy, but every copy within the area, creating an unreasonable hurdle to freely read and then think based upon what one read.

A Nazi book burning of hate is different than a single American pastor expression his hatred with his own private property, within the legal burning guidelines in which the book shall have been burned. You have the right to hate someone and take a non-violent action based upon that, but you should not have the right to burn books en masse in order to limit freedom of information for the dissenters in your area.

People in the FL pastor's area can still read the Qur'an, while with a Nazi or other mob based book burning, it was not possible to do that.

In addition, this book burning takes place in the 21st Century and the text burned is one freely available on the internet, something many individuals in the nation where the book was burned have access to. They can freely see the book, even if every physical copy was burned, which again is not what happened here.

It may have been insensitive toward people who are believers in the Qur'an, but they themselves have no qualms about taking similar symbolic actions with no regard to their international consequences, or the offense of people in said foreign countries. I bet they'd cry foul if you wanted outlaw the burning of the American flag in their nations, right? Odd how they want the right to literally inflammatory expression, but they go on a killing rampage when someone else expresses their disgust in the same way.

And I'll add, you can say something incredibly "insensitive" to radicals, and still get the same reaction. I'd hope you'd protect even that right.

In this case, the burning could be viewed as a non-violent demonstration of disgust with a religion that does not seem to be doing enough to prevent it's more radical violent elements from killing other human beings, which is what the response to the book burning in Afghanistan in itself proves.

The world will not and should not suppress freedom of expression in order to please violent radicals.

We will not cower in fear of these people anymore, it has happened for too long.

Indeed, there are a billion Muslims in the world, but the rest of the world that isn't Muslim seems to be fair game for them. They really shouldn't be picking fights with almost 6 billion people. It's not just Christians, it's Hindus in India. Or those without a faith.

Now, it is true that even a billion Muslims did not do this. I use that number to give these radicals the best odds, to demonstrate that even if you included the whole world's population of Muslims, they would still be vastly outnumbered. The sad part is that the more moderate elements of that faith cower in fear of the radicals, who are not even pleased if you are a normal Muslim who doesn't subscribe to their violent intolerant theology.

So the world would suppress freedom of expression to please the vast minority, who themselves do not stand for such a thing and that is the reason the killings happened?

No, it will not happen, and should not happen.

We may condemn the pastor from Florida for being a bigot, but he is well within his rights to be ignorant. To force him to do otherwise would be an even greater threat to human freedom than to allow his existence or allow him to take actions based upon it.

The solution to ignorance is not violence and scare tactics, it's education and love.

I'll remind you these violent radicals murdered people in response to what? A CARTOON!

They are not reasonable people, and I feel that someone should at least be able to draw a controversial cartoon, don't you?

Or should we ban that too?

Where does it stop?

[JonLP24]

31. Fire, fire, fire!!!

Can I post fire in a message board? ;)

Never liked the analogy because the case where Oliver Wendell Holmes said that was against a group protesting US involvement in WWII. That case was properly overturned.