Reid: 'We'll look into' Quran burning

[The Northerner]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday that some members of Congress were considering some kind of action in response to the Florida Quran burning that sparked a murderous riot at a United Nations complex in Afghanistan and other mayhem.

"Ten to 20 people have been killed," Reid said on "Face the Nation," but refused to say flat-out that the Senate would pass a resolution condemning pastor Terry Jones.

"We’ll take a look at this of course...as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know," he added.

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0411/Reid_Well_look_into_Koran_burning.html


Isn't a senatorial probe into this matter pointless?

Although I condemn Terry Jones's stupid and disrespectful behavior, desecrating one's private property is still protected under the 1st Amendment just as much as flag burning and soaking the cross in urine are protected, right?

[Drale]

1. Its just something politicians say

there will be no inquest. Reid is just trying to pacify the crazies if only for a little while.

[Inspired]

2. Is doing something known to incite violence protected?

I dunno....someone should at least kick that moron's ass.

[The Northerner]

6. I don't think that violence is a reasonable retaliation against free speech

Otherwise the teabaggers would likely justify potential violence against anyone who may desecrate an effigy of Scott Walker, should such an incident occur.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Jones' actions did not "incite" the...

violence. The Supreme Court has ruled upon this multiple times.

[johnaries]

28. When did SCOTUS review the Terry Jones case?

In fact, in Brandenburg v. Ohio which actually overturned several previous decisions with more limitations on Free Speech, but still said

the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Jones knew his actions would incite violence and murder. In fact, I think he intended it so that it would "prove" his claims of Islam as a "violent" religion.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Read the decisions and...

you'll find the Court employs specific criteria as to what constitutes "incitement".

[kelly1mm]

39. The prong that is missing is imminence, The book burning was done

many days earlier, thousands of miles away, and not in the presence of the mob. The cleric at the mosque that incited the mob just before the murders (if the action had occured in the US), could be prosecuted under Brandenburg.

Brandenburg has a three prong test:

1) Intent
2) Imminence
3) Likelyhood

You need all 3, and in Jones matter we only have (maybe) 1 and 3.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[formernaderite]

111. for one it happened in another country

I can't see any ruling that would curtail our freedom to express, even if it's moronic, particularly if it does not "incite" Americans.

[Tesha]

24. Defending abortion rights provokes violence.

Defending gay rights provokes violence.

Being anti-war provokes violence.

Speaking against the majority religion provokes
violence.

Ignorant people often turn to violence over any
number of alleged provocations.

How many of these shall we ban to ensure that no
ignorant asshole is ever provoked to violence?

Tesha

[L0oniX]

63. +1

[WatsonT]

107. Yes and whenever an abortion rights, or gay rights, or anti-war advocate gets murdered

we immediately blame the victim for inciting violence in their murderers.
:sarcasm:

/hate this double standard that comes out when muslims are involved.

[originalpckelly]

82. Me being gay is enough to incite violence with these people.

You want to outlaw that?

Being a woman who wants to fuck a man outside of marriage is enough to incite violence, do you want to regulate who you get to fuck?

Being a Christian is enough to "incite" violent acts by these people, you want to outlaw that?

Being a Jew is enough to "incite" violent acts by these people, do you want to outlaw that?

Being a Hindu is enough to "incite" violent acts by these people, do you want to outlaw that?

We shall not outlaw every little thing these people are offended by, because their offense is unreasonable, and would lead us down a road that never ends and simply take away any shred of freedom and free thought we might have.

[WatsonT]

108. So you mean the right to not be offended doesn't rank higher than the right to free speech?

Heh, I wish more people got that.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. It has been my experience that rewarding attention seeking behavior by giving attention...

...is counterproductive.

In short, just ignore the fucker.

[Arkana]

4. Waste of time.

Don't waste airtime and oxygen condemning this asshole--he craves attention.

[Initech]

5. Why don't they prosecute Jones? What he did was a hate crime, pure and simple.

I don't care if it's free speech or not, it was meant to incite violence, and resulted in brutal murders. That is not OK. Go ahead, flame away. I will defend free speech, but I will not defend murder under any circumstances.

[The Northerner]

8. A person cannot desecrate his or her own private property?

Although we can all agree that Terry Jones is an attention-craving fundie, you can bet that the fundies will use this as an excuse against to prosecute anyone who might burn an effigy of a conservative claiming that such an act can result in politically-motivated violence.

In addition, I don't think there's a free-speech exception to burning protected symbols or objects.

Just think about if the repubs claimed that bible desecration was a punishable offense...

[ixion]

13. hate crime? Only if flag and/or bible burning is a hate crime

are you saying that burning any symbol is a hate crime? That's a very slippery slope you're walkin'.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Jones in blameless

Adults have free will and are held accountable for their actions. This was a non-event until Imams started pushing it. While Jones is a fundie asshat, he is not legally or morally responsible for the violence, those who inflamed the passions and called for violence as well as those committing the violence own the deaths of the UN personnel.

If you assert otherwise, it means that Muslims are little more than violent herd animals that can be instigated from afar...be sure you want to go there.

[Initech]

16. I'm definitely not going down that road.

The thing is all religions have their fair share of attention-craving fundie freaks, but not everyone who practices those religions are like that. But you know I also use controls too, and I bring up one of my current favorite music acts right now - Matisyahu - as an example. The guy is a fundamentalist Hasidic Jew, but he makes great music, and certainly doesn't use his position to incite violence the way Terry Jones did. Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) is Muslim-fundamentalist. He makes great music. I don't mind if someone practices any religion, but I don't like it when people use it as a platform to intimidate others.

[JonLP24]

17. That isn't how hate crimes work

Now if he starts a fight with a Muslim, then they could use the book burning in a trial as evidence to convict him under hate crimes.

Same thing with a skin head that posts nazi propaganda on the internet, can't punish him for it but if he beats up or kills someone of another skin color, than his propaganda can be used against him in a trial.

[Initech]

22. How is that not exactly what happened?

He burned the Quran, it resulted in murder. I really cant understand how that's any different than what you described.

[JonLP24]

26. That isn't exactly what I described

What I described is

Person A says some hate speech

Person A is charged with a crime against a person.

What you're describing is Person A says some hate speech

Group B performs some murders all the way across the globe.

[Initech]

27. If we cant prosecute Jones, we should at least denounce his actions.

[JonLP24]

29. I agree

Jones is certainly an asshole.

[Initech]

30. I'm really surprised that the end result of this wasn't more severe.

[Goblinmonger]

118. Because Muslims can't control themselves?

I mean, really, why can't we put the blame where it belongs on this one. This asshat exercised constitutionally protected expression. They KILLED people. The fact that you are saying it should have been more severe seems kind of insulting to muslims.

[Obamanaut]

86. If there was an 'open fire ban' in effect due to dry conditions, he should

be denounced for endangering his neighbors and/or property. Otherwise, it was his book.

[MadHound]

20. Funny thing, Jones was exercising his right to free speech,

And the ones who committed murder are halfway around the world. Why do you feel it is necessary to hold Jones responsible for their actions?

You're right, apparently you don't care about free speech.

[Initech]

25. You're right, I don't. There, I said it.

And here's why - I think free speech needs to be redefined to include definitions of what a hate crime truly is. These attention-craving Xtian fundies are constantly abusing their privileges (look at the sharp rise in teen GLBT suicides and look at what happened in Tuscon), and it's getting to be a problem, and this was a complete end-result of it. Their behavior is getting down right bizarre. And I really hate to say this, but I do feel that Jones needs to be made an example of. Even if we cant prosecute Jones, we can at least denounce his actions.

And I know it's a huge slippery slope. But something needs to happen, I'm afraid that if something like this were to happen again, the results could be way more disastrous than this. I mean it could lead to a country like that declaring war on us. And we cant afford that.

[MadHound]

31. Dude, what you are proposing is beyond a huge slipper slope,

What you are proposing is doing away with one of the major tenants of freedom in this country. What you are proposing is essentially doing away with free speech altogether, since "hate speech" can be stretched to cover all manner of speech. Under such a definition, Malcolm X, MLK, anti-war, and other such speakers could be charged with a crime.

Furthermore, why the hell aren't you holding the ones who committed the actual murders responsible? What, once a Koran is burned, they are somehow magically deprived of will and must go out an murder innocents? Jones did not kill a single person, it is the people in Afghanistan, religious fundies all, who failed to exercise self control and went out and killed. Why aren't you pissed at those religious fundies, hold those religious fundies responsible for their actions? Is it because your hatred of Christian fundies blinds you and makes you stupid to the point of wanting to do away with the First Amendment?

Sorry, but frankly if you want to do away with the First Amendment, I will damn you to hell and oppose you at every turn. Your blind anger is leading you down a path that has far too many many consequences that you apparently are unable to comprehend. I will not stand for that, and the only saving grace is that your viewpoint on this manner is in the minority, and such idiocy has absolutely no chance of being enacted in this country.

[Initech]

33. I do not want to do away with the first amendment., Not under any circumstance.

I love that we're free to practice any religion we want, or not at all. I love that we can protest against our government. Look at what's happening in Wisconsin - we're holding our government responsible for its actions. And I do love that. I want to hold people responsible for their actions. Big difference. I do hold the people responsible for those brutal murders. I do hold Terry Jones responsible for what he did.

Yes, free speech is a right, but I think it's also a privilege to have that free speech, and people are just abusing this privilege. Look at Fred Phelps. Yeah he has a right to do what he's doing. But is it moral what he's doing? Absolutely not. Terry Jones has a right to do what he's doing, but is it moral? Hell no. Fox News has a right to say teachers are making too much money, but is it moral? No. Is it wrong? Yes. Until we start holding these crazy people responsible for what they're doing, nothing will change in this country.

[MadHound]

35. You are holding an oxymoronic position,

Free speech cannot be both a right and a privilege. If you have the right to say anything you want, then that's it, you can say anything you want, period, be that speech good, bad or ugly. In response, other people can say good, bad, or ugly things about you. But you cannot limit the right of free speech, it is that simple.

How would you hold Fred Phelps or Jones "responsible"? Prosecute them for hate speech? If so, then you are indeed limiting the right of free speech. And I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong, wrong and anti-American, going against all of what this country stands for.

And again, I see no mention by you about holding the actual murderers responsible for their actions, for their lack of self control. Why are you going after a Christian religious fundy who was exercising his right to Freedom of Speech, yet giving a pass to Muslim religious fundies who apparently lacked any sort of self restraint and went out and killed people? What, are those Muslim religious fundies less responsible for what they did than Jones? Is speech now somehow more evil than deeds?

[Initech]

36. I'm not giving a pass to anybody.

I believe murder is wrong, plain and simple. I'm in no way shape or form defending the murders or the murderers. But what I'm trying to get at is that we have a horrible self-control problem in this country. This should not have happened. But it did. And it needs to be addressed.

[MadHound]

38. Addressed by limiting our right to Free Speech?

Talk about lack of self control. Do you realize where that would lead? Any criticism of Christian fundies becomes hate speech. Is that what you want? Are you thinking this through?

You say you're not giving a pass to anybody, the your actions belie your words. The first thing you want to do is not to hold the actual murderers responsible, but rather to limit our right to free speech.

Pfft, I'm done with you, I'm done arguing with somebody whose blind hatred of Christian fundies leads them to wanting to limit my Freedom of Speech.

[Initech]

41. I don't have a blind hatred of Christians, I never said that.

I have a problem with crazy people. I have a problem with people who use God as a way to justify truly evil, hateful shit they get away with.. We're talking fucking little kids evil. We're talking beheading evil. It's not just one religion but all religions. I want things to change in this country and I don't think burning religious symbols is the way to do it. Free speech does have its consequences. I'll defend the first amendment tooth and nail, but I think we're lucky to have the freedoms we have, but when they lead to actions like this, they need to be addressed. And like I said, if we cant prosecute Jones, we should at least denounce him.

[Egnever]

44. Sorry no

You seem to have a problem with religion that is clouding your thinking. One mans bad actions do not in any way justify a rewriting of the first amendment.

Everyone is denouncing him. No one is saying what he did is right or good, they are saying what he did is protected as it should be under free speech.

[Initech]

49. I'm not arguing that.

I agree that one man's actions don't justify destroying our freedoms. What I'm trying to argue is that it could have been a lot worse, and still could be if we don't condemn what he did. I honestly don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they were writing the Bill Of Rights.

[Yo_Mama]

55. The problem is that we don't agree about what's morally wrong speech

There was a time in this country when people just took it for granted that women shouldn't have the right to vote. Abolitionists were prosecuted for the crime of speaking against slavery.

Once you let the government decide what speech is "wrong", then you have lost free speech. I also see your post as being self-contradictory.

[Initech]

59. I see that argument. But my question still remains: Where do we draw the line?

I'm not saying completely outlaw free speech, but we need to take some kind of action against Jones.

[Yo_Mama]

61. I don't think so

Look, those rioters in Afghanistan also torched a girls school, and I don't think it was because they thought they were burning Korans in there. First, you're allowing the people who incited the mob to say something about motivations that probably isn't true. Off-hand, it seems likely that popular anger would be far more focused on the Kill team photos. And I think the torching of the girls school (Taliban ban on education for girls) shows what's really behind this.

Second, if you say this guy and the whole group (they put the Koran on trial, disagreed with its assertions, condemned it to destruction, and then some other pastor burned it) don't have the right to do that, then you are either putting Islam alone in a special class of non-dissent (totally impermissible under the Constitution) or saying that if people are angry enough to react violently against somebody's condemnation of their beliefs or symbols of those beliefs, then the constitutional right to free speech doesn't apply.

Working on the second theory, the people who rioted in the south against voting rights for black people or the people in the late 1800s who reacted with occasionally violent horror against the idea of women getting the right to vote somehow had the right, by extreme behavior, to shut down the rights of other people to even advocate for these things.

It's not like the US hasn't seen religious violence. Attacks on Mormons, attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses.... We're hardly a perfect society. If you allow the threat of violence to become the deciding point in law, then the constitution means very little.

Finally, why do you assume that it is just the act of burning the book which causes this response. Look, I'm a woman. The Koran is a lawbook as much as a religious text to those who believe in Shariah Islam. I don't believe those laws are right. I don't believe that women should be forced to go veiled. I don't believe that adulterers should be executed, or that homosexuals should be crushed to death. I don't believe that a woman's testimony in a court of law should be outweighed by that of a man.

I don't believe that someone who is "born" Muslim and who adopts other beliefs should be killed.

The people who started that riot believe all those things. They do not believe that women should be educated, or have the right to work outside the home. They do not believe that a woman who was raped should be allowed to live.

This has been an ongoing battle in the UN Human Rights Council for years, and the recent assassinations in Pakistan probably provoked the March action in which the defamation language was dropped:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-human-rights-council-moves-away-dange

In fact, it may well be that the Afghani riots have more to do with the UN action than with the Florida mock trial of the Koran. I'd advise you to read that article.

What certain BRANCHES of Islam have been negotiating for is for international law to forbid criticism of Islam. Altogther.

[Initech]

65. I wish I had this part earlier:

"Finally, why do you assume that it is just the act of burning the book which causes this response. Look, I'm a woman. The Koran is a lawbook as much as a religious text to those who believe in Shariah Islam. I don't believe those laws are right. I don't believe that women should be forced to go veiled. I don't believe that adulterers should be executed, or that homosexuals should be crushed to death. I don't believe that a woman's testimony in a court of law should be outweighed by that of a man. "

I completely agree with all of those things. Sharia Law is just as dangerous as Christian Dominionism is. The people who want to overturn freedoms for a book of laws that was written centuries ago and has no relevance today, that's treading down a dangerous road. Like I said earlier - it's not just Islam or Christianity, but all religions have are responsible for some truly evil shit associated with them. I'm not limiting it to just one.

I'm actually doing some research now on foreign hate speech laws, and I'm going to post a thought-out response to all of this tomorrow.

[Yo_Mama]

113. That's a great idea, Initech

Please post a link to your post here in this thread so we don't miss it.

I still don't favor the symbolic burning of the Koran, but I am truly in favor of advocating against some of the rules in the book.

Maybe it's time for us to get into touch with some of our very painful history and remind ourselves of WHY we have these rules about freedom of thought, speech and creed.

Christianity (and I am religious, and I am Christian) was as effed up in the past as Shariah Islam now is when it tried to be a state as well as a religion.

[Marrah_G]

72. You want to take action against a guy who burned book

Because men who force people to live under the following laws killed a bunch of innocent people because they felt offended:
-______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
www.rawa.org

Some of the restrictions imposed by Taliban on women in Afghanistan

The following list offers only an abbreviated glimpse of the hellish lives Afghan women are forced to lead under the Taliban, and can not begin to reflect the depth of female deprivations and sufferings. Taliban treat women worse than they treat animals. In fact, even as Taliban declare the keeping of caged birds and animals illegal, they imprison Afghan women within the four walls of their own houses. Women have no importance in Taliban eyes unless they are occupied producing children, satisfying male sexual needs or attending to the drudgery of daily housework. Jehadi fundamentalists such as Gulbaddin, Rabbani, Masood, Sayyaf, Khalili, Akbari, Mazari and their co-criminal Dostum have committed the most treacherous and filthy crimes against Afghan women. And as more areas come under Taliban control, even if the number of rapes and murders perpetrated against women falls, Taliban restrictions --comparable to those from the middle ages-- will continue to kill the spirit of our people while depriving them of a humane existence. We consider Taliban more treacherous and ignorant than Jehadis. According to our people, "Jehadis were killing us with guns and swords but Taliban are killing us with cotton."

Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

Apart from the above restrictions on women, the Taliban has:

- Banned listening to music, not only for women but men as well.

- Banned the watching of movies, television and videos, for everyone.

- Banned celebrating the traditional new year (Nowroz) on March 21. The Taliban has proclaimed the holiday un-Islamic.

- Disavowed Labor Day (May 1st), because it is deemed a "communist" holiday.

- Ordered that all people with non-Islamic names change them to Islamic ones.

- Forced haircuts upon Afghan youth.

- Ordered that men wear Islamic clothes and a cap.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Put your anger where it belongs: On crazy men who behave in monstrous barbaric ways.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Rebubula]

80. Epic Post

Funny how people forget that this is a land filled to the brim with crazy, misogynistic assholes that use religion to further their control. Violence is common place and people are inured to the death.


But....no....many short sighted people here want to blame an ignorant asshole in Florida (can't we just wall it off now? - from Georgia, we hated Florida before it became cool) instead of people that oppress and abuse others in ways that would make Hitler blush.

[originalpckelly]

89. Precisely.

[Initech]

101. Holy crap - talk about going from one extreme to the other!

:yoiks: :wow:

Calm down people, I'm going to prove later that free speech and hate speech laws can coexist without leading to a Taliban style government. :yoiks:

[bighart]

76. Someone in another country commits mass murder becuase they

are offended by the actions of a single person in the US and WE have the self-control problem? Wow, just wow.

[Initech]

106. It's not just Terry Jones.

I wasn't thinking clearly when I wrote this or any post in this thread and I seemed to have pissed off a lot of people in this thread and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. It's not just Jones - I could name any number of preachers in this country who get a free platform to say a lot of stupid, evil shit and somehow it's ok.

[Bragi]

73. Count on this: It WILL happen again

I have no doubt that more Korans will be burned. It's inevitable.

This will be happening in America, where this is legal free speech.

I don't think many Americans would agree with you on the need to curtail free speech rights because there are crazy people who may take offense and go on another killing spree.

American cannot allow crazy people to define the limits of free speech.

Free speech isn't the problem here. The problem is crazy people who think they have aright to be violent and commit murder because they feel offended.

[kelly1mm]

42. Even if Jones intended for violence to occur and knew it would likely happen

it is STILL not enough under Brandenburg v. Ohio to rise to a crime. The missing prong is imminence, as in "do X to Y (that person over there) right now!"

Does not mean that we have to like what Jones did and cannot use our freedom of speech to condem him and his actions, just that the government can't touch him.

[Initech]

50. I'm gonna have to read up more on this case. I guess I don't know enough about it.

[Yo_Mama]

56. Also Texas V Johnson

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155

(Flag burning case)

[Bragi]

74. agreed /nt

[jberryhill]

46. Please cite this "hate crime" statute you believe exists

[cali]

47. really? please post the appropriate statutes, FL and Federal

under which Jones could be prosecuted.

And you're trashing free speech, not defending it. unfuckingbelievable.

[Marrah_G]

71. It was not a hate crime

It's freedom. Jones is an ass. The criminals were those who murdered and incited those to murder.

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. Just because something is hateful, doesn't necessarily mean that it is a crime

[WatsonT]

109. He didn't murder anyone

his actions didn't force murder (like via trampling in the ubiquitous fire in a crowded theater analogy).

Those people chose to commit murder because someone didn't like their fairy-tales as much as they did.

[Chef Eric]

117. No. It was a hate ACT. Not a hate crime.

And you're not making the slightest bit of sense. On the one hand, you "don't care" if the act is free speech or not. On the other hand, you claim that you "defend" free speech.

How can you defend free speech if you "don't care" what it is (or what it isn't)?

[Webster Green]

9. Of course it's pointless. Reid is a dumbass politician.

He'll say anything. He never does anything though. I can't stand that idiot.

[hlthe2b]

10. If politicians (or anyone else) wants to issue a condemning statement

that might have some remote chance of quelling some of the burning anger, then I say DO IT and DO IT now. This isn't about this prick's civil rights. They are assured by our constitution and no one is looking to change that, (despite some of the rhetoric). For Gawd's sakes, we protect Fred Phlep's right to say the most vile statements he wishes, so why would anyone doubt the same protections for the Florida asshole.

But, condemn loudly, repeatedly. Ostracize the bastard and others like them. This isn't taking blame from the horrendous extremists that wantonly killed. But, it is sending a message that we are a tolerant people and actually do live up to the principles in our constitution and bill of rights. We preserve the right for even the worst of us to say vile things, but we also will send the message that this vile speech or act does not represent American values and we denounce the individual for doing so.

[ixion]

11. great, Reid, give him validation. The best thing to do is IGNORE him...

if people did that, his stupidity would be of consequence only to himself.

[apocalypsehow]

19. Exactly right - ignore him, shun him, don't give him a platform. Don't make him a martyr by ginning

up some "hate crime" charge that wouldn't stand scrutiny before the Supreme Court in any event.

[Initech]

60. Good point, the best thing we can do is put these attention cravers on ignore.

[Bragi]

75. Then you will remain ignorant of what they are saying

The US media already put Jones on ignore and gave him zero coverage from last September to last Friday when the riots happened.

This is why so many people here didn't even know Jones had burned a Koran in a well advertised but totally not reported stunt in March.

Do you have a Plan B for what happens when the rest of the world doesn't respect the self-censorship being shown by US MSM on this matter?

[Initech]

98. Never thought of it that way. Seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. silence is tacit approval-

the horse is out of the barn-

Condemnation of his action is appropriate.

imo

[snagglepuss]

45. Condemning the act then confirms the legitimacy of the disgusting and

barbaric act of slaughtering people. It is the slaughter and fanaticism that needs to be condemned.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. do you really mean to imply that Jones isn't a fanatic? that he

isn't an extremist?

[ixion]

54. I got news for you: There are extremists everywhere

of all shapes and sizes.

[snagglepuss]

67. Jones is a troublemaking ignoramus. Timothy McVeigh is an extremistist/ fanatic.

Muslims who resort to slaughter over a book are extremists/fanatics.

[Bluerthanblue]

69. if you do a little research on the man, I think you'll change your view-

he's a religious extremist-fanatic.

And a bigoted Leader- He knows how to get his agenda accomplished without literally having to get blood on his own hands-

JUST like the Imam's who rile up their followers do.

Please think about this- he isn't who you think he is.

[Goblinmonger]

87. He burned a book.

Other people killed because of that. They are nowhere NEAR the same thing. For one, his is protected by the 1st Amendment and the killings aren't.

[Bluerthanblue]

112. he didn't only burn a book- and people didn't kill simply because

the Koran was burned.

If you don't want to know the facts, that is your choice.

[Goblinmonger]

116. ooooh, a "holy book"

That some people get really pissed about being burnt. I'm pretty close to the "facts" aren't I? What he did might have been prickish but is certainly protected expression in this country. What they did was fucking insane and was not the appropriate response to what was dickish.

But, please, do enlighten me as to why the book burner is the one to blame here. Because once you say this guy needs to be stopped, the Republicans will happily stop any form of protest you might want to do because it may cause someone to do something really stupid.

[bighart]

78. +1

[ixion]

53. well, no, it's censorship, and while I think Jones is an utter ass

if you condemn a Quran burning, you have to condemn bible burnings and flag burnings and so on. It's a slippery slope, and I'll not support getting on it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. Ignoring it is the correct course

It was free expression, nothing more. That some governments (Pakistan) and some religious leaders (imams) can not deal with it is not our problem. Tell them that is how a modern society works and they have choices to make.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. A Mormon elder wants to investigate a Protestant minister since Muslim Imams in another country

incited a riot where UN personnel died.

Do I have that right?

[Modern_Matthew]

15. You don't have to look long, Harry. The 1st Amendment is at the top of the document. nt

[alphafemale]

18. Is it OK if I piss on a Quran/Bible/Flag to put it out if someone lights it on fire?

Just asking.

[Iggo]

48. Nope. That's litterin'.

B-)

[TK421]

114. No...it means urine trouble ( You're in trouble...get it? get it? )!!!

URINE TROUBLE!!!@!# :D

[Tesha]

21. > Isn't a senatorial probe into this matter pointless?

Well yes, if someone expects some kind of "action".
Because other than an awful lot of bloviating
speechifying, there's no action that would be legal.

On the other hand, perhaps it's an opportunity for
some of our more-ignorant Senators (you know, the
bottom 90 or 95 of them) to become educated in
the finer points of governing such as how the
United States Constitution regulates what they
can do. (Of late, our "leaders" don't seem to have
been paying much attention to the Constitution.)

Tesha

[SolutionisSolidarity]

34. Terry Jones has the right to burn his own property, on his own property,

in compliance with any state/local ordinances regarding burnings. He is an idiot, and a hateful one at that. He was trying to instigate trouble between Christians and Muslims by desecrating their works, and he succeeded. But this is free speech, ugly as that can be. The correct response would have been to ignore it or protest it. You can't kill people because someone offended your religious sensibilities, and we shouldn't justify that behavior by pretending that Mr. Jones is responsible for the actions of others outside of his "flock".

[Generic Other]

37. I'm betting he goes in the Witness Protection Program

like this Seattle cartoonist:

A cartoonist in Seattle who promoted an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” last spring is now in hiding after her life was threatened by Islamic extremists.

The cartoonist, Molly Norris, has changed her name and has stopped producing work for a local alternative newspaper, Seattle Weekly, according to the newspaper’s editor, Mark D. Fefer.

Mr. Fefer declined an interview request Thursday, citing “the sensitivity of the situation.” But in a letter to readers about Ms. Norris on Wednesday, he said that “on the insistence of top security specialists at the F.B.I., she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.”

The F.B.I. declined to comment on the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17cartoon.html

[Bragi]

77. Tragically, she is NOT in the witness protection program

Molly Norris was basically set adrift on her own. She should be in a protection program.

As reported at the time:

She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09-15/news/on-the-advice-of-the-fbi-cartoonist-molly-norris-disappears-from-view/

It was appalling how few mainstream media actually even had the balls to report or comment on what happened to Molly.

In consequence, most Americans likely know nothing about the fatwa placed on her, and how little support she has received.

If we ask why this happened, the answer seems to be that she is being ignored for the same reason that so few media were prepared to print the Danish cartoons -- our media are afraid of the consequences for themselves if they do their jobs.

[ReggieVeggie]

40. hearings?? sheesh!

:crazy:

[MadMaddie]

43. It is sensational and all it does is give more attention to

someone's idiotic thing they did.

This is the same thing as elevating the Terrorist to Terrorist they are criminals and thugs no more and no less.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Great. More meaningless platitudinizing in lieu of actual work.

Nice to see that they'll get right on it.

[darkstar3]

57. And they'll give him exactly what he wants.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. Let's ship Jones to Afghanistan

And have him burn a Koran there.

[L0oniX]

62. I'm burning one right now and I am using a bible to get it started.

[and-justice-for-all]

64. I think that is quite a waste of time...

when other matters are far more relevant at the moment.

They do not have to support it, but they surely should not be wasting time 'looking into it'.

[blogslut]

66. Just a point

Jones never actually burned the Qur'an. He threatened to burn 200 of them but he did not follow through on his threat.

[Bragi]

84. Sorry, the story has moved on

He burned a Koran and video-ed the act on March 20.

It is completely understandable you and many others didn't know this, since most US media self-censored themselves and did not report this event.

Why? Because they are afraid of what may happen to them if they report this kind of thing.

The lessons of the Danish cartoon fiasco were not hard to learn. The Jihadists are still trying to blow up newsrooms of media that dared to print the cartoons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12089543

[Bragi]

88. Moved by author

[Goblinmonger]

68. Hey, let's just become a theocracy and get it over with.

For fucking Christ's sake. This guy was exercising free speech same as someone burning a flag. The deaths that happened "because" of this were done by fucking insane people. Period. If some asshole wants to kill someone because someone half a world away burned a book that said asshole thinks is holy, that is ALL on the asshole, not the burner. If we can't agree on that, then this country is destined for a fucking theocracy.

[TheKentuckian]

81. +1

[WinkyDink]

104. Oh, but then if it isn't the RIGHT theocracy, some murderous PEASANTS might take offense!

[dkf]

70. Are they going to look into cartoons of Mohammed too?

[StarlightGold]

79. What for???

It's called free speech in this country. The guy(I won't give him the dignity of saying his name)is a complete asshat, but there's no law against being an asshat. Our outrage should be directed at the sub-animal garbage who dragged innocents to their beheadings/death because they were insulted. If these sub-animals want to sit at the grown-up table, then they will have to realize that they will be insulted from time to time in this world and they need to live with it, as we all do.

Good grief, I can't believe I even have to reiterate this....

[Obamanaut]

85. Islamic extremists have been beheading, murdering, stoning, etc for

quite some time.

What excuse did they use prior to Terry Jones?

[originalpckelly]

90. As we all know, it was Terry Jones who caused 9/11.

:eyes:

[Bragi]

91. It could be a good thing for Congress to do this

If Congress passed some kind of resolution not only condemning Jones act, but also upholding his free speech rights, then that would be a good thing.

If they did this, at least someone would be pointing out that American free speech includes the right to offend any religion.

This is something the White House has refused to do, thus playing into the hands of the jihadists who claim that Jonbes was allowed to burn a Koran because the US government permitted, and therefore approved of, his actions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. So a feel good bill that changes nothing and says nothing that is already well known is the answer?

I did not realize that our legislators had that much free time on their hands.

[Bragi]

93. My point is it could send an important message

The message being: Americans enjoy the right to free speech, which the government cannot arbitrarily limit just because someone may take offense.

That is message that the US government has yet to deliver, despite its centrality to this matter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. It has been delivered long before.

This is a smaller version of the Danish Cartoon fiasco. I see no need to the government to "send a message" that is already well known to most adults and all governments. Instead, the message needs to be something along the lines of "so what?" Free expression is a basic freedom in a modern country.

[Bragi]

97. So we disagree on this tactical matter

I think you over-estimate the awareness of illiterate impoverished tribal people who are rioting in Afghanistan about what free speech means in America.

In fact, there is even evidence here on DU that many Americans don't even understand what free speech entails.

At any rate, I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on the potential upside of a responsible statement from Congress.

[Edweird]

94. I got something for him to 'look into'....

[slackmaster]

100. It's the "DO something" mentality

Total waste of time.

[WinkyDink]

102. OFGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's an OBJECT made in a FACTORY by MACHINES and then SOLD. And we should LOOK

INTO its destruction because of the INSANITY OF SOME MUSLIMS??

[NeedleCast]

103. Bad Idea. Giving These Jackassess Attention Is Just What They Want

[Bragi]

105. Afghanis learned of Koran burnings w/o Congress

Many people here seem to think no-one will know about Koran burnings if the MSM doesn't report, or if Congress/the President stay silent, etc.

Well, the MSM self-censored Jones March burning stunt, but word got to Afghanistan anyway via quite independent channels (e.g. Karzai, Imams, etc.)

It's a mistake to think that if American media chooses to not report something, that the rest of the world will never find out about it. All that happens is that Americans remain poorly informed about what's going on.

(I make this point separate from the discussion about the merits of whatever Congress might say on this matter.)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

110. Yes. Pointless. Not an issue he should lower himself to.

But we seem to love getting high-profile people involved in minor stuff. Terri Schiavo, Elian Gonzalez, and now some moronic low-life preacher.

Focus on the big stuff, Harry.

[Obamanaut]

115. If they do 'look into' this koran burning and issue a statement condemning such -

there should also be an admonishment against burning any and all religious objects, lest we begin to think the muslims are getting preferential treatment.

Actually, they are.

[Goblinmonger]

119. Not just religious objects, but any object of importance.

Don't burn The God Delusion or I might go frickin' crazy. Or a Burroughs novel.