You DO NOT have the right to burn the Koran.

[JustinTime]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/201...koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html

So says Justice Breyer claiming the 'fire in a crowded theater' rule. IMO if you express yourself, no matter how offensive, and somebody gets violent, that person is the problem, not you.

Now before anyone starts, I do not want to burn a Koran, Im not a supporter of Rev. Wolfman Muttonchop and I would advise anyone planning on burning any Holy Book to refrain out of common decency, but my purpose in posting this is to ask this question: if we chip away at our right to express ourselves out of fear of violence, doesnt it set a very dangerous precedent? Effectively, the most violent groups sensitivites become law.

 

[Vessol]

I love how much of a slippery slope the "fire in a crowded theater" argument becomes. It can be pretty much used to ban everything.

 

[ARealConservative]

I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

 

[Vessol]

I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

That would supersede the First Amendment which guarantees the right of expression. Not to mention it violates the inherant rights of man to life, freedom and property.

If I legally buy a cross, a Bible, a Qu'ran, anything I have the right to do anything I want to it. Whether it means pissing on it, burning it, or anything.

And what if I live in this local government and I don't agree with their "laws". Do I just leave it? How fair is that?

What if you lived in a local community that banned churches, would it be fair for me to tell you "Well if you don't like it, leave it"

Keep authoritarianism away from me please, no matter how good the intentions the ends never justify the means.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

I can burn any book I choose to, and those who read it can enjoy their copy. That is the point of our rights and freedoms.

you can't ban burning shit.

that is someone elses' religion not mine, same reason people burn the us flag in other countries, they don't respect it like we do however that is their damn right to do so.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

ok so ban cross burnings because it incites hate?

when was the last time you heard on the news

" the kkk struck again, burned crosses and killed minorities"

seriously funny how people think that some rights and freedoms are ok UNLESS they are personally against one.

 

[ARealConservative]

That would supersede the First Amendment which guarantees the right of expression. Not to mention it violates the inherant rights of man to life, freedom and property.

If I legally buy a cross, a Bible, a Qu'ran, anything I have the right to do anything I want to it. Whether it means pissing on it, burning it, or anything.

the original intent and understanding of the 1st was a limitation on congress and only congress.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

There can be local ordinances against such things, yes.

 

[low preference guy]

There can be local ordinances against such things, yes.

After incorporation? Do you know that the first amendment currently is applied to state governments as well?

 

[ARealConservative]

ok so ban cross burnings because it incites hate?

when was the last time you heard on the news

" the kkk struck again, burned crosses and killed minorities"

seriously funny how people think that some rights and freedoms are ok UNLESS they are personally against one.

As someone that truly understand how wonderful, and fragile freedom is, I can accept allowing local limitations to ensure that the concept of freedom survives.

 

[Kludge]

Lol - might as well have just called the act "obscene" and declared it isn't protected by the 1st.

Ridiculous application.

 

[LibertyEagle]

After incorporation? Do you know that the first amendment currently is applied to state governments as well?

Where did I say "state government"?

Nowhere.

 

[Vessol]

As someone that truly understand how wonderful, and fragile freedom is, I can accept allowing local limitations to ensure that the concept of freedom survives.

And what if I don't agree with the local laws?

Either ya love it or leave it?

Should I submit to a bunch of local tyrants instead of a tyrant 100 miles away?

That's the same argument that the adherants to the Social Contract theory when you debate them about the Federal Government.

The only difference is the regional level.

Any law that one does not voluntarily submit to is unjust as long as one does not directly harm someone, limit their freedoms or harm their property.

 

[ARealConservative]

And what if I don't agree with the local laws?

Either ya love it or leave it?

Should I submit to a bunch of local tyrants instead of a tyrant 100 miles away?

That's the same argument that the adherants to the Social Contract theory when you debate them about the Federal Government.

The only difference is the regional level.

Any law that one does not voluntarily submit to is unjust as long as one does not directly harm someone, limit their freedoms or harm their property.

unless you think you are strong enough to protect all of your freedoms without help, then you better learn to accept it.

 

[Vessol]

unless you think you are strong enough to protect all of your freedoms without help, then you better learn to accept it.

I understand that working in conjunction within a community is essential, but the basis of valid moral laws is within the voluntary nature of them.

If community passes laws that I do not voluntarily agree to because I think they are stupid or immoral, what should I do about it.

Plus, how do you think valid laws of such communities should be passed? Through oligarchy or rule of majority?

Again I ask you, what if a few leaders on the local level decided that no churches could be built in your local community. What would be your reaction?

 

[JustinTime]

unless you think you are strong enough to protect all of your freedoms without help, then you better learn to accept it.

How does simply burning a Koran take away anyones freedom? We have no freedom from being offended.

 

[RedStripe]

Should it be a crime for me to make a credible threat to kill you or your children?

 

[pcosmar]

Effectively, the most violent groups sensitivites become law.

As it has ever been.

 

[Danke]

Should it be a crime for me to make a credible threat to kill you or your children?

No.

 

[Jordan]

Lol - might as well have just called the act "obscene" and declared it isn't protected by the 1st.

Ridiculous application.

Obscenity actually has some judicial standing too.