So right wing moron Terry Jones decides to burn a Qu'ran and people die in riots more than a week later.
What Jones did was offensive. It was disgusting and bigoted. It was not, however, an act of violence, and when I see comments such as this:
Free speech has limits. (0+ / 0-)
Such as these, defined by the SC in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet. But it seems to me this sort of speech might not be as protected as some others.
I have to wonder if we have a clear sense as to what "incitement" is.
The word "immediate" is relevant here. Incitement is not about what happens when someone, ten days later, commits an act of violence in response to your words.
And, to make it clear, when someone says this:
I don't know who is worst.... (5+ / 0-)
This Jones asshole for doing this to purposely stir people up, or the assholes who would get so worked up over some clown burning a book half way around the World, that they would murder innocents. Both are reprehensible.
I think I know who's worse.
It's the people who are doing the killing.
Seriously. How can this not be obvious.
And when someone says this:
I support free speech but... (0+ / 0-)
...if you shout "fire!" in a crowded theater and people are trampled to death trying to flee the nonexistent fire, you're still partially responsible for their death.
Another analogy: a gunman has a gun to a hostage's head and says "I'll shoot this kid if anyone gets any closer." Someone runs at him and he shoots the kid.
Doesn't the person running at him have some culpability?
I'm not going to argue with it, but I will question its relevancy. How is this even remotely connected to the notion of burning a book and someone responding to that more than a week later?
And let's be clear: these protests took place at the beginning of April. And when did the burning take place?
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.
That's one hell of a slow moving incitement.
One final note: before anyone dares to try to tell me that what I'm writing here means that I "agree with Rev Jones' message," please take a moment and think about whether that's really what you want to imply. Because honestly, if you're going to spew that sort of crap at me, that's your choice, but I'm not the one who comes out looking bad when you do this.