DWOC's International Burn a Koran Day

[12thMan]

BleedBurgundy, the entirety of my post wasn't directed at you. Just some general sentiments of my own mixed in there.

[saden1]

Not all speech is protected speech per unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. I am not convinced this pastor has the "right" to burn the Qur'an.

In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Along the way he met the town marshal, who had earlier warned Chaplinsky to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion. Upon meeting the marshal for the second time, Chaplinsky attacked him verbally. The complaint against Chaplinsky charged that he had shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" and was arrested. Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the Deity.

For this, he was arrested under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

Chaplinsky was fined, but he appealed, claiming the law was "vague" and infringed upon his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.

The high court ruled:

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 which 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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Not all speech is protected speech per unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. I am not convinced this pastor has the "right" to burn the Qur'an.



The high court ruled:

Couple issues.
1) I believe the DWOC will be doing this on private property.
2) If Flag-burning and Bible burning are protected speech, Quran burning must be also.

From CBS: Quran Burning Legal? Protest Possibly Protected - CBS Evening News - CBS News

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Couple issues.
1) I believe the DWOC will be doing this on private property.
2) If Flag-burning and Bible burning are protected speech, Quran burning must be also.

From CBS: Quran Burning Legal? Protest Possibly Protected - CBS Evening News - CBS News

I think flag burning is a little bit different in that it is mostly done to protest the government though if someone is burning it at a Vets conference you bet it falls under "obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words' those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" and not protected speech.

If they are burning the Qur'an at thier private property then I think they're fine.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

If they are burning the Qur'an at thier private property then I think they're fine.

Legally.....these guys probably don't care, but reality is once they burn those Qurans they put a target on their backs and will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. I hope they think it's worth it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I think flag burning is a little bit different in that it is mostly done to protest the government though if someone is burning it at a Vets conference you bet it falls under "obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words' those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" and not protected speech.

If they are burning the Qur'an at thier private property then I think they're fine.

I say most of the flag burnings I've seen on TV was against the US and they want us all dead.

[JoeRedskin]

Unlike the Chaplinsky case above, DWOC's action is not directed at a single individual. Generally, I believe ('cause I don't have the time to research right now) it is okay to make hateful statements (for ex. burning the flag) as long as it is not aimed at an individual.

As I understand it, and as demonstrated by the case you cite, hateful speech akin to "fighting words" is not protected i.e. where someone is using hate speech to specifically provoke an individual or defined group. In Chaplinsky, the individual was not being charged for what he said in the public square, but, rather for the remarks directed at the arresting officer.

Holding that the statute's use of the term "offensive speech" was not vague or overbroad, the SC said (quoting,an earlier decision):

"The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . [S]uch words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace."

CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U. S. 568 :: Volume 315 :: 1942 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

DWOC's actions are hateful, but - I believe - unless they create an actual breach of the peace or are an attempt to incite an imminent (read immediate and actual - like yelling fire in a crowded theater) breach of the peace, they are protected.

[DIEHARD1980]

I dont agree with the building of the mosque near ground zero, but burning Korans is truly an act of hatred. This guy is a complete fool.

[CRedskinsRule]

BreakingNews

Florida church pastor says he's calling off burning of Qurans - Reuters 5 minutes ago via breakingnews.com

Somebody with commonsense reached them. Thank goodness.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

BreakingNews

Florida church pastor says he's calling off burning of Qurans - Reuters 5 minutes ago via breakingnews.com

Somebody with commonsense reached them. Thank goodness.

I hope that jackass is proud. I'm watching the news right now and basically just his idiot idea, even though it's been called off, has sparked anti-American hatred everywhere (even more than before). Nice job asshole.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I hope that jackass is proud. I'm watching the news right now and basically just his idiot idea, even though it's been called off, has sparked anti-American hatred everywhere (even more than before). Nice job asshole.

If in fact it has been called off I think that in many ways this is a great statement to the rest of the world.

One of those teachable moments perhaps?

Anyways that was going to be a fiasco so hopefully this mess has been averted.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I hope that jackass is proud. I'm watching the news right now and basically just his idiot idea, even though it's been called off, has sparked anti-American hatred everywhere (even more than before). Nice job asshole.

You really think he sparked all the anti-American hate? I think that was started way before 9/11 and its just another reason for them to act out. Remember when that guy did a cartoon in the paper and they flipped out then? Fu** them.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You really think he sparked all the anti-American hate? I think that was started way before 9/11 and its just another reason for them to act out. Remember when that guy did a cartoon in the paper and they flipped out then? Fu** them.

Oh, I don't think he did, but he surely didn't help it. Basically an idiotic idea internationally hurt American interests and for what? I mean the reasoning behind it makes NO sense to me besides to spread hate.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Oh, I don't think he did, but he surely didn't help it. Basically an idiotic idea internationally hurt American interests and for what? I mean the reasoning behind it makes NO sense to me besides to spread hate.

The only way this hurt American interest was with the people who hate us to start with and there is nothing we are going to do to change their feelings about us anyways. If some now hates us over this then they are just as dumb as the guy burning the koran and if it was not this it would be something else that ticks them off. F*** them anyways.

[saden1]

When the FBI tells you you're walking dead people it's time to pack-up shop and retire.