was it criminally wrong again no.
its a stretch to say that nut in Florida needs to share the blame for what happened in Afghanistan
He said he knew murder could be a result of his action. It's more of a stretch to say that he didn't want innocent people to die. He did it in order to advance his theological perspective.
Since there's no international law against what he did, the legal question of free speech is irrelevant. This is not an issue of free speech, but of an act of inhumanity.
As for discussing if he "needs to share the blame", the question seems ripe for all kinds of semantic splitting of hairs for little purpose. What does "share the blame" really mean?
Legally it is clear cut. If he is convicted of hate speech, there is legal precedence for Koran burning to be considered criminal. Then that's the only book which can't legally be burned as a means of expression.
Koran burning will always have the same effect upon radicalized Muslims, as will depictions of Mohammed. The cartoons started as a critizism of the Danish government's failure in integrating muslims by pointing at the violent nature of their religion.
If two actions have the same consequence, and we judge the action upon the consequence, it's the same legal principle, and the law can therefore be extended.
If he is convicted of hate speech
Why is this even considered a possibility, here? The "free speech" issue just sounds like such a red herring to me. (Ha, or straw man, or whatever it should be called. I need to look it up.)
I suppose I should add, just in case it actually does go to court as a legal issue (which I seriously doubt it will), then we should be talking more nitty-gritty about judges, lawyers, legal arguments, ACLU, the constitution, etc. But so far, none of this has come up in this discussion.
The de juro situation is of course the worst possible outcome. But even if we only de facto protect the Koran from being burned, it is a limitation of free speech.
Some de facto limitations of free speech is good - such as racist slurs and profanity. But banning them by law is bad, we must be able to ridicule them because this is the only way of taking away their power.
If my intention is to incite violence, I can only be held accountable if I actually hold any power over those who perform it. The only way he could be guilty of inciting violence is if he had instructed his congregation to go out and shoot muslims, and they subsequently did.
The incitement to violence came not from WBC, it came from the Koran. As such, it is what needs to be held accountable.
You have made some sensible statements here and you almost make me rethink my stronger position. Now the only trouble I have is with the suggestion that it is a holy war. I don't think it is. I think it is just a political issue, another incident. Muslims, leave a nut or two here or there, seem too busy with their own stuff outside US occupied territory it seems. It's not only the extremists in the Af-Pak region, who are milking it. In fact no political faction, including the puppets, can afford to excuse it. And Jones has been feeding them. He has been frustrating American geopolitical interests and made some powerful enemies now. As opposed to the general public, these people have long memories.
Next time someone should mention to these Florida jokers that the most effective way to resist Islam is not burning a Koran, it's reading it.
Personally I do not see why burning a book is stupid. They are just pages bound together. The message the book contains is found elsewhere , in other bounded pages.
It seems to me as if it's like throwing a pebble at a pond in which you see the moon and some religion that worships the moon cries out YOU DESTROYED OUR MOON IN THAT POND!!! But no. It's just a reflection. The moon still exists, just as the word of Allah still exists in other pages.
Maybe I'm a fringe here on this one.