I am not suggesting that anyone should limit their speech on the mere possibility of a violent reaction. I am, however, stating that engaging in a specific speech/action DESIGNED to cause a violent reaction is not "free speech." It is incitement to violence. And that is what Terry Jones did.
So no burning of the Koran or charicatures of Mohammed is allowed under any circumstance since it will always be an incitement to violence, no matter the underlying cause? How does this help further the debate if we have to restrict our free speech? Who is judge whether or not an expression is an incitement to violence?
Can disillusioned soldiers burn the American flag as a symbol of their disillusionment, knowing full well it will be offensive and possibly incite violence? Should we ban abortions because it offends Christians and incite them to violence? Can I still burn my cell phone manual in anger over it not functioning correctly if my intentions is to incite violence?
These are not slippery slope arguments, just attempts at logical extensions of your statements. They leave more unanswered questioned than answered ones, or it could just be that I cannot wrap my head around your argument and I would therefore like a further elaboration as to why free speech should have this limit.
Are you burning the flag for the sole purpose of inciting violence? Are you getting your abortion for the sole purpose of inciting violence?
Conversely, do you really think anyone is going to have a violent reaction to you burning your own cell phone manual?
Terry Jones had no other purpose except to incite violence. That is not free speech. And by the way, he intends to do it again.
That is rubbish. The violence is the problem, not the burning of the koran. If someone wants to start a koran publishing company for the sole purpose of publishing copies of the koran and subsequently igniting each and every book that comes off the press and pissing on the flames, that would still be no excuse to murder another person.
What is rubbish is the implication that I have said anywhere that my position on Terry Jones allows for an "excuse to murder another person." And saying that my position is "rubbish" and then setting up a strawman is not actually addressing any of the points that I have made.
You have no proof that he intended to cause violence and causality is not proof of intent. Incitement to violence includes "solicitation to commit a crime" to a specific person or group against specific person or group.
Lee, I don't see a reply button on your response, but yes, I do have proof of his intent. I have his own words from last year and this year. He freely admits that he wanted exactly this response to prove his point. And he fully intends to do it again.
Moreover, he certainly was soliciting a specific group to commit a crime... he was trying to obtain a specific type of response from a specific group of people - and he got it. My argument has not failed.
If someone you hate asks you to go out and kill someone, and you subsequently do so, he cannot in any way, shape, or form be held responsible for it. No person in their right mind would take commands from people they abhor.
But one has to be able to prove intent. It is not enough to say that he should have known or even did know that violence would have result. According to USA criminal laws, Jones had to be intending to incite violence. Furthermore, I don't think the bizarre reaction on the part of Afghan Muslims was at all predictable...in fact it would have been deemed racist to even predict such a bizarre reaction.
As I said to Lee, Terry Jones' own words prove his intent to incite violence. He WANTED the violence to prove his point.
And if it was bizarre and racist to predict such violence from Terry Jones' actions, why did our own government predict this response last year when Terry Jones said he was going to pull a similar stunt last September? Was General Petraeus being a racist?
"He WANTED the violence to prove his point."
So what? You are held personally responsible for who you take commands from and what the results of your own actions are. Taking commands from somone you don't agree with is insane. Can I be held liable for insane people committing insane acts?