Vague_Boy Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Hey, Device, I assume this applies to you too! No, Device was being sarcastic. Sarcasm seems to be something you struggle with. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence Ah, now it becomes clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websters gue Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 No. Terry Jones did not encourage anybody to kill anybody else, they decided to do that for themselves. He hasn't even broken any laws. Terry Jones was warned by U.S. authorities that this might happen, his desire to be in the media spotlight was so overwhelming that he couldn't see how his actions would impact on others. If I was a relative of one of the murdered UN workers I'd want him prosecuted for accessory to murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 Terry Jones was warned by U.S. authorities that this might happen, his desire to be in the media spotlight was so overwhelming that he couldn't see how his actions would impact on others. If I was a relative of one of the murdered UN workers I'd want him prosecuted for accessory to murder. People are murdered every single day by Islamists. Usually nothing to do with obscure pastors in the USA. Sometimes they blow up things like girls schools (one was blown up this week in Pakistan), nothing to do with Terry Jones. Should we curtail freedom of expression because Islamists demand it? That's when they have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 So you support people's rights to freedom of speech regardless of the consequences? for paedophiles to go about their activities? for terrorists? for people lying... slanders, libels? copyright theft? incitement?A balanced view is that there needs to be two sides to any discussion of the extent to which freedoms and rights and responsibilites should be protected. You seeem to covering two subjects. Paedophile activities. terrorsit activities? These are not covered under the First Amendemnt. They are criminal activities Slanders and libels? Anyone can make them under the First Amendment but the vicitm has a right to seek damages through a court trial if he/she wishes to do so and can prove that they were slanderous. Incitement? The spoken words aalso fall under First Amendemnt rights but actions of violence or hate afterwards are criminal offences. You can say what you want but if you do be prepared for the consequences if you follow through with actions that fall under the criminal code Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 you would defend a muslim who burned the stars and stripes? I wouldn't like it but it's not illegal to burn the flag and it falls under the freedom of expression contained in the First Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 So you support people's rights to freedom of speech regardless of the consequences? for paedophiles to go about their activities? for terrorists? for people lying... slanders, libels? copyright theft? incitement? A balanced view is that there needs to be two sides to any discussion of the extent to which freedoms and rights and responsibilites should be protected. I used to repect many of your posts Wildcat, but after the "he aimed for a gap" nonsense and now this, not any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 I wouldn't like it but it's not illegal to burn the flag and it falls under the freedom of expression contained in the First Amendment. Stars and Stripes are burnt all the time in the Islamic world. What you don't see is lynch mobs in the USA beheading Muslims because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I used to repect many of your posts Wildcat, but after the "he aimed for a gap" nonsense and now this, not any more. I think thats harsh. Wildcat has shown there is a spectrum of what people want to do, which range from activities that are clearly not compatible with our society, through activities that slightly damage to activities that are clearly a human right. He just said there needs to be a discussion as its not always entirely clear where a 'freedom' sits on the scale. Dont you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websters gue Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Should we curtail freedom of expression because Islamists demand it? No, we're in Afganistan to curtail the freedom of radical monotheistic lunatics and we should do the same with the ones in our own back yard. Stars and Stripes are burnt all the time in the Islamic world. What you don't see is lynch mobs in the USA beheading Muslims because of it. It's better for PR if you drop bombs on them instead but given the chance I think a few folk in the USA would love to do some lynching, they've got some form when it comes to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 No, we're in Afganistan to curtail the freedom of radical monotheistic lunatics and we should do the same with the ones in our own back yard. Has Terry Jones blown anyone up? Has Terry Jones said anybody else should blow others up? Has Terry Jones even said anybody should be blown up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.