Man gets scentenced to 70 days in prison for burning a Koran

Hmmm,

(A) "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
— Heinrich Heine

(B) "Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid"
— Heinrich Heine

(C) "In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides."
— Heinrich Heine

(D) "There are more fools in the world than there are people."
— Heinrich Heine

(E) All of the above

Oh!

 

The police and our laws are primarily in place to keep public order. I think the sentence reflects the intentions to cause offence and incite trouble with a specific part of the community. Take the religious element out of the equation and look at it from a different perspective. If somebody stole a football shirt and burned it in front of the rival fans on cup final day to deliberately antagonise them into a response I'm sure an equally stiff sentence would be given.

 

Yup, imagine what sentence would be given if a Rangers fan set fire to a Celtic top, or vice-versa.

 

But it shouldn't. If they own the shirt they're free to destroy it if they want to. If the rival fans react with violence they are the ones in the wrong; having someone antagonise then doesn't absolve them of responsibility does it? They're still responsible for their actions and they're free to choose how they react. They should be able to rise above the provocation.

 

I'm sure that is very comforting to know when you have your face stoved in.

 

Yes, if he had OWNED the Koran, it most likely would have been a much lighter sentance. You keep failing to recognize the fact that he STOLE the Koran that was destroyed.

 

Please read my original post in this thread.

EDIT: I missed the part about stealing the shirt, sorry. I have said from the beginning that theft is wrong, but the post seemed to suggest that the action justifies the reaction and it doesn't.

 

When dealing with humans, that approach doesn't work I don't think, maybe if we were all robots, but we aren't
We have feelings, and it is natural to get angry when provoked/aggravated enough.

 

Yeah it's natural to get angry, but retaliation doesn't make things better does it, it escalates the problems.

 

I never said it makes anything better?
I don't think it's a good thing to react, I don't think it's right.
I'm saying that due to this natural reaction, it IS wrong to deliberately provoke/aggravate someone to such an extent, and ideally it shouldn't be allowed.

 

So you're a fascist too? Lots of you guys around these days!

I hereby give you notice that you speaking in the real world is grossly offensive to me and will provoke and aggravate me to the extent that I will probably want to blow up some people who look a little like you and live within 1000 miles of you.

I will be justified in this, because I have forewarned you that I find you speaking to be deeply offensive and therefore you should know that if you ever speak again in your life you will be deliberately provoking and aggravating me.

I take it you accept these terms as reasonable?

 

No I don't think it's reasonable, but I will do my best to avoid doing whatever it is that aggravates you (in this case talking) because I don't want to be an asshole.
Your example is ridiculous though.

 

But then you're suppressing free speech out of fear. What needs to change is how people respond to things they don't agree with or find offensive.

Currently the response is usually uncontrolled and violent, and often worse than whatever provoked it to begin with. That's what I'm saying is wrong and needs to change. Anger is natural and there's nothing inherently wrong with it; losing control because you're angry is what's wrong. If we just censor ourselves because of how people might react then we're giving in to them; we're just handing over our freedom on a silver platter and inviting a fascist society.

Free speech is not the problem. The problem is the way some people react to it.

 

You'll do your best? No you won't, be serious here! You'll keep talking day in day out just like you always have, and you seem to agree that as a result it's fine for me to blow people up because I find the notion of you talking offensive.

My example may be ridiculous to you, but I find people getting offended at me talking bluntly about their invisible skyman to be ridiculous, hell I find the fact that it's the 21st century and some educated people still believe in mythical supernatural beings ridiculous.

Bottom line is, unless you seriously think that you should be prohibited by law (or even by moral convention) from talking simply because I do not like it, then you need to take a different approach to this whole issue than you're currently taking.

 

I think your point of view is fair enough about the mythical skyman, that's not the problem here, it's how you went about it.
If you walked up to me, and started abusing me as a result of my beliefs (verbally) I would react, and I would feel my actions were justified because what you did was wrong, on one level it's bullying, doing something to deliberately provoke/insult someone else.

And woody, I think you're taking this a bit far no? I think we are a fair way off becoming a fascist state.

Edit. just reread your comment, never have I said I agree with people blowing stuff up as a result??

And when I say I would feel my actions were justified, that doesn't mean I think they should be allowed, but merely to my own moral compass.

 

You don't live in the UK?

 

Yeah I do?

 

I totally disagree. I think we're dangerously close to that.

I disagree with that too. With regard to religion, specifically Christianity, I've had people approach me in the street and tell me that Jesus loves me. I've also had people tell me that I'm going to hell (because they'd made a snap judgement based on my appearance). Both of these are offensive to me, but my only reaction was to tell them to piss off and carry on walking. I would not consider anything more to be justified: they have a right to say that to me whether I like it or not, just as I have the right to tell them to piss off in return.

I've also had people swear at me in the street because I was wearing t-shirts with politically provocative slogans on them. Do I like having grown men I've never met before call me a "f**king t**t" because of a t-shirt? No I don't. Do I think they're a "f**king t**t" for reacting in that way? Yes I do. Do I think they should be punished for speaking their mind? Not at all.

I have said plenty of things in my time that many people would find offensive, just as people have said things that offend me. I wouldn't want them to be told they couldn't say them any more than I'd want my own views to be suppressed, and I wouldn't expect them to take action against me because I'd angered them when I accept and defend their right to say things that anger me.

 

I like you Woody.

That's why I'm going to kill you last.

 

I wouldn't consider someone coming up to me and just mocking my religion as abuse to be fair.
It would have to be fair more provocative than that.
Although I'm slightly confused, you reacted to what they said? Even though you disagree with me reacting? I never said I'd cave their head in merely that I wouldn't just sit there as though nothing was happening.
Obviously I know you can't put a blanket law out that stops being doing this that and the other, but in my mind there are things which are out of line and shouldn't be tolerated.

And how are we dangerously close? You've got me slightly worried I don't pay enough attention to politics

Edit:
But I'll give it a go, thinking free speech should be truly free.