"Fighting words" provision may well limit his right to burn the Qur'an in the USA. The risk to others is real.
CBC News - World - Afghans stage protests over Qur'an burning
CBC News - World - Afghans stage protests over Qur'an burning
Burning the Qur'an Places Canadian Soldiers at Risk
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
hate speech: Definition from Answers.com
Still, many Americans argue for speech codes as a way of limiting hateful expression. During the 1980s and 1990s many college campuses passed these regulations as a way of protecting historically underrepresented groups. To support their position they invoked the fighting words doctrine articulated by Justice Frank Murphy's unanimous opinion in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). Murphy defined fighting words as those that neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any social value in the search for truth and that incited an immediate, violent response.
With the Chaplinsky exception in mind, the Court has generally given broad scope to speech that some would classify as hateful. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the justices per curiam opinion upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to call publicly for the expulsion of African Americans and Jews from the United States, even though the speech in question intimated the desirability of using violence. The justices held that unless the speech was intended to cause violence and had a high likelihood of producing such a result imminently it was protected by the First Amendment. “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press,” the Court wrote, “do not permit a State to forbid or prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless actions and is likely to incite or produce such action” (pp. 571–572).
The Brandenburg test has proven nearly impossible to meet. For example, in the famous Skokie cases of 1978, the justices denied a writ of certiorari from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that had affirmed the right of Nazis to march on a public street in a community populated with World War II concentration camp survivors. And the Court in R.A.V.v. City of St. Paul (1992) invalidated an antibias ordinance under which several teenagers were convicted of burning a cross on an African‐American family's lawn. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, reasoned that “[t]he First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects. … In its practical operation, moreover, the ordinance goes even beyond mere content discrimination, to actual viewpoint discrimination” (p. 391).
While the Court has not ruled specifically on campus speech codes, the precedent of R.A.V. makes clear that the justices are unlikely to disturb a host of lower court rulings that have struck down these regulations.
Bibliography
Afghanistan is a warzone and when you enter such a place (or war in general) risk is absolute. All actions by our troops, as well as other NATO troops, is confrontational and has been since NATO has sent troops into that place. To them ( Taliban, Al Qaeda, other extremists, terrorist groups, hardline Muslims and Muslims who just hate the west for whatever reason) we are the enemy, the infidels, the non-believers, and whatnot, and that we should attacked and killed anywhere and everywhere we are found. Just by our troops being in that country (or in any part of the Muslim world) is a confrontation to them.
Pastor Jones' actions would just be another mundane reminder to why they should continue to kill and terrorize us.
Absurd. If risk is absolute, then there is no need to consider options for particular missions. That is, if risk is absolute, then we don't need to consider the use of light or medium or heavilly armored vehicles for a particular patrol.
That is completely absurd.
I agree. We are the invaders no matter what BS reason we and NATO used to invade. We are the enemy and as such can expect to be attacked whenever and wherever the Afghanis feel it is opportune.
And what is the "mission"? If you are going to invade a country then you had better be prepared to use lethal force at all times or don't go in there in the first place. We are not there to force democracy on a people who do not understand it or want it. We are there for reasons that are not what we have been told they are and our military and political leaders are well aware what the real reasons are.
I'd agree somewhat with what you say except for that one little three letter word. But are we/U.S. any worse than Iraq when they invaded Kuwait or the 911 invasion? Our invasions followed their invasions. :smile:
Let's see if I get this straight...
The pastor's decision to burn the quran caused division in the country, and encouraged fanatic muslims to take up arms against the west,
And the imam's muleheadedness in erecting a building in a location that close to ground zero does not causes division in the country and those same fanatic muslims will not consider it a victory mosque................yup I think I get it.
The pastor's decision to burn the quran caused division in the country, and encouraged fanatic muslims to take up arms against the west,
And the imam's muleheadedness in erecting a building in a location that close to ground zero does not causes division in the country and those same fanatic muslims will not consider it a victory mosque................yup I think I get it.
The imam's decision to build the mosque has cause a division in the country and encouraged fanatic Christians to take up arms against the east. Same thing - fruit loops on all sides but they are a small minority. What we need is a little less emotional reactionism and more rational thought.
That has nothing to do with Afghanistan or us. Iraq was not a NATO operation. It was the alliance of the gullible.
Obviously I was speaking in generalities. Not all missions will carry the same risk. It's just preposterous to say that there are not levels of risk.
I think it was this thread that I mentioned this in, but during this fiasco, an Afghan Army outpost was nearly over-run by protesters. The risk was not the same the week before that this would happen. If protesters weren't emboldened by hate, there would have been no incident.
Hate begets hate...
And stupidity begets stupidity and there are enough stupid people on all sides of a conflict. Conflict is stupid to start with that is why so many loonies come out of the woodwork whenever one is started. I would rather see an army of people trained in conflict resolution and anger management than a military.
Cliffy; That has nothing to do with Afghanistan or us. Iraq was not a NATO operation. It was the alliance of the gullible.[/QUOTE said:
Re: Burning the Quran Places Canadian Soldiers at Risk
Not fruit oops as you say and definitely due in part to your views, narrow minded as they are on Religions
The Imam building the Mosques in NT stated that he did not know or think the repercussions would be so widespread - You can choose to believe he is stupid - or not. I choose toi belive that he knew exactly what he was doing - For whatever reason he did this escapes me as it is beyond stupid.
You also have no understanding of how the average US Citizen views the attack on 911 and the WTC as sacred ground. Your failure to understand that directly leads to your viewpoint and simple as it is of building a mosque - it is not the building - it is the location. Can you not grasp that simple fact.
Not fruit oops as you say and definitely due in part to your views, narrow minded as they are on Religions
The Imam building the Mosques in NT stated that he did not know or think the repercussions would be so widespread - You can choose to believe he is stupid - or not. I choose toi belive that he knew exactly what he was doing - For whatever reason he did this escapes me as it is beyond stupid.
You also have no understanding of how the average US Citizen views the attack on 911 and the WTC as sacred ground. Your failure to understand that directly leads to your viewpoint and simple as it is of building a mosque - it is not the building - it is the location. Can you not grasp that simple fact.
Well, as nice as that would be, it doesn't change the reality we're in right now...
Please define in your own words what Absolute Risk in Afghanistan means to you. That is the crux of your opinion so please define it. And yes I will tear it apart like I would a lobster for eating. Reason being I think you have no idea of absolute risk.
No it isn't absurd. The use of kit (either light, medium, or heavy like you stated) being used in a patrol is irrelevant to the risk of being killed or injured in a warzone. The risk is always there no matter what kit you use.
Every military leader knows that the lives of his/her troops is at risk when they enter a shooting war. They know and accept that risk. This also goes beyond the high ranks all the way to the bottom, and every person knows (or any person with half a brain) that when they join the military there is a risk that they may end up in combat, and quite possibly killed. And they accept that.
When military commanders set up operations they fully know the risks involed, and they go through it anyway. Why? Because the job needs to get done and in their eyes, putting the lives of their troops at risk is worth it. Every soldier knows what the risks are when they enter a shooting war. And they accept that, because they knew when they joined the military that there might be a chance of a war happening, and that their lives would be at risk. Risk is absolute in war.
I was told by the recruiter when I joined the Canadian Forces that there might be a possibility of war erupting somewhere in the world and asked if I accepted that fact. I said yes. Then he said that if Canada becomes involved in a possible war I might be sent into combat and there is a risk that I might be injured or killed, then he asked me if I can accept that fact. And I said yes.
Show me a person who thinks that there is no risk when they join the military, or that there is no risk being in a war, and I will show you delusion.
I just heard that some bozo in Alberta is thinking of burning the Quran. Is this true? Are they just trying to cash in on the notoriety of the clown in Florida?
And every time you get in a car there is a risk you will be killed in a car accident...yet some behaviour will increase that risk.
This isn't rocket science...If the threat is multiplied, then so is the risk.