Zone1 Burning the Bible or the Torah or the Koran - is this an example for free speech?

[Zebra]

Burning the Bible or the Torah or the Koran - is this an example for free speech?

Answers:
yes, it is
no, it isnt, as burning things is no speech
undecided

 

[lg325]

Verbally or in written form disagreeing with those things and what they stand for is free speech burning is an act of intimidation or antagonizing a targeted group.

 

[Zebra]

burning is an act of intimidation or antagonizing a targeted group.

So I see it as well

 

[shockedcanadian]

It is unnecesary that is for certain. You can disagree without the burning and symbolism.

 

[Zebra]

Burning those books is an act of unnecessary aggression

 

[Zebra]

My answer would be:
no, it isnt, as burning things is no speech

 

[Kruska]

It's simply a more aggressive and symbolic part of free speech.

Show me any country on this planet, regardless of being democratic or autocratic, where any government changed its direction or decisions due to a person or a group, holding a peaceful free speech. - only a nitwit democrat would believe in that.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I wouldn't want to see someone burn a a flag either. You can call it free speech, but you had better also acknowledge that it is incinerary in nature.

 

[there4eyeM]

Freedom of expression is just that. Adults can deal with it.

 

[Kruska]

I wouldn't want to see someone burn a a flag either. You can call it free speech, but you had better also acknowledge that it is incinerary in nature.

As I stated on before: It's simply a more aggressive and symbolic part of free speech
Off course anyone, or group who undertakes such actions - also needs to take responsibility for such actions. - not just awareness or acknowledgement of their deeds.

 

[Mac1958]

It's freedom of expression, like burning a flag. You're not directly hurting anyone.

Abhorrent expression, like burning books or flags (as long as the act is not [1] aggressive such as directly inciting violence, or [2]seditious), is defended by those who are serious about protecting the First Amendment.

 

[presonorek]

My answer would be:
no, it isnt, as burning things is no speech

You are right. The OP doesn't specify who the Holy Book belongs to. If it belongs to the person doing the burning then it is free speech. Burning a Holy Book that belongs to someone else is rude and should be punished.

 

[presonorek]

Burning the Bible or the Torah or the Koran - is this an example for free speech?

Answers:
yes, it is
no, it isnt, as burning things is no speech
undecided

I said yes it is based on the assumption that the book belongs to the person who is burning it. If the Holy Book is stolen then that is theft and/or destruction of property.

 

[presonorek]

It is unnecesary that is for certain. You can disagree without the burning and symbolism.

Nice dodge. That wasn't the question.

 

[presonorek]

Verbally or in written form disagreeing with those things and what they stand for is free speech burning is an act of intimidation or antagonizing a targeted group.

Antagonizing a targeted group can invoke a response from the targeted group that changes the world for the better. You guys think too small. Free speech isn't only about freedom. It also creates an environment that allows the dumbest ideas to die and the best ideas to thrive. Without allowing people to share the dumbest ideas you are allowing a whole plethora of good ideas to never exist. Restricting free speech or creating an environment that free speech is restricted is like an idea abortion. If you prevent these good ideas from existing then we are stuck with the bad ones that currently exist. You should give the people with bad ideas megaphones not prison sentences. You guys are so shallow and have a pure hatred in your soul for free speech because you don't understand its potential.

 

[lg325]

Antagonizing a targeted group can invoke a response from the targeted group that changes the world for the better. You guys think too small. Free speech isn't only about freedom. It also creates an environment that allows the dumbest ideas to die and the best ideas to thrive. Without allowing people to share the dumbest ideas you are allowing a whole plethora of good ideas to never exist. Restricting free speech or creating an environment that free speech is restricted is like an idea abortion. If you prevent these good ideas from existing then we are stuck with the bad ones that currently exist. You should give the people with bad ideas megaphones not prison sentences. You guys are so shallow and have a pure hatred in your soul for free speech because you don't understand its potential.

No one is against free speech just arson. I agree let the talk or write whatever they want.

 

[presonorek]

defended by those who are serious about protecting the First Amendment.

It is awkward to defend free speech. That's why nobody does it. It is a good idea in theory, but who is going to defend it?

Terrible, awful, horrible, disgusting, filthy, rotten, distasteful, and repugnant speech is the only type of speech that needs any protection. So basically if you defend free speech to the average ignoramus it appears you are defending what the speaker said and they ignore the fact that you are fighting for free speech. Let's just agree that the founding fathers were using some mild hallucinogenic medications when writing the constitution.

The 2nd amendment, the 3rd amendment, and the 4th amendment are even more unrealistic than the 1st amendment. It took me 43 years to realize this. I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in reality under the rule of cruel humans who run the legal entity named, "The United States of America". I wish America existed but it simply doesn't. Reality hits you hard. The constitution is not respected by those in power. Those in power have to appease the masses. The masses are dumb as dirt and hate American principles.

 

[presonorek]

No one is against free speech just arson. I agree let the talk or write whatever they want.

Define arson.

 

[presonorek]

: the willful or malicious burning of property (such as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent

 

[Mac1958]

It is awkward to defend free speech. That's why nobody does it. It is a good idea in theory, but who is going to defend it?

Terrible, awful, horrible, disgusting, filthy, rotten, distasteful, and repugnant speech is the only type of speech that needs any protection. So basically if you defend free speech to the average ignoramus it appears you are defending what the speaker said and they ignore the fact that you are fighting for free speech. Let's just agree that the founding fathers were using some mild hallucinogenic medications when writing the constitution.

The 2nd amendment, the 3rd amendment, and the 4th amendment are even more unrealistic than the 1st amendment. It took me 43 years to realize this. I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in reality under the rule of cruel humans who run the legal entity named, "The United States of America". I wish America existed but it simply doesn't. Reality hits you hard. The constitution is not respected by those in power. Those in power have to appease the masses. The masses are dumb as dirt and hate American principles.

It's easy to impulsively say "they shouldn't be able to say that," so we have to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Right now we have both ends of our spectrum trying to punish people for expressing their opinion, and that's a very bad sign.