Finally figured out my position

Post #341,347 by drook 4/6/11 10:10:17 AM Reply	Finally figured out my position I haven't said anything for a couple of days because I needed to figure out the rationalization ... excuse me, the reason for my contradictory opinions. On the one hand, I thought the editorial cartoon was fair game, and I was pissed off at Cartoon Network for censoring the South Park episode based on it. On the other hand, I thought this book burning was pointlessly inflammatory. This morning I reconciled the two thoughts: Intent matters. The original cartoon was intended to point out that Islam was being used as a shield by terrorists. By not speaking out against those actions, the silent majority of Muslims were allowing their faith to be co-opted for violent purposes. This was the same thing that happened when white southern churches didn't speak out against the KKK when they claimed Christian symbols for what they did. The South Park episode bothered me because they skewer everyone's sacred cows. Their Catholic Church episode was as insightful as it was calculatedly offensive. To not allow the image of Mohammed -- and they went out of their way to say nothing at all about Mohammed or Islam -- was giving special treatment. The guy in Florida, however, had no point other than to piss people off. But let's assume for the sake of argument that he was making the argument you guys are, that regardless of the provocation the reaction was out of proportion and that should be the real story. Suppose a group of swarthy men staged a bible burning in Alabama. Do you honestly believe the locals would stand by and respectfully defend their right to their opinion? Or do you think "them damn dirty Ay-rabs" would end up in the hospital or worse? -- Drew
Post #341,348 by SpiceWare 4/6/11 10:54:44 AM Reply	I understand where you're coming from but I cannot reconcile that 1 book >= the lives of 12 people, which is the implication that I get from the media coverage.
Post #341,358 by Another Scott 4/6/11 1:53:19 PM Reply	Intent matters, but that's too low a bar. I agree with you that it's possible to hold contradictory views - we all do to some extent. I agree with you that intent matters (though I think Ben T. would argue that intent never matters). But that probably shouldn't be the standard. This morning on Morning Edition there was a discussion with Tina Brown on a story about the revolution in Libya (IIRC). A mild-mannered guy was driven to act against an army base that had been a source of attacks against people in his town. There had been skirmishes outside the gates, but nobody was able to get inside. So he filled up his car with various things and drove it up to the gate and detonated it, allowing the rebels inside and killing himself in the process. It apparently was a critical action early in the rebellion. Steve Inskeep and Tina Brown both talked about how brave he was and how he was driven to be a "suicide bomber" to help his people overthrow the oppressors. All without any apparent irony or memory of how that term has been used over the past 10 years or so... :-/ The intent is the same in both cases - to attack the oppressor. But one we view as good, one we view as evil. (I'm not saying they're the same; simply that it's difficult to write the ability to make judgements based on any conceivable circumstances into the law.) Free speech and expression is very important. I think in the abstract that there should be strong rules against incitement. I was recently surprised by how the Supreme Court has ruled on anti-incitement laws - the incitement apparently must be directed toward an "immediate particular violent goal" (or something like that) to be legally forbidden. The leaders in Afghanistan that stirred up the crowd were guilty of incitement according to the Supreme Court's definition (as I understand it). They should be prosecuted if similar laws exist in Afghanistan. The guy in Florida, from what I know about the story thus far, not so much. Whenever religion or ideals of cultural majesty get raised, things can get ugly when "bloody shirt" insults are thrown. Terry Jones' actions fit in that category. (I don't know about the South Park episode - maybe they crossed the line to "bloody shirt" territory, too; maybe not. They love being offensive to everyone.) Those who do such things should be condemned and shunned by their community and the media, but I think the Supreme Court probably has it right. It is not a direct immediate particular incitement and shouldn't be illegal. If being offensive (even "bloody shirt" offensive) is illegal, then it's too easy (and too tempting) for those in power to use those laws to stifle dissent. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. (Opinion above subject to revision with age and temperament.)
Post #341,362 by drook 4/6/11 3:55:17 PM Reply	Not saying what he did should be illegal Like I said, my bigger complaint is with the news organizations that flocked to the story like moths to a flame. They knew it was a publicity stunt designed to piss people off. They played right into it, and now act indignant that the targets of the offense ... were offended. -- Drew
Post #341,364 by Another Scott 4/6/11 5:52:30 PM Reply	Ah. Agreed.
Post #341,377 by static 4/6/11 10:34:47 PM Reply	Good analysis. Yes, the media played into the Florida pastor's hands, potentially enlarging the provocation manyfold. But I think your counter-comparison is not correct. The reverse would be some rural Islamic cleric organising a bible-burning, not some swarthy types in Alabama. The matching (over)reaction would be mainstream church goers torching Islamic Community Centres in retaliation. Yeah, it's an imperfect comparison. I'm not even sure if it be more correct or not if it were non-extremist church goers. So do we know that Florida pastor's intent? Was he really intending to piss off Islamic clerics halfway around globe? Or is he a mere misguided soul simply given too much visibility? He could really believe what he says about the Koran. I could be giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Welcome to IWETHEY!