Thought Piece: Burning the Koran is a Form of Protected Speech

[Marauder06]

While the Constitution is the absolute law of the land, it was never intended to be absolute or unchanging. The framers recognized that the rules they laid down to guide their new country would have to be able to evolve with the times, so they made provisions to enable the modification of the Constitution. In fact, the very issue we are discussing, the First Amendment, was an afterthought added to the Constitution long after its original signature.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has again and again held up the concept reasonable restrictions on our rights, including the right to bear arms and of course the right of free speech. A quick look at both history and case law illustrates that free speech has limits, and it is easy to see why most of those limits are in place. Perhaps the most oft-cited example of reasonable curbs on free speech is "yelling fire in a crowded theater." I think all of us understand intuitively why that is both dangerous and not Constitutionally-protected speech. This has a direct parallel to the issue currently under debate. Desecrating the Koran, which to Muslims is not a mere "book" but the literal and sacred word of God, is exactly like the "yelling fire" example because the possible disruptive and dangerous results (panic, chaos, and death) are exactly the same. We have seen time and time again the reactions of Muslims, particularly overseas, to publicity stunts like the one which spawned this thought piece. Those kinds of actions are even more reprehensible given that the people who carry them out almost never suffer the repercussions themselves, but our servicemembers, diplomats, and other citizens over seas frequently do.

So, burning the Koran is an inciteful act, given that carrying it out can logically be assumed to spawn massive violent outbursts in Muslim communities around the world. So of course GEN Petraeus would reach out to ask- "ask" not "demand" or "threaten" or "push pressure on"- a fellow citizen not to do something that would put Americans and the American mission overseas in jeopardy. Some of you are angry at Petraeus for intervening? I'd be more pissed off if I found out he hadn't.

 

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

While the Constitution is the absolute law of the land, it was never intended to be absolute or unchanging. The framers recognized that the rules they laid down to guide their new country would have to be able to evolve with the times, so they made provisions to enable the modification of the Constitution. In fact, the very issue we are discussing, the First Amendment, was an afterthought added to the Constitution long after its original signature.

Agreed, but… modifying the Constitution isn’t the issue here. It is the interpretation of the laws stated within it that matter.

Desecrating the Koran, which to Muslims is not a mere "book" but the literal and sacred word of God, is exactly like the "yelling fire" example because the possible disruptive and dangerous results (panic, chaos, and death) are exactly the same.

With all due respect, the results of yelling fire in a crowded theatre and fat frying the Koran are not exactly alike. For brevity purposes, I will just hit on one prime example. While yelling fire may cause panic, frying up a book does not. In this case, it causes anger. I think a more suitable argument instead would be to use the Westboro Baptist Church protests at military funerals. But then again, while their chants and derogatory signs are deemed “hate speech” (speech not protected under the First Amendment), their protests are still considered protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

We have seen time and time again the reactions of Muslims, particularly overseas, to publicity stunts like the one which spawned this thought piece. Those kinds of actions are even more reprehensible given that the people who carry them out almost never suffer the repercussions themselves, but our servicemembers, diplomats, and other citizens over seas frequently do.

What you see as a publicity stunt, others see as a protest. What deems actions to not be protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments are usually the immediate reactions. Frying the Koran will spawn protests and pleas for jail time for the shock jock. Some people may actually call for a fatwa, but even you alluded to the fact that nothing major will happen here.

Looking overseas, people are just waiting for an excuse to cause issues for our service members, diplomats, and other citizens. We are continually hated by, protested against, kidnapped by, and fighting against Muslims. They have attacks already planned out and just looking for an excuse. If there is no excuse available, then it will just be an attack. If there is an excuse available, then they will use that for the attack that took a month to plan and coordinate. Look at Benghazi. They had been planning the attack for weeks, and then used a stupid film as an excuse. This protest is no different.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Last paragraph hit the nail on the head, LOST. Those countries have been in a constant state of upheaval for centuries. Now they just pick and choose certain events carried out by the Infidel to "justify" their riots, killings, etc. I call shenanigans.

 

[Marauder06]

Since we already established that protest actions are in fact free speech, and as my esteemed colleague, Mr. CDG has already said,

fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,

are not protected free speech, then I do not see how it is possible to view the desecration of the Koran as anything other than expression that is not protected by the 1st Amendment and should be stopped cold before it causes more damage to US citizens and the US's global prestige.

 

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

Since we already established that protest actions are in fact free speech, and as my esteemed colleague, Mr. CDG has already said, [fighting words] are not protected free speech, then I do not see how it is possible to view the desecration of the Koran as anything other than expression that is not protected by the 1st Amendment and should be stopped cold before it causes more damage to US citizens and the US's global prestige.

What if the burning of the Koran was done in protest of something, like maybe protesting a "peaceful" religion? What if it was done at a rally or protest? I have not been able to find any cases that show where "fighting words" have included actions. Every case I have come across has dealt with the spoken word.

How about we discuss the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Both make statements about not depriving people of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law. The difference between the two Amendments is that the Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal level while the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the State level.


Equal Protection also referred in Due Process:

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances... Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

This can be tested in times where flags or bibles are allowed to be burned. There is no difference between a bible and the Koran, aside from the people that follow each book. If you can burn a bible, you can burn a Koran.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

In the TX Vs. Johnson case I cited earlier, this guy torched a flag during the RNC. He was burning a symbol of our freedom, in protest, and the initial guilty verdict was overturned. Same shit, different toilet.

 

[CDG]

This can be tested in times where flags or bibles are allowed to be burned. There is no difference between a bible and the Koran, aside from the people that follow each book. If you can burn a bible, you can burn a Koran.

Not necessarily. The whole issue with the "fighting words" clause is the reasonable chance of it inciting violence or a breach of the peace. Now, the argument can be made that the onus is on the hearer to control their actions regardless of what is said/done, but that is not how the courts have ruled. The burning of a Koran stands a very probable chance of inciting widespread violence. The WBC protests have historically only caused isolated incidents that are quickly dealt with. Furthermore, the argument that the "fighting words" only applies to literal words is a smokescreen argument as the validity of material protest being a protected form of free speech has been well-established. So by the court's own ruling the Koran burning is not protected by the 1st Amendment due to this: "those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

 

[Marauder06]

OK, I'm calling ENDEX on this exercise. Participants can now reveal their true positions on this topic and anyone else is cleared hot to participate.

 

[CDG]

My true view is that the burning of any book should be outlawed. It's a book people, show some respect!

In all seriousness though, I think the burning of a Koran, Bible, Talmud, or anything else should be considered protected under the 1st Amendment, despite the fact that it does not offer any real social value or relevant commentary. The fact that many Muslims choose to throw violent temper tantrums over it is not the problem of the burner, although maybe it should be. I would love to see the idiot that burned the Koran have to deal with defending himself against a mob of angry Muslims, as that would maybe get him to think a little more in depth about the ramifications of their decision. That being said, the kind of Muslims that resort to violent protest over the Koran being burned are the kind that will take any excuse to riot and act like fucking idiots.

 

[CDG]

and as my esteemed colleague, Mr. CDG

Ho. Ly. Shit. Possibly both the greatest compliment and most demoralizing insult I have ever gotten in my life.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

I actually learned a few things from having to research the "other side" of this argument. Well done, Sir!
That being said, I wish people like this and WBC would just disappear one night never to be heard from again. Illegal or not, it gives radicals a "rallying cry" if you will and as I mentioned earlier, and CDG alluded to a few posts up, they'll (Bubba, et al) never have to answer for their actions.
Protected under the 1st amendment: Yes, I believe it is
Does it pass the common sense test: No
Therein lies the rub. You can debate legality or common sense but when you bring both into the mix, you wind up at a stale mate.

 

[Marauder06]

When you're forced to take the other side of an argument, and when you're willing to put genuine effort into it, it really increasing your overall appreciation of the problem. If you do it right, you'll either 1) confirm what you originally thought, in which case "knowing the enemy" by arguing his point makes you better able to defeat it, or 2) realize that you were wrong with your initial assessment. Either way, you come away with a much more holistic understanding of the scope of the problem and the rationale on both sides.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

I'd love to know what Bubba's "rationale" was.
These are enjoyable. I told LOST that I'm often hesitant because I'm behind the power curve on a lot of this stuff. I can't rattle things off the top of my head like it seems that some of you can. The research was enjoyable though. The starting point was the most difficult. Once I learned how to narrow my searches down a bit, it helped tremendously. I'll gladly participate if you choose to do more of these here...as long as they don't interfere with your case study, Sir. Speaking of which...

 

[Marauder06]

Reference the case study, there will be no more updates at least until Monday, we have a major simulation exercise going on over the weekend, and I have a major paper on the EU's military due early next week. And of course I haven't really started it yet.