General Discussion

prefunk

(157 posts)

19. If the non-violent action of another compells you to take violent action against them...

Reply to MH1 (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:37 AM

Sep 2013

then you are the problem.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Question for DU: If flag burning is "protected speech", isn't book burning also protected? [View all] OmahaBlueDog Sep 2013 OP

You should be able to burn a flag, a book, an effigy, et cetera DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #1

Yes, but... PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #2

That fool can burn any of the things I cited as long as he's not creating a fire hazard./nt DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #7

I agree. There is more than one issue here. PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #11

America gets to allow disrespect to America as a form of protest, because that's inward. MH1 Sep 2013 #3

It's a slippery slope to start prohibiting speech because somebody's feelings might be hurt./nt DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #13

Yes, and it's a slippery slope to start prohibiting speech because someone might be PHYSICALLY hurt. MH1 Sep 2013 #21

There has to be a imminent and immediate threat. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #23

The crux of your post assumes that Mulims and Americans are mutally exclusive groups. Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #14

That's an interesting point. MH1 Sep 2013 #28

Sorry, but your point of view is that point of view which allows anti gay laws.... Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #31

No that's not my point of view, and I'm sorry I bothered with you. MH1 Sep 2013 #39

If the non-violent action of another compells you to take violent action against them... prefunk Sep 2013 #19

I'm not the one who's compelled, but I might be the victim of the violent action MH1 Sep 2013 #22

I was using a rhetorical "you", not talking about you yourself. prefunk Sep 2013 #24

And I was using the rhetorical "I" MH1 Sep 2013 #30

I really have no idea what you are talking about. prefunk Sep 2013 #35

Violence is not an acceptable response to non-violence. Where do I say otherwise? MH1 Sep 2013 #36

I fail to see how (in this country, at least) resorting to violence over the burning of a book prefunk Sep 2013 #40

People who take violent action are wholly resposible for their own violence. Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #25

I just f*cking replied to you. Sheesh. MH1 Sep 2013 #29

And that as I said, explains your entire self to me. Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #33

Of course disrespecting other people is a horrible way to live one's life. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #27

There were a couple issues that Jones was flirting with... Not Me Sep 2013 #4

He's not being charged with book burning,which sufrommich Sep 2013 #5

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #6

He wasn't arrested for a tail light maddezmom Sep 2013 #12

Seriously? Its against the law to drive a vehicle soaked sufrommich Sep 2013 #15

It would be akin DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #18

Imagine women's-rights-activists torching a truckload of bras. DetlefK Sep 2013 #8

He wasn't arrested for BURNING the Qurans csziggy Sep 2013 #9

Yes, so is stupid. pintobean Sep 2013 #10

So he was arrested for creating a hazard, not for book burning? gollygee Sep 2013 #16

Book burning is protected, but public fire hazards are not. Jones was not arrested for Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #17

Are you asking me about the law, LWolf Sep 2013 #20

So dance is never expression to be protected because it is not verbal? Visual arts? Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #26

There are unlimited ways to express one's self. LWolf Sep 2013 #41

Free speech means even if I don't like it it goes. hobbit709 Sep 2013 #32

book burning is protected; driving around with kerosene-soaked books is not. charlie and algernon Sep 2013 #34

Yes, but the dumb ass pastor had flaaamble materials he was transporting gopiscrap Sep 2013 #37

a speech element doesn't make otherwise criminal behavior legal nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #38

Laws governing burning and similar hazards are common struggle4progress Sep 2013 #42