The difference is between deliberately setting out to provoke violence (in Pastor Jones’ case) and going about your own business, with violence being a possible but unintended side effect (your two examples).
I don’t buy the argument that the existence of a responsible intermediary isolates me from responsibility for the intended consequences of my actions.
Consider the following two cases:
I set free 10^2 vicious animals, knowing that the statistically expected outcome will be that they will kill 10 people before being caught/killed. My motive: to draw public attention to the animals’ being dangerous. They do in fact kill 10 people.
I am responsible for my actions; the animals are not (as they are not sentient)
I deliberately insult 10^9 people, knowing that the statistically expected outcome will be that the most unreasonable hotheads between them will murder 10 people. My motive: to draw public attention to these people being unreasonable. They do in fact murder 10 people.
I am responsible for my actions; the murderers are responsible for their actions.
I submit that I am no less responsible for the 10 deaths in case 2 than I am in case 1.
We are a country that gladly supports free speech. Even if it’s a slap in the face. If 1 billion Muslims feel we were anything but it’s time they learned this. However I dispute the 1 billion Muslim premise.
What I’d really hope is they’d learn we a nation of individuals, not to be judged by a few, as I hope my country men understands those 1 billion Muslims aren’t to be judged by a few. Sadly I fear a good chunk of people will judge by the few on both sides.
I haven’t seen evidence he intended to cause deaths. If you have proof he was trying to get someone killed then that changes everything and he is a jackass with blood on his hands. Much different then a wiki article, or a beer factory worker. If however he was just a jackass trying to make a jackass bigoted point without intending for a death then he’s still a jackass bigot, but without this blood on his hands.
yes he sought out an audience but is it any different from a you tube video with 50,000 hits? You can’t get any more graphic than an actual video.
I’ll defend his right to burn them all day long but he doesn’t want to meet me in person. He has displeased me greatly. He knew the reaction that he would get because the same media he sought attention from already alerted us to the fact. That’s how he knew it in the first place. And the media that gave him air time knew this. And Karzai new this when he demanded we do something about it knowing full well we couldn’t.
But ultimately Jones didn’t poke the bear, the bear went looking for a sharp stick to fall on.
Here’s the thing: if I genuinely believed that you were going to beat your children if I continued arguing with you in this thread, I WOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP. If I didn’t–if I acted like an asshole and pretended that there was nothing I could do to influence whether your kids got beaten–then I’d be an asshole. And I’d have some responsibility for your kids’ bruises, because I knew what would happen and I did it anyway.
It would in no way lessen your responsibility for your kids’ bruises. Guilt isn’t a zero-sum game.
(In fact, why don’t we start there. Folks who believe Jones is innocent: do you believe guilt is a zero-sum game? If a crime deserves 10 years in prison, and 5 people conspire to commit it, should they each get 2 years in prison?)
I wonder whether folks think it would change the equation if it’s brought closer to home. Does your opinion change if any of the following things were true?
-Al Qaeda releases a statement saying they’ll kill one Westerner for every Koran that’s burned.
-Al Qaeda releases a photograph of the next person who will be killed when a Koran is burned–a hostage they’re holding.
-Al Qaeda releases a photograph of your mom and announces that they’ll kill her if someone burns a Koran.
If, in any of these cases, you saw Jones getting ready to burn a Koran, would you counsel him not to do so? Would your reasoning incorporate any of Al Qaeda’s statements?
Obviously none of those hypotheticals change the ethical equation. But I think some people may not be humanizing the victims. I mean, fuck the perpetrators, they’re evil scum, we know that, dehumanize them if you want to, I don’t care. But keep the victims human, and consider that Jones’s actions set off a series of events that resulted in their deaths.
I supported the war in Iraq and still do. When the first drop of American blood was shed the only option should have been to win it. I served in the military proudly and have a son in it now serving proudly. I remember how I felt when those buildings came down and (again) innocent Americans were slaughtered by Muslim extremists you bet retribution was in order. It wouldn’t have mattered if the terrorists were Albanian rogue soccer mom’s or some other equally dangerous group. To make a statement like “we simply wanted to mass murder ourselves some Muslims” is a statement completely void of factual content. On one hand you condemn this mass murder and then make a point about oppressing women to “save babies”. How do you reach the conclusion that these equate to the same thing. Would you be ok with this “mass murder” thing if we just stop oppressing those women to “save babies”. Where do you come up with this nonsense. This world isn’t perfect and it can’t all be your way or mine. Our leaders are far from perfect and they make lots of mistakes. You were stuck with 8yrs. of Bush and I’ll probably be punished with 8yrs. of Obama blaming Bush.
You have no way of knowing what motivated Jones. You can’t read minds. You are imputing a mens rea to him based on your own preconceived notions of what you assume was in his mind.
Maybe he’s tired of preaching to 60 people. Maybe he’s looking for some publicity so he can draw a bigger crowd. Maybe he’s hoping to hit the talk show circuit. Maybe he’s hoping for a spot on Springer. Maybe he needs to see a burning book to enter a state of bliss. Maybe he just likes burning books. Maybe he believes he oughta be able to burn any book he wants, whenever he wants.
The trouble I see is simple What if the child beater has other demands? Maybe you need to post in favor of a certain party, or use certain font. Maybe he demands naked pictures of your mother. Who knows?
A bigot burning a book is one thing, but lots of things could set these wack-jobs off. How much speech should we self censor to avoid it?
To barrow Lobohan’s example slightly and modify it, if they demand western women wear a head scarf or every dipiction of a woman’s face will result in a death, should women start wearing it?
Scroll up and read the thread. Lots of things can incite violence from extremists. The hostage situation is demands on our limits of expression or they will murder innocents. The extremists want no criticism of Islam, they want no pictures of Mohammad.
Anything they don’t like could incite violence. If we’re morally forbidden from using Free Speech, due to be extorted out it by violence, do we still have it?
Is Free Speech without limitation? If you are not allowed to shout “FIRE!!” in a crowded theatre(which you could possibly equate this with) have you lost your right to free speech? You are not expected to refrain from saying and doing everything, but when you have a damn good idea that your actions will probably result in awful consequences, you should have intelligence enough to have second thoughts on the matter.
On the contrary; you yourself are underlining my point. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9-11; but like you many people supported killing them over 9-11 just because most of them are Muslim. Iraq was in part a war of Christians against Muslims, the Christian Crusade many Muslims called it.
If by “hostage” you mean “can’t do things that are asshole things to do anyway,” then yeah, pretty much. Until we can get the bastard, that’s the moral thing to do.
Note: if anyone changes my first sentence above to mean anything other than what it means, I will mock your reading comprehension.