The Heckler's Veto

[begbert2]

@athelas

@ElvisL1ves

NotreDame05, how about you tell us the difference between burning a Koran and painting a swastika on a synagogue? Then tell us what happens to someone caught doing the latter, and why. Would that help clarify the question for us?

A better analogy is burning a Koran vs. burning a flag. Funny how the people who rallied round the (heh) flag supporting flag burning are suddenly shocked, shocked when The Wrong Sort of White People burn other flammable stuff.

Burning a flag is hate speech?

Perhaps a better analogy would be between burning a koran and burning a cross - that you stuck in front of their house.

[athelas]

People who burn crosses don’t (profess to) hate Christians. That should be the first sign that your analogy is reaching, and you’re deliberately seeking for something offensive rather than honestly searching for something similar to the actual case.

[begbert2]

@athelas

People who burn crosses don’t (profess to) hate Christians. That should be the first sign that your analogy is reaching, and you’re deliberately seeking for something offensive rather than honestly searching for something similar to the actual case.

No, they hate black people. Obviously.

But how about this - suppose I start making straw dummies of black people and start burning and hanging them. My dummies, my matches, my rope. Is that close enough for you, or is there something ‘dishonest’ about that hypothetical as well?

[ElvisL1ves]

@athelas

@ElvisL1ves

NotreDame05, how about you tell us the difference between burning a Koran and painting a swastika on a synagogue? Then tell us what happens to someone caught doing the latter, and why. Would that help clarify the question for us?

A better analogy is burning a Koran vs. burning a flag.

Bzzt. Evasion, for one; simply wrong, for another.

Let me help: Burning a Koran is an act, “speech” if you must, of hatred. Burning a flag is a political statement (and SCOTUS says so too, so don’t bother). Religions and their adherents are hardly equivalent to nations. How the hell can you think it is actually a better analogy? :dubious:

Now try to answer the question in good faith, if you can.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Grumman

@ElvisL1ves

OK, but what relevance does that have to the nature of the “speech”, which is what is under discussion?

So it’s already a crime to vandalise someone else’s property, even without laws against hate speech. It’s not our fault you picked a bad example.

Property rights are not a factor here. The discussion is about speech.

Now answer the question if you can, please.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I was just watching a documentary about the American Nazi Party’s plan to march in Skokie, Illinois today, and thinking about this very topic.

Let’s have a big hand for the ACLU, which is pretty much the only organization that works to block the Heckler’s Veto regardless of who does the heckling.

[Grumman]

@ElvisL1ves

Property rights are not a factor here. The discussion is about speech.

Now answer the question if you can, please.

Look, if you think the important difference between these two acts is about speech and not property rights, you do it. I’m not going to write your argument for you if you’re too lazy to do it yourself. I’ll just wait for you to come up with something coherent enough to refute.

[BigT]

@Grumman

@ElvisL1ves

OK, but what relevance does that have to the nature of the “speech”, which is what is under discussion?

So it’s already a crime to vandalise someone else’s property, even without laws against hate speech. It’s not our fault you picked a bad example.

So assume the Koran is stolen. This isn’t hard.

[Grumman]

@BigT

So assume the Koran is stolen. This isn’t hard.

Then they are both crimes, for reasons that have nothing to do with free speech, hate speech, or anything to do with the topic of this thread.

[TriPolar]

What if you ignited a stolen flag with a stolen burning Koran, that was lit with a stolen burning cross? Who don’t you hate?

[NotreDame05]

@ElvisL1ves

@Bricker

Sure. I have no doubt that burning a Koran would be a violation of many university conduct and speech codes.

But surely in this discussion we’re not talking about univerisity codes, but the general public and the laws which govern the general public.

You defined your OP as hypothetical. Hypothesize anything you like, but don’t then object when others pick other hypotheticals, or even the real world.

@Martini_Enfield

Anyway, one of the politicians or Ministers For Somethingorother went on record as saying that the problem was caused by “[People] abusing their right of Free Speech”

Now, to an American, that’s a patently absurd statement

I’m an American, and I understand it just fine.
NotreDame05, how about you tell us the difference between burning a Koran and painting a swastika on a synagogue? Then tell us what happens to someone caught doing the latter, and why. Would that help clarify the question for us?

The difference is the fact in the latter instance you have an act of vandalism, someone has vandalized someone else’s personal and private property, and such conduct can be and is criminalized, although the speech itself is not criminalized.

[NotreDame05]

@Grumman

@BigT

So assume the Koran is stolen. This isn’t hard.

Then they are both crimes, for reasons that have nothing to do with free speech, hate speech, or anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Bingo!!!

[Kobal2]

@TriPolar

What if you ignited a stolen flag with a stolen burning Koran, that was lit with a stolen burning cross? Who don’t you hate?

Hitler ?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Grumman

Look, if you think the important difference between these two acts is about speech and not property rights, you do it.

Go reread the OP. Or even the friggin’ thread title, then. Gawdamm. :rolleyes:

ND05, your refusal to answer the question is an answer in itself, ya know.

[Grumman]

@ElvisL1ves

@Grumman

Look, if you think the important difference between these two acts is about speech and not property rights, you do it.

Go reread the OP. Or even the friggin’ thread title, then. Gawdamm. :rolleyes:

The concept of the “Heckler’s Veto” only makes any sense if you’re stopping a lawful action that would inspire a third party to commit an unlawful action. If the first action would be unlawful, stopping it is not a “Heckler’s Veto”, it’s just an everyday attempt to stop a criminal committing a crime.

[qpw3141]

@TriPolar

What if you ignited a stolen flag with a stolen burning Koran, that was lit with a stolen burning cross? Who don’t you hate?

Puppies and kittens.

[magellan01]

@ElvisL1ves

@Grumman

So it’s already a crime to vandalise someone else’s property, even without laws against hate speech. It’s not our fault you picked a bad example.

Property rights are not a factor here. The discussion is about speech.

Now answer the question if you can, please.

I think it was answered. But here are two for you:

1. Would you agree that burning the flag is a form of free speech?

2. Are you of the opinion that anyone who burns the flag hates the United States?

It seems to me that you’re conflating “hate speech” with “protest”.

[Magiver]

@Bricker

The use of deadly force merely to protect property is not justified (possible exception for “Castle Doctrine” situations inside one’s residence). However, in general, you may use reasonable force to defend your personal property from theft.

This is generally an affirmative defense to the crime of battery, for instance. That is, if Burner had struck Isom in an effort to defend his property, and was then charged with that battery, he could typically admit to the facts of the battery but offer defense of property as his affirmative defense, meaning the burden would be on him to prove each element of the defense by preponderance of the evidence.

Grabbing the koran would be an act of force so your argument that defending it would be the sole burden of Isom (in relation to acts of force) is tempered by arguments along the lines of escalation and provocation.

I would argue that snatching the Koran is a physical act akin to shoving a person and if it escalates back and forth then the onus is on the person who started the fight.

So not only was Isom’s freedom of speech denied, he was also provoked into a response.

[ElvisL1ves]

magellan01, I made the distinction quite clear between political speech (protected) and hate speech (not so much). Clear enough for anyone who’s actually read it, that is.

If you’re still confused: Flag-burning = political, Koran-burning = hate. Got it now?

Grumman, are you asserting something other than that, or are you just as confused?

[magellan01]

@ElvisL1ves

magellan01, I made the distinction quite clear between political speech (protected) and hate speech (not so much). Clear enough for anyone who’s actually read it, that is.

If you’re still confused: Flag-burning = political, Koran-burning = hate. Got it now?

Grumman, are you asserting something other than that, or are you just as confused?

Calm down, tiger. I’m trying to explore why you think, if that is in fact the case, that flag burning is always protected protest speech (of course it’s “political”) and never hate speech. And why burning a Koran, Bible, etc. is necessarily hate speech and not a form of protest.