No, not overtly.
I'm going to go out on a limb here: For people to expect a violent reaction from Muslims for what wouldn't be worth a mention if done to a Christian or Jewish icon or text, people have to expect Muslims to be particularly violent by comparison. It isn't right, but the paranoia of marauding Muslim hordes is what drives the preoccupation with tiptoeing around Muslim sensibilities.
Quite. I'm alleging an irrational fear of violent Muslims is what drives the worry and cries of culpability for Jones should anything happen. Everyone seems terrified of saying anything that might upset Muslims, all while other peoples and religions are insulted and mocked freely, all day long, with no real worry or consequence.Personally, the few Muslims I've met have seemed very hospitable and welcoming.
Firstly, I'd like to point out that burning a sovereign state's flag or colors within that state's borders could also be considered as such, but you'll notice that's still allowed, even applauded at times.What he's doing is going a step beyond simple protesting. He's looking to get some sort of reaction out of Muslims.
Secondly, what good is a protest that elicits no response?
Thirdly, expression is protected, not "protest," nor "art." It's much more general than you seem to think.
No, it isn't ethically right, but it's legally permissible and protected expression. You can get away with a whole lot, provided it's merely expression. A book burning does not endanger anyone, nor does it deny anyone their protected rights, either.While I get what you're saying about the fear of banning of expression, and it's valid, it's at the same time not right to attack a specific group like he's doing.
Yeah, I agree, the guy is a scumbag attention {word meaning one who engages in sexual acts for financial compensation has been redacted}, but that still doesn't bar him from protected expression.It's quite evident that the only reason he's doing it is to get a reaction. He quite obviously gets some enjoyment out of it as is evident back in September when he said he wouldn't do it if they didn't build a Mosque on ground Zero. He's on nothing more then a power trip.
The KKK is legally protected when they go burn crosses in a field amongst their own, and they don't get into (legal) trouble by spewing hateful nonsense. They only get into the criminal realm if they move to action.
Similarly, Jones might be a noisy fool, but unless he actually starts the violence or threatens it, he remains a mere moron.
If Muslims (or other parties, to cover everything) react violently, then they have started the violence. I couldn't very well hear another man insult my political opinions, respond with a knife to the thigh, and then tell the police that he incited me to violence, could I?Basically, freedom of expression is fine, attacking a group or organization in a way that makes it seem like they started it if they retaliate, is not.
Killing others because of orthodoxy- usually Canon law, in the west's case- is something we've tried to abandon in the Dark Ages. I'd rather not see it revived, nor would I like to see self-censorship or imposed censorship because of threats of violent retaliation from those who don't agree with an opinion or expression, no matter how idiotic that expression may be.
It would seem these phantom, short-tempered Muslims everyone's worked up about have forgotten that, stupid as Jones is, Christians are also people of the book.Originally Posted by feifeifei
Perhaps you speak pragmatically or diplomatically, in which case your comments have more merit than I've given them so far, but speaking ethically and legally as I am it's pretty clear there are a lot of morons weighing in, and they're shorting the value of free speech.Originally Posted by Eris
Given what you say, political and social condemnation of Jones and his ilk are sufficient and warranted. Indeed, I've also said he's at least stupid, maybe prejudiced. That being said, there is little to no way his actions thus far are criminal, and I maintain that if anyone reacts violently to it, they are also stupid, and they are criminal.
It is unethical for Jones to behaves as he has, but it is also important to recognize that retaliatory violence or threats of violence are unethical. Additionally, as I hold governments to a different ethical standard than I do individuals, it is unethical for politicians and people to seek to misuse the power of the state to forcibly or coercively censor him, and calls to brand him as criminally culpable in any possible resulting violence rather than merely rebuke him is foolish.
Bookmarks