Actual First Amendment Contest or Racist Invitation for Violence

[Malintent]

Not incitation for violence. However, this kind of bullshit helps push Muslim youth toward radicalism. It makes it more likely they feel alienated from their own society, like they don't belong, and therefore will personally identify much more strongly as a Muslim and not as an American. That makes them much more fertile for a charismatic radical recruiter.

These kind of people are enemies of what the US stands for and they are helping the terrorists.

I bolded the part that is what is wrong with America. American OR Muslim? I guess you are saying this is a "Christian warrior nation"

 

[untermensche]

They are sufficiently different. First, you assume the existence of some person or group of people which is different from the immediately identifiable group of people in a crowded theater. The former's existence is not known unlike the latter.

I am not assuming anything. The desire and willingness of some Muslims to kill over this has been clearly expressed and demonstrated.

The risk is there and anybody looking at this should at least recognize that.

What most are saying is that they don't care about the risk because to give into it is to give into blackmail on a free speech issue.

But none are claiming there is no risk and to claim there is no clearly apparent risk is to abandon reality. The only question is the size of the risk.

This is a very generalized principle which is true of all contentious speech.

Hardly. In this situation we have people who have been killed over this very issue in the near past. We have clear expressions that people are willing to kill over this specific form of speech. That is not the general case.

There are cases where people are willing to kill over conduct, or perceived conduct, like the performance of an abortion, but the willingness to kill over simply speech is rare. At least in the US.

The Nazis, choosing to parade and march through a Jewish community, may irritate some person and this person may then act upon this irritation with violence but this is not sufficient to censor speech.

"The Nazis"? You mean people who dress up as the Nazi's did, or as the Nazi's never did, and spew some of the hatred expressed by the Nazi's?

You must know that in some countries speech like this is prohibited.

The atheists, choosing to march and demonstrate, may irritate some religious zealot, and the religious zealot may resort to violence.

"The atheists"? When is the last time some Christian leader in the US said it was proper to kill atheists over their beliefs?

Muslim religious leaders, in many places, mostly places the US and other Western powers have disrupted with their seemingly continual violence, are preaching that it is perfectly fine, in fact it is good, to kill people over this.

This is different from the people in a crowded theater in which we know this group of people to exist and reasonably know how they are likely to respond to someone yelling fire.

The problem is not people responding. If people respond and leave, yes they miss the movie.

The problem is that there is a chance that some people will be harmed, even killed.

The potential for harm is what makes the speech contentious. Unlike the examples you gave, people think there is a high chance for accidental harm, and that is why many think it is speech that can be prohibited.

The difference between the two scenarios is that one involves potential accidental harm and the other involves potential deliberate harm. But both are harms people engaging in the conduct should clearly anticipate.

You might not know if it true or not, but I fully know it is impossible for anybody to draw Mohammed, and claims that one has drawn Mohammed are lies.

No, it is their opinion this is what Mohammad looks like or it is their opinion this is Mohammad.

No, it is a delusion that the cartoon is Mohammed. It is just something drawn and called Mohammed.

And of course people are free to draw Mohammed morning noon and night. Nobody will stop you or interfere with you.

The speech here really isn't the drawing of Mohammed, which as I said people can freely do, the speech here is publicizing that you are going to draw Mohammed.

Advertisements that Mohammed will be drawn are lies.

Fantastic! Then the Muslims do not have any basis for being pissed off since, after all, nobody has drawn Mohammad.

I'm not claiming the people willing to kill over this are rational, only that they exist.

And I am not saying they have any right to do it, only that in the present climate, as has to be known, of massive US violence against Muslims for over a decade, there is a clear risk for doing something like this.

I don't think it should be prohibited, but the people who do it are playing with fire, and they are not free speech crusaders. They are bigoted morons, putting people at risk.

 

[Malintent]

The two acts, yelling fire falsely and contest of drawing cartoons of Mohammad, are sufficiently different such that the illegality of the former does not render the latter illegal. First, the former involves a false statement of fact in which people can reasonably be expected to act upon this false statement of fact to their physical detriment. The latter doesn't involve any false statement of fact but is rather pure speech and expression of an opinion.

Calling these drawings of Mohammed is also a false statement. They are drawings from the imagination but not drawings of Mohammed. They are drawings people are falsely calling drawings of Mohammed.

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

I don't think these situations are as different as you claim.

Furthermore, the former example above has an immediate and identifiable group of people that can reasonably be expected to respond to the speech, those sitting in a theater, whereas the latter example is nothing more than a generalized notion someone somewhere may be offended and then so offended as to respond violently. The latter example is one of risk to tenuous to the speech, unlike the former example.

There is no clearly identifiable group that can be expected to hurt others because they hear the word FIRE. It is possible that nobody will be hurt.

It is the potential for harm that is the problem.

And false claims of drawing Mohammed also has, in the present world created by US aggression overseas, a potential for harm.

The only question is how much potential harm is sufficient to prohibit speech.

The term, "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" is an except from a supreme court ruling in the 1040's. It related to inciting people to violate the law by dodging the draft.
Your interpretation of "people who respond to the word fire" is incorrect. correct usability and applicability is well documented. You are interpreting it incorrectly.

 

[untermensche]

The term, "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" is an except from a supreme court ruling in the 1040's. It related to inciting people to violate the law by dodging the draft.
Your interpretation of "people who respond to the word fire" is incorrect. correct usability and applicability is well documented. You are interpreting it incorrectly.

This may be true, do you think people should be prohibited and punished for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire?

 

[Axulus]

Not incitation for violence. However, this kind of bullshit helps push Muslim youth toward radicalism. It makes it more likely they feel alienated from their own society, like they don't belong, and therefore will personally identify much more strongly as a Muslim and not as an American. That makes them much more fertile for a charismatic radical recruiter.

These kind of people are enemies of what the US stands for and they are helping the terrorists.

I bolded the part that is what is wrong with America. American OR Muslim? I guess you are saying this is a "Christian warrior nation"

You mean what is wrong with human psychology, I presume (that someone who feels alienated from their society will not identify very strongly with the nationality of that society, if at all)? Or do you deny the facts of human psychology?

I'm simply stating the facts of human psychology. Not sure how you went from that to "Christian warrior nation." Reminds me of the fundies who when presented with the facts of evolution think the evolutionist is saying we should turn society into social Darwinism.

 

[untermensche]

You mean what is wrong with human psychology, I presume (that someone who feels alienated from their society will not identify very strongly with the nationality of that society, if at all)? Or do you deny the facts of human psychology?

Human psychology is far more complex than this.

 

[Axulus]

You mean what is wrong with human psychology, I presume (that someone who feels alienated from their society will not identify very strongly with the nationality of that society, if at all)? Or do you deny the facts of human psychology?

Human psychology is far more complex than this.

We are talking likelihoods here. Not everyone who feels alienated from their society will fail to identify with their nationality. However, you substantially increases the chances that it will be so.

The four pillars of radicalization are the following:

1. Perceived or real grievances
2. Not identifying with the society one lives in (due to alienation and events in one's life that make them feel like they don't belong or are not wanted in the society).
3. A narrative to explain the perceived or real grievances (ex. - the West is Christian and is engaging in a holy war against Muslims, the USA wants to defeat all Muslims).
4. A charismatic recruiter and/or organization that claims to have the solution to those grievances and offers a Utopian vision for society that fits within the narrative.

 

[untermensche]

Human psychology is far more complex than this.

We are talking likelihoods here. Not everyone who feels alienated from their society will fail to identify with their nationality. However, you substantially increases the chances that it will be so.

Yes, that's better. There are likelihoods of certain behaviors, if we look at groups.

But nothing can be said with assurance about the individual. Individual behavior can exist within the narrow tails of the bell curve.

 

[Axulus]

We are talking likelihoods here. Not everyone who feels alienated from their society will fail to identify with their nationality. However, you substantially increases the chances that it will be so.

Yes, that's better. There are likelihoods of certain behaviors, if we look at groups.

But nothing can be said with assurance about the individual. Individual behavior can exist within the narrow tails of the bell curve.

I wasn't claiming that we can predict individual behavior this way but rather that what these "protesters" are doing is going to push some of the Muslims in society (and those that go to this mosque in AZ in particular) to feel more alienated and unwanted in society.

 

[KeepTalking]

Not incitation for violence. However, this kind of bullshit helps push Muslim youth toward radicalism. It makes it more likely they feel alienated from their own society, like they don't belong, and therefore will personally identify much more strongly as a Muslim and not as an American. That makes them much more fertile for a charismatic radical recruiter.

These kind of people are enemies of what the US stands for and they are helping the terrorists.

I bolded the part that is what is wrong with America. American OR Muslim? I guess you are saying this is a "Christian warrior nation"

The traditional American order of fealty has always been God, Country, family, in that order. Of course the God must always be the Christian God, or it doesn't count, and if your family is anything other than a Christian family, it doesn't count either. So, for Muslims, it must be Country, Country, Country, or they are radicals.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, that's better. There are likelihoods of certain behaviors, if we look at groups.

But nothing can be said with assurance about the individual. Individual behavior can exist within the narrow tails of the bell curve.

I wasn't claiming that we can predict individual behavior this way but rather that what these protesters are doing is going to push some of the Muslims in society to feel more alienated and unwanted in society.

I think what is more important is how people generally respond to this deliberate provocation.

Do they absurdly claim that people who protested the right of Muslims to use land they owned as they wanted to are First Amendment advocates?

Do they claim that people who make anti-Muslim statements and want the rights of Muslims curtailed are First Amendment advocates?

 

[Axulus]

I wasn't claiming that we can predict individual behavior this way but rather that what these protesters are doing is going to push some of the Muslims in society to feel more alienated and unwanted in society.

I think what is more important is how people generally respond to this deliberate provocation.

Do they absurdly claim that people who protested the right of Muslims to use land they owned as they wanted to are First Amendment advocates?

Do they claim that people who make anti-Muslim statements and want the rights of Muslims curtailed are First Amendment advocates?

Those people themselves are clearly not First Amendment advocates (just the opposite, in fact, as they are essentially advocating that the First Amendment be changed). However, it can reasonably be said they are exercising their First Amendment rights.

I haven't seen any general sentiment from other people that those "protesters" are First Amendment advocates. Have you?

 

[James Madison]

This is a very generalized principle which is true of all contentious speech.

Hardly. In this situation we have people who have been killed over this very issue in the near past. We have clear expressions that people are willing to kill over this specific form of speech. That is not the general case.

There are cases where people are willing to kill over conduct, or perceived conduct, like the performance of an abortion, but the willingness to kill over simply speech is rare. At least in the US.

The Nazis, choosing to parade and march through a Jewish community, may irritate some person and this person may then act upon this irritation with violence but this is not sufficient to censor speech.

"The Nazis"? You mean people who dress up as the Nazi's did, or as the Nazi's never did, and spew some of the hatred expressed by the Nazi's?

You must know that in some countries speech like this is prohibited.

The atheists, choosing to march and demonstrate, may irritate some religious zealot, and the religious zealot may resort to violence.

"The atheists"? When is the last time some Christian leader in the US said it was proper to kill atheists over their beliefs?

Muslim religious leaders, in many places, mostly places the US and other Western powers have disrupted with their seemingly continual violence, are preaching that it is perfectly fine, in fact it is good, to kill people over this.

This is different from the people in a crowded theater in which we know this group of people to exist and reasonably know how they are likely to respond to someone yelling fire.

The problem is not people responding. If people respond and leave, yes they miss the movie.

The problem is that there is a chance that some people will be harmed, even killed.

The potential for harm is what makes the speech contentious. Unlike the examples you gave, people think there is a high chance for accidental harm, and that is why many think it is speech that can be prohibited.

The difference between the two scenarios is that one involves potential accidental harm and the other involves potential deliberate harm. But both are harms people engaging in the conduct should clearly anticipate.

You might not know if it true or not, but I fully know it is impossible for anybody to draw Mohammed, and claims that one has drawn Mohammed are lies.

No, it is their opinion this is what Mohammad looks like or it is their opinion this is Mohammad.

No, it is a delusion that the cartoon is Mohammed. It is just something drawn and called Mohammed.

And of course people are free to draw Mohammed morning noon and night. Nobody will stop you or interfere with you.

The speech here really isn't the drawing of Mohammed, which as I said people can freely do, the speech here is publicizing that you are going to draw Mohammed.

Advertisements that Mohammed will be drawn are lies.

Fantastic! Then the Muslims do not have any basis for being pissed off since, after all, nobody has drawn Mohammad.

I'm not claiming the people willing to kill over this are rational, only that they exist.

And I am not saying they have any right to do it, only that in the present climate, as has to be known, of massive US violence against Muslims for over a decade, there is a clear risk for doing something like this.

I don't think it should be prohibited, but the people who do it are playing with fire, and they are not free speech crusaders. They are bigoted morons, putting people at risk.

I am not assuming anything. The desire and willingness of some Muslims to kill over this has been clearly expressed and demonstrated.

In the past, yes. But this does not inform me as to their present existence in the U.S. and if they exist whether they'd be inclined to respond with violence to the drawings in a particular state, within a particular county/town. It is accurate to characterize your position as referencing someone, somewhere, which is vague and general, while assuming they indeed exist at the moment.

The risk is there and anybody looking at this should at least recognize that.

Pretty sure I have acknowledged the existence of a risk but have taken the position the existence of risk is not sufficient to censor speech.

What most are saying is that they don't care about the risk because to give into it is to give into blackmail on a free speech issue.

No, what I perceive the position to be is if you are offended, get over it. An important concept of free speech is being offended. Next, if you are offended to such an extent as to react violently, then the remedy is to prosecute the individual(s) reacting violently as opposed to censoring speech. Muting the masses because some people cannot appropriately control themselves at the sight or sound of a message is the wrong approach.

Hardly. In this situation we have people who have been killed over this very issue in the near past. We have clear expressions that people are willing to kill over this specific form of speech. That is not the general case.

Yes, your position is a very generalized principle which is true of all contentious and divisive speech. Contentious and divisive speech has the risk of violence and I provided some examples.

Unlike the examples you gave, people think there is a high chance for accidental harm, and that is why many think it is speech that can be prohibited.

Some of my examples included a "high chance for accidental harm" based on the subject matter of the speech. Abortion protests, prochoice rallies, religious speech (for example people protesting gay military funerals), white supremacy messages, Nazis marching through a Jewish community (which is legal in the U.S.), etcetera. Yet, this speech is protected because offensive, contentious, and divisive speech has a risk, indeed at times a "high chance for accidental harm" and to be sure at some point the risk becomes unacceptable. However, the risk being "high" isn't sufficient. A high risk is present with divisive, contentious, speech.

The difference between the two scenarios is that one involves potential accidental harm and the other involves potential deliberate harm. But both are harms people engaging in the conduct should clearly anticipate.

I do not agree the any of the two scenarios have any "potential deliberate harm."

I don't think it should be prohibited, but the people who do it are playing with fire, and they are not free speech crusaders. They are bigoted morons, putting people at risk.

Oh I do not know, there is perhaps some value to expressing an offensive message and essentially telling people to get over it. But, as I stated before, contentious and divisive speech involves risk.

 

[Malintent]

The term, "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" is an except from a supreme court ruling in the 1040's. It related to inciting people to violate the law by dodging the draft.
Your interpretation of "people who respond to the word fire" is incorrect. correct usability and applicability is well documented. You are interpreting it incorrectly.

This may be true, do you think people should be prohibited and punished for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire?

If someone is injured as a result, yes. That is the precedent of the supreme court decision in which the phrase was coined.

Yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is actually a fire and threat to safety, then no... regardless if someone is injured as a result. It is a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing. Everyone definitely burning to death versus a few people possibly getting trampled..

 

[Malintent]

I bolded the part that is what is wrong with America. American OR Muslim? I guess you are saying this is a "Christian warrior nation"

You mean what is wrong with human psychology, I presume (that someone who feels alienated from their society will not identify very strongly with the nationality of that society, if at all)? Or do you deny the facts of human psychology?

I'm simply stating the facts of human psychology. Not sure how you went from that to "Christian warrior nation." Reminds me of the fundies who when presented with the facts of evolution think the evolutionist is saying we should turn society into social Darwinism.

No. I was referring to the false dichotomy you presented by implying one is either American OR Muslim.

 

[Axulus]

You mean what is wrong with human psychology, I presume (that someone who feels alienated from their society will not identify very strongly with the nationality of that society, if at all)? Or do you deny the facts of human psychology?

I'm simply stating the facts of human psychology. Not sure how you went from that to "Christian warrior nation." Reminds me of the fundies who when presented with the facts of evolution think the evolutionist is saying we should turn society into social Darwinism.

No. I was referring to the false dichotomy you presented by implying one is either American OR Muslim.

I didn't say either/or. I said the protesters actions push some to identify more strongly as a Muslim and not as an American (or less so). I was only talking about those Muslims who feel alienated/unwanted in society. Clearly I implied it was possible to identify as both a Muslim AND an American otherwise these protesters would have no effect in that regard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is your side thinks you can talk it out with the Islamists.

Problem is your side thinks every Muslim is an Islamist that represents a threat and cannot be treated as a fellow human being.

No. The average Muslim is no threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The term, "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" is an except from a supreme court ruling in the 1040's. It related to inciting people to violate the law by dodging the draft.
Your interpretation of "people who respond to the word fire" is incorrect. correct usability and applicability is well documented. You are interpreting it incorrectly.

This may be true, do you think people should be prohibited and punished for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire?

The fundamental issue with yelling fire is you don't have time to confirm whether the threat is real before you react to it and there is a reasonable chance that someone will get hurt in that reaction.

There's nothing about a picture of Mohammed that requires and immediate reaction, thus this argument does not apply.

 

[untermensche]

I am not assuming anything. The desire and willingness of some Muslims to kill over this has been clearly expressed and demonstrated.

In the past, yes. But this does not inform me as to their present existence in the U.S. and if they exist whether they'd be inclined to respond with violence to the drawings in a particular state, within a particular county/town. It is accurate to characterize your position as referencing someone, somewhere, which is vague and general, while assuming they indeed exist at the moment.

Vague and general would define just about any potential terrorist attack. That is the danger.

If we can't take measures to prevent vague and general threats we can't take any measures to defend against terrorism.

And the fact that there have been killings over this issue in the past demonstrates the potential danger. No killings over this issue would indicate no danger.

Pretty sure I have acknowledged the existence of a risk but have taken the position the existence of risk is not sufficient to censor speech.

My position is the people doing this should be condemned as dangerous, not praised as brave warriors for freedom.

You see a risk, what do we gain for this risk?

This is such an obscure prohibition. The willingness to harm others over it exists in only a tiny fraction of Muslims.

Provocation of this kind has no effect at all, except to excite and increase the numbers of this tiny fraction.

We get risk for no real or measurable gain.

And as I have said, people can draw Mohammed all day if they choose to do so.

 

[Malintent]

No. I was referring to the false dichotomy you presented by implying one is either American OR Muslim.

I didn't say either/or. I said the protesters actions push some to identify more strongly as a Muslim and not as an American (or less so). I was only talking about those Muslims who feel alienated/unwanted in society. Clearly I implied it was possible to identify as both a Muslim AND an American otherwise these protesters would have no effect in that regard.

There, you did it again. The two bolded parts are incongruous with each other.