dagblog - Comments for "What's the matter with the Media? Or, What if they gave a Quran-burning and Nobody Came?"

I don't know why, but this is

Richard Day — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:14:58 +0000

In reply to I have a friend whose father

I don't know why, but this is the funniest line I have read in days:

One fellow lost his temper and threw a Quran on the floor. They had to fly him out of the country that day.

haahahahahah

I don't think you do quite

DF — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:25:41 +0000

In reply to I agree that we all have

I don't think you do quite agree. Or at least I don't agree with you that some things are just decidedly wrong. Decided by whom? You either understand and agree that people disagree on what is or is not morally acceptable or you don't.

And while he's deliberately burning books, the actual harm done in this case is absolutely debateable. And "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is an argument that goes to time, place and manner restrictions on speech. Restricting speech activity on a content judgmen is entirely different and unconstitutional.

By all means, admonish him all you wish.

I asked, where is the logic

havethoughtwilltravel — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:40:29 +0000

In reply to that should read "faze" sorry

I asked, where is the logic in such an act but my bigger point is, where is the humanity in such an act?

that should read "faze" sorry

havethoughtwilltravel — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:32:06 +0000

In reply to "That said, if this man is

that should read "faze"

sorry

"That said, if this man is

havethoughtwilltravel — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:26:38 +0000

In reply to To put havethought's argument

"That said, if this man is "yelling fire", then the media, as you suggest, are aiding and abetting."

I agree but I also believe, allowing this preacher to hide behind the Constitution is aiding and abetting as well.

Any "intelligent" person knows that defacing a religious book will have negative consequences. It doesn't matter the scale of those consequences.

If someone wanted to burn the Bible it would not personally phase me one iota but I have sense enough to know that others would be offended, hurt, outraged and insulted by such an act. Why would I deliberately make it my buisness to engage such a reaction? Where is the logic in that?

Listen, if someone walks up

havethoughtwilltravel — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:05:47 +0000

In reply to I agree that we all have

Listen, if someone walks up to me and slaps me upside my head and I slap them back, I think that's wrong on my part as well as the other person. Now I'm not going to get too upset about my wrong act and could give relative good and coherent reasons as to why I decided to relatilate but one thing I'm NOT going to do is lie to myself about what I did.

Whatever the reason, causing harm is wrong, deliberately and intentionaly causing harm is worse in my book. Speaking out against such behavior are part of the principles I have grown to believe in. My opinon may not be shared by the majority but if I reach one person that "gets it" that's one less person willing to accept intolerance, bigotry and prejudice. I honestly don't understand why you or anyone would find that unaccptable.

To put havethought's argument

Atheist — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:58:14 +0000

In reply to Again, are you proposing that

To put havethought's argument in the Constitutional framework that she seemed to be eschewing, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are limits to freedom of speech, specifically "yelling fire in a crowded theater". Whether or not this man's actions rise to that level are debatable, but such an argument is not easily dismissed. That said, if this man is "yelling fire", then the media, as you suggest, are aiding and abetting.

I agree that we all have

havethoughtwilltravel — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:48:39 +0000

In reply to Again, are you proposing that

I agree that we all have different versions of right and wrong but that does not change the fact that there are some things that are decidley wrong. Deliberately harming others is one of those things and I'm hoping we can agree that an act doesn't have to always be physical in order to cause harm.

This fool can talk from here til dooms day about his hatred for Islam and even though I will disagree, I will fight for his right to speak his mind but at some point one can cross the line with their speech and actions and (no pun intended) yell fire in a crowded room. Why are you intent on letting him cross that line and again, where does it end?

Again, are you proposing that

DF — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:31:00 +0000

In reply to In this day and age and to

Again, are you proposing that something be done other than discussing? If not, it would seem odd for you to deplore conversations on the matter.

Voicing one's opinion is fine. The thing about right and wrong is that people have differing views. Where the rubber meets the road is where we decide to have agreement on what is and isn't allowed. But if you're just voicing your opinion that you feel it's wrong without any proposed change to the rules, then how is that any better, or even very different, than the discussion you deride, curiously, as "intellectual"?

As for joining you, I've done just that in voicing my view. It's just that it's different than yours. This man is being empowered by institutions that can raise his profile considerably. I also find it interesting that this event is occuring directly on the heels of the Park51 controversy, where a First Amendment argument was obviously employed on behalf the project going forward.

But this helps to show why it's actually cavalier to dismiss that discussion. The purveyors of intolerance and bigotry seek to use similar arguments in insisting that Park51, while perfectly legal, is simply wrong. They have no qualms with brushing aside First Amendment rights when it's convenient for them.

But these rights should be upheld even when someone is expressing something we dislike or disagree with. That's just part of living in a pluralistic society, which is why I suggest that the best thing to do is to give this guy the least amount of power possible. That doesn't mean I condemn discussing him, but rather that I think it would be better if he were simply ignored. At the same time, I don't generally see the need for condemning a discussion of the practical concerns of what we are realistically going to allow here as pejoratively "intellectual."

In this day and age and to

havethoughtwilltravel — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:54:28 +0000

In reply to It's obviously deliberate.

In this day and age and to borrow a phrase from my mom, "signifying" seems to be the new flavor of the decade. Who cares about right and wrong as long as we can have intellectual converstaions about the concepts?

I'm voicing my opinion about how wrong this act is and I'm not hiding behind the Constitution to make it seem otherwise. I'm one person and doing what I have the means and power, at this time, to do. Why not join me and then work with me to convince others to join in as well. Isn't that one of several ways to make a "change."

If there is more I can do to get people to start listening to the inner voice in their hearts as well as those thoughts in their minds, I'm willing to do that as well if I have the means. Any suggestions?