You should be able to burn a flag, a book, an effigy, et cetera as long as you don't create a fire hazard.

If transporting that many soaked books is treated the same as a bomb legally, he should get in trouble the same as having a bomb.

If it is illegal to carry the fuel outside of a legal container, he should get into trouble for that.

But, if the laws are followed, he can burn his possessions.

1 - The burning of the books
2+ - All of the other stupid shit this bigot was doing.

Sure, we get to allow disrespect to anyone. But it may not make sense to allow extreme expressions of hatred towards others. I think it comes under "shouting fire in a crowded theater when there isn't actually a fire"; inciting to violence; and otherwise using speech with intent to harm others. Specifically, I think the Terry Jones thing comes under incitement to violence, in my opinion.

That said, the quantity of kerosene being unsafely transported makes it an easy call in this case.

But that is the current state of the SC interpretation of the First Amendment, if I understand correctly. (IANAL)

For example, in totalitarian states like Europe, it's illegal to deny the Holocaust. We see where that has led.

The Last Temptation of Christ couldn't be banned because some fundy, somewhere, wanted Robert Scorcese stoned to death for blasphemy.

There are those who claim that many things incite them to crime, criminals always excuse their own crimes and claim their violence is justified. The anti gay laws in Russia and elsewhere are based on the idea that self expression by gay people harms others. Do you agree with that as well?

As I added in my post, the unsafe transport of kerosene made it an easy call in this case.

I think if someone wants to burn a book on their property, it's not the business of the law. If they invite friends, video it, and overlay the video with text that says "Death to Muslims!" and post it on Youtube, then I have a problem with it, and suspect that it would legally be considered a threat, and that consequences would follow for the ringleader of whoever did it. But again, IANAL. And what about the in-between areas? Where death is not explicitly called for, but the speaker is talking about how awful a certain group of people are, and they deserve bad things to befall them, and so on. (Think Rwanda). I think that's protected speech here (unless maybe you're talking about the President). Whether or not it should be is a philosophical question. Can speech cause physical harm? Of course it can. But outside a couple obvious rules, it becomes difficult to draw a line.

As to the anti gay laws in Russia: I am against any law that oppresses someone for who they are, or sanctions violence against people for just being who they are. I don't know the details of the Russia situation but it sounds awful and those people should be ashamed.

As to what you say my post assumes: no it does not. If someone is American, they live by American laws, and we are allowed to write a law that says that disrespect to our own country is a legitimate form of protest. Being Muslim is irrelevant to being American. I don't think preachers should be making a "protest" of burning Jewish symbols or pride flags, either. As a practical matter, though, more innocents are more likely to be harmed by the backlash from an insult to Islam than an insult to these others. Currently, that's just how it is.
ETA: as I first stated, we are ALLOWED of course to allow all kinds of insults to ANYONE as a form of protest. But what the law allows and what should be done are separate things. And we get to choose how to run our society.

Because 'being who we are' offends some and that is used as their excuse for violence. One person's self expression just might 'insult' some dogmatic others. That 'insult' in no way excuses nor creates the violence committed by criminals.
And free speech is not a philosophical question, it is a Constitutional foundation stone of American culture and law.
The example you give of people gathering and spreading hateful materials sounds to me like a description of any number of churches and mosques in which the clerics rail against gay people and call for war on us. It is constant. Even the Pope engages in such hateful speech. Those who say those things claim it is religious practice, which is protected in the US. You note that you do not see gay people freaking out and committing acts of violence and claiming some preacher or imam 'incited' that violence. Others should be able to cope with opinion as well, no matter how wretched or wrong. Or perhaps those religious congregation should be shut down for 'insulting' others?

The fact that you didn't even allow time for a considered response to your question, and jumped all over me downthread and decided I'm a horrible person just because I (gasp) replied to someone else before your post ...
and then I read this reply and I can't see how you got that from my post, but maybe I did write something unclearly.

Let me restate:

I am against any law that oppresses someone for who they are, or sanctions violence against people for just being who they are.

Now I'm getting off this thread and will revisit it later.

then you are the problem.

which is done by people who ARE the problem, who were instigated by someone else who IS the problem.

You really think spitting on what someone else cares about is a good way to live? Really?

I don't suppose I'll see you spouting peace or decrying war on any threads here.

And I doubt you will see anyone not doing the things you imagine they won't, because that is where that reality exists; in your imagination.

If you would like to have a conversation, kindly ask me for my opinion or stance on a subject instead of making assumptions about things you could not possibly know. Doing so makes you appear shallow, defensive, and childish.

mirroring your rhetorical "you".

You stated that the person reacting to an insult is the one with the problem. Actually, a person trying to address a problem by insulting an entire religion or group of people ALSO has a problem.

You can't be for peace and against war if you are FOR the instigation of conflict.

I stated that anyone who is compelled to take violent action in response to the non-violent action of another is the problem.

Do you disagree with my premise? Is violence an acceptable response to non-violence?

could somehow be seen as acceptable because of the non-violent action of burning a book.

Burning a book, in this case the Koran, is a non-violent action. And while many may disagree with it's effectiveness at expressing a point, IS free speech and non-violent.

Those that would resort to violence because someone burned a book ARE the problem.

I asked you questions upthread. You skipped them. Your avoidance speaks loudly.

I had you on ignore. Not because of responses like yours upthread , but for some other reason, and now I have a pretty good idea why.

Back on ignore for you.

And you know WHY it was so easy for me to take off ignore whoever it was that replied to me? Because you are the only one I have on ignore.

Some folks, you just don't like those folks. Put your head down the ostrich hole and pretend you are not seeing anything!

But using the iron fist of the state to prevent folks from saying or writing awful things about one another not the solution.

He had applied for a permit to do the burning in a park, was denied, and was headed to do it in the park nonetheless.
He had 2,900 kerosene soaked Korans in the back of his truck and driving on the roads. Police considered this to be a safety hazard.
You could probably make the argument that he was likely to incite a riot as well.

If it were me, I would have waited until he pulled up at the park (without permit) and arrest the guy then.

is not a crime.

Or for burning books, but for towing a grill with kerosene soaked books.

in flammable liquids.I'm OK with that.

It would be akin to driving a car with broken headlamps, broken tail lights, bald tires, and no mirrors.

Doesn't quite look like a courageous act of individualist defiance anymore, right?

Jones was arrested for "unlawful conveyance of fuel" and for "unlawful open-carry of a firearm".

Mulberry residents had already made their displeasure with his planned activities known. He had been denied a permit to have his demonstration of intolerance in a public park but had announced that he planned to do it with the required permit.

While I usually don't agree with Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, on this case I think he did a good job. He avoided first amendment issues but stopped Jones' offensive behavior.

From the OP linked article:

Dangerous... not so much.

Wouldn't most people know that a huge amount of paper soaked with kerosene was dangerous and shouldn't be driven around?

book burning but for hauling fuel soaked paper through public places. And apparently for a gun violation as well.

or about what I think constitutes "speech?"

Flag burning is a kind of expression. Technically, book burning is also a kind of expression, but I see book burning as a SILENCING of expression. Those books ARE speech.

I guess the same could be said for the flag; it's a symbol. Burning a symbol is a kind of expression. Burning a book is a silencing.

I don't care about flags. I care about books. I'm biased.

I also think "speech" ought to be limited to speech. But that's just me.

nt

They aren't all speech.

Keep in mind that I'm not referring to legal definitions.

Arts need protection whether they fall into the category of "speech" or not.

We could argue that all day, but I'm not going to.

I'll stick to my point. Book burning is a destruction of speech. Whether or not it is legal, it is despicable.

Same reason the KKK and the Nazis are allowed to speak.

traveling with a fire hazard is not speech.

he wasn't arrested for intent to burn books, he was arrested for endangerment