[indymike]

"Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory."

I hope not. Making capitulation to a threat, implied or explicit would be the exact opposite of freedom of speech. You would not be able to speak out against... anything.

[b3tta]

Well… The difference is the implied meaning of burning a book.

Making a movie about the assassination of the NK leader doesn't imply hate. I'm pretty sure making the movie wasn't about the hate against NK per se, but rather a comedy about the situation in an oppressed country.

If you burn a koran/bible I'm pretty sure we all know what that means: You hate the religion and wan't it to die.

As you can see the difference is that the first one falls under free- and the other under hate-speech.

Now if you ask me, it's still wrong to hate against those who burn "holy books" or whatever. In my opinion hate speech is integral to having free spech, even if it should be watched carefully (I really don't wan't a third reich here in germany) - something that has been lost in the past couple years. But it's important to differenciate between both.

[briandear]

So when Pakistanis and other folks from the region burn US flags, THAT'S ok, but burning a Koran isn't? They're almost one and the same. I can't be responsible for the actions of others based on their own irrational and disproportionate response to a book burning. If burning a Koran is "yelling fire" territory, then that reveals more about the offended rather than serving as a condemnation of the offender. A rational response to someone yelling fire is for people to run and take appropriate life-preserving action because of the thought that there is imminent danger. Burning someone's book (or flag) is an expression of an idea, not a call to any particular, expected rational action. Of course if burning a Koran is the same as yelling fire, then that offended community is the problem, not the person committing the act. If you burn a bible, I have yet the hear of Christians partaking in retaliatory bombings, maybe in the 12th century, but not now. Funny because if we accept the official U.S. government premise that Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video, then, in my opinion the whole lot of that subset of the Religion of Peace are beyond redemption and should be marginalized savages.

As far as hate speech, in the U.S. hate speech is legal -- as it should be. Being able to express ideas, no matter how repugnant, is the very foundation of the United States. Besides, who determines hate speech? If I say white people are less intelligent than Asians-- is that hate, or my own (distorted) view of the world? It's a very slippery slope to start classifying ideas and banning ideas based in some social norm or the moment.

[MarkMc]

What about burning just the pages of the Koran that condone slavery. Is that still hate speech?

[nemo]

Intent matters.

In the case of the movie, the audience was American moviegoers, with the producers solely intending to amuse the audience.

In the case of the Koran burning, the audience was Muslims worldwide, with full knowledge that the act was under intense media scrutiny, and with forewarning that it would likely result in riots and violence. He chose to act in a way that he knew would result in riots and violence. It wasn't "hate speech." It was an act that was engaged in consciously with knowledge that it would likely provoke a violent response engaged in out of pure malice.

[wylee]

What about burning just those pages of the Bible that condone slavery?

[MarkMc]

I'm not sure I understand your point. I accept that both the Bible and Koran contain sections that condone slavery, but how does that affect the question of whether burning the Koran is 'hate speech'?