We recently discussed how the United Kingdom has continued its erosion of free speech by pushing an effective blasphemy law. Now, a London man has been convicted of a “religiously aggravated public order offence.” Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist was arrested after burning a Qur’an.
Coskun was protesting the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara over his embrace of radical Islamic principles. Exclaiming “f**k Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism,” he burned the Qur’an and was then slashed by a Muslim man with a knife. Critics were outraged that the man (who later pleaded guilty) was released while police continued to hold Coskun.
Despite arguing that his protest was protected speech, District Judge John McGarva convicted him and declared that his actions were “highly provocative” and that they were “motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.” Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom:
“After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That’s based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It’s not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers.
I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location.”
Coskun later correctly condemned the decision as “an assault on free speech” and added:
“Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago, and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.”
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests, including in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.
A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement:
“I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
The fear is that an expanded hate speech law that includes criticism of Islamophobia will operate like a British blasphemy law. In 2008, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England. This new effort could constructively restore such prosecutions as they relate to Islam.
Democrats and the Left want this SO BAD in the United States.
it is my understanding Sec State Rubio is going to impose sanctions of some sort on countries over free speech and censorship.
I think that is an excellent idea.
It is very bad for a country to engage in censorship – it is bad for its people.
It is a shame that the UK is eschewing the free speech principles and enlightenment of onr of its greatest authors – John Stuart Mill
Even falsehoods improve our understanding of the truth
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race,” Mill wrote. “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
John Stuart Mill
JS TS
Rubio wishes to impose sanctions on countries who suppress free speech.
And you agree.
If someone wishes to express an opinion that free speech should be suppressed, then that itself is free speech and an opinion.
I believe that sanctions against such a person or country would be the “peculiar evil of silencing an opinion” that John Stuart Mill decries.
Unfortunately, you are too stupid to understand.
ATS – this is a stupid and false argument, that is self contradictory.
By your logic ALL laws are violations of free speech.
Regardless ALL rights belong to individuals.
Governments do NOT have rights.
Governments have powers.
Rubio is NOT infringing on the free speech rights of americans in brazil, or even brazilians by santioning brazil for infringing on free speech rights of individuals – whether americans or brazillians.
You are also making an absurd lunitic illigcal claim typical of the left, that somehow censoring others is a free speech right.
Again = individuals have rights.
YOU may “censor” your children, you may “censor” visitors to your home while in your home. you may censor your employees at work.
YOU may do these things – because you AND they are free individuals, your visitors, can leave, your employees can find another job.
The US, the UK, Brazil are NOT individuals. The Brazilian government has no rights. It merely has powers.
It can resist or try to resist US sanctions if it wishes. But no actual rights of Brazil are involved.
There are good, but not determinative arguments that Governments should limit the exercise of their powers to within their borders – except under unusual circumstances. It is not practical for the US to guarantee the free speech rights of people all over the world.
But the impracticality of doing so, is NOT a moral or constitutional barier to doing so – particularly doing so selectively.
As a rule I am opposed of actually meddling in the affairs of foreign nations – the US track record has been abysmal with regard to that.
George Bush II ran on a very popular platform of NOT meddling with foreign countries – before being elected and becoming the greatest foreign meddler of all US presidents.
But not meddling in foreign govenrment does NOT mean ignoring the acts of foreign govenrment with respect to US interests, US persons, or interactions with the US. It also does not mean that our government can not or should not condemn bad behavior of other countries.
Regardless, back to your idiotic claim. A GOVERNMENT infringes on the first amendment or free speech or individual liberty when it infringes on the rights of INDIVIDUALS
What would you call deporting legal residents of the United States solely because they drafted an opinion article in a newspaper? In what world is that not the “GOVERNMENT infring[ing] on the first amendment or free speech or individual liberty . . . of INDIVIDUALS”?
You must be a Projecting-Dunceocrat.
OT
Congress and President Trump must suspend habeas corpus because the public safety requires it.
Sanctuary Cities constitute rebellion against the government and laws of the United States.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Let’s see what Nigel Farage can do for the UK what other leaders are doing in Europe to make their countries great again. The Old World might start connecting the dots between our freedom of speech and our success in WWI, WWII and the Cold War. And the Marshall Plan. Beyond that, the EU with its Digital Services Act might do well to think about tariffs and other means we have if we take the view that their fines on our media services are a tax on our speech.
if he was muslim he can freely call for the slaughter of the people of the WEST!
being prosecuted for NOT being left wing!
So basically the Fascists PROSECUTED him for refusing their Fascism?
basically the British court system charged and convicted him. Fascists’? Really?
Yes, Fascists – Really
Britian is not the most fascist place in the world today, but it certainly headed in the wrong direction.
Though the good news is that it appears the British people are fed up with this nonsense.
WRITE OFF THE UK. They’re prosecuting speech and letting the knife slasher go. Officially nuts.
Now get to work and do an excellent job.
Is Neville Chamberlain still in office? If this is what’s come of the British people they could have saved many lives by surrendering to Adolf.
We don’t lose our freedoms, we give them up.
This is just part 1. The British model of the past few centuries is to usher some great evil into the world, profit off of it as long as it pays (financially or politically), and then suddenly do an about-face and denounce it, outlaw it, and look down their noses at other countries that followed their example in the first place, without the dexterous flip. Then they ride the wave of self-satisfaction for a century or so, congratulating themselves on their superiority to other countries.
Why get out knickers in a bunch over Britain; it was lost the minute it allowed immigration into the island from anyone in a previous colony. The polluted their gene pool and now they are a muslim enclave stuck with a white monarch – I wonder how long that monarchy will last now. The next dynasty to rule Britain will be a muslim potentate.
Westminster Abby with minarets like Hagia Sophia? Sure… pay back for the Roman named palestine territory? Jewish people are Palestinians too of course. I give you no less than Jesus Christ.
Anonymous 11:54AM-At the time of Jesus he would have been referred to as a Judean. The name change to the province of Syria and Palestine occurred late in the 1st century AD.
Nazareth, Galilee?
I’ll take you at your word.
whimsicalmama
“polluted their gene pool”
Those 4 words tell me everything I need to know about you.
I think you would agree that we should start mandatory sterilization of the undesirables that are polluting our country.
The black people
The brown people
The yellow people
The feeble-minded
The poor
The disabled
The mentally ill
The unemployed
The degenerates
The dissidents
The leftists
The communists,
The deaf
The blind
I strongly suspect that you would include the Jews in that list, if you catch my drift.
Very little doubt that the MAGA mob are closet Nazis.
whimsicalmama
Speaking of “gene pools” you are obviously from the shallow end, if not the toddler’s paddling pool.
Anonymous 12:25 AM- one person makes a possible racist comment and you apply it to a whole political point of view. I think thats over reaching whatever point you were trying to make. I don’t like using the phrase “polluting the gene pool” either especially in a broad context. I would suggest the author consider rephrasing his statement.
GEB
If you think “rephrasing” the comment is in order, then you are wilfully ignoring the message being sent.
“Rephrasing”, as you suggest, is simply putting the proverbial lipstick on a pig.
I believe the Nazis were the true masters of eugenics.
I believe the Nazis were also the true masters of “rephrasing” as you put it.
I believe the “phrase” they used was The Final Solution.
Is this the kind of “rephrasing” that you have in mind ????
Your failure to condemn this statement by whimsicalmama, but instead make solicitous excuses, is a strong indication of your real character, or lack thereof.
But never mind my leftist, communist, globalist point of view.
Have another Black Russian or two or three or four !!!!!
Fate is written in your genetics and before your birth as every hair on your head is numbered. Your fate merely unfolds like a rose or an artichoke. The heroes are those who fight to change it knowing it can’t be changed.
Making broad and illogical claims is fallacious argument.
The Nazi’s were fascists. They were socialists. They were statists
Absolutely none of those are true of MAGA.
All of them are true of those on the left.
DHL TS
I would add that the Nazis are eugenicists.
At least one of the MAGA cult here, whimsicalmama, is openly in favor of eugenics.
None of you have condemned her.
Some of you have offered solicitous excuses.
Conclusion: the MAGA cult are Nazis.
As they say, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. it’s probably a duck. a duck
ATS – it is a stupid fallacy to presume that from one phrase that offends you – you can draw conclusions regarding everything else someone beleives.
Or more accurately that is true with regard to 80% of people.
Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Susan Collins all are republican US senators.
Every single one of them has passionate views on various issue distinct from the others.
The 1/3 of the country that is not republican or democrats disagree with each other, as well as republicans and democrats on various issues.
It is only the left that is close to ideologically homogenous in the US, and near universally wrong on those ideas that are universal to those on the left.
JSTS
It’s truly fascinating how the MAGA cult rushes to defend each other’s views and statements no matter how outrageous and offensive.
This is truly how cults operate.
You accuse the left of being ideologically homogeneous, but your rush to defend a fellow cult member is the very definition of ideological homogeneity at all costs.
This is an absolute requirement for the members of all cults.
The statement “polluting our gene pool” is profoundly offensive and utterly indefensible.
The fact that you do not agree with this assessment tells me everything I need to know about YOU.
The fact that you defend this viewpoint, reminiscent of NAZI Germany, is also profoundly offensive.
You have absolutely no moral character, and absolutely no credibility as a member of the human race.
John Say
I find it very interesting that in your rambling rants you always drift off into some completely unrelated thoughts as if those thoughts have some relevance to the point you are trying to make.
Why, for instance, do you feel the urge to drift off to thoughts about Republican senators and whether or not those who are not Democrats or Republicans all agree with each other.
What is the possible relevance of these thoughts to the fact that whimsicalmama is a racist and possibly a Nazi.
This inability to focus, and the urge to give voice to the random thoughts that flitter aimlessly through your mind indicate significant mental impairment.
Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder come to mind.
“I find it very interesting that in your rambling rants”
Read, don;t read, your choice.
Regardless, I control what I choose to write,
and I have little interest in the ill thought nonsense from someone who will not even post under a pseudonym.
You have the absolute freedom to post anonymously.
You do not have the right to be taken seriously when you do.
“Why, for instance, do you feel the urge to drift off to thoughts about Republican senators and whether or not those who are not Democrats or Republicans all agree with each other.”
Because as YOU or some other ATS argued cults are about homogenity.
broad and deep diversity of view is a key indicator that some group is NOT a cult.
Tolerance – which does NOT mean agreement. of diverse views is proof that some group is not a cult.
“What is the possible relevance of these thoughts to the fact that whimsicalmama is a racist and possibly a Nazi.”
Conclusion lacking evidence. You extrapolated an enormous amount from one phrase you do not like that has many meanings.
A phrase that while not used recently by the left, is PRACTICED by the left.
I care more about deeds, that acts.
Regardless, my reply had nothing to do with Whimsical mamma – it was not a defense – she can do that for herself if she wants.
It was an attack on your fallacious faulty generalization.
“This inability to focus”
The FACT that I do not focus on what YOU want is not the same as inability to focus.
AS is obvious from your replies, your thinking is so shallow, you can not even grasp that my reply Attacked YOUR illogic,
it did not address much less defend Whimsical Mamma.
“the urge to give voice to the random thoughts that flitter aimlessly through your mind ”
Keep digging.
My post was a CLEAR targeted refutation of YOUR idiotic claims.
First you engaged in faulty generalization.
Then you made an obviously false claim that MAGA is cult.
Now you are so delusions that you think that any argument undermining your claims is somehow aimless.
My AIM was TRUE and I hit the bullseye. MAGA is not a cult, it does NOT have the attributes required in a cult.
Conversely the woke left is a cult, it has the attributes required in a cult.
YOU appear to have either intentionally or ignorantly missed that.
If you are going to claim something it pointless, random, when you are CLEARLY wrong, you just make a fool of yourself.
“indicate significant mental impairment.”
Recent studies indicate that 51% of republicans are mentally healthy,
and only 20% of democrats.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
The data I have on libertarians and the woke left are older. but even worse.
Something like 79% of woke young left wing nut women suffer from anxiety and depression.
Worse still they do so in the best world humans have ever lived in.
“Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder come to mind.”
Clearly you have no experience with either.
Do you really need a long reply attacking your idiocy about Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder that you will idiotically accuse of being random ?
You do not control anything but your own writing.
You do not control what others will choose to target in your writing.
You wanted a discussion about Whimsical Mamma.
I chose to respond to YOUR logical fallacies.
Do not engaged in fallacious thinking and you will not have to worry about being attacked for it.
John
Ano is a fool looking for a place to be. It’s hard to follow what he posts.
Me thinks he may need medical help
It’s possible to pollute your gene pool if you’ve married your cousin for 35 generations. Yes, very likely whimsical.
And your cruelty and twisted character, anon , is of deep concern. When you feel the compulsion to insult change it to a compliment for the sake of goodness. Perhaps you’re a radical moslem in which case it’s impossible. Try.
ATS
I did not defend anything – I pointed out the stupidity and illogical of your remarks.
I do not agree with the specific phrasing of the person you responded to,
But YOUR reply was an obvious fallacy of faulty generalizaion – which si exactly what I pointed out.
I do not agree witht he poster on everything.
I do not agree with Cruz or Rubio or Paul or Collins on everything.
I am NOT required to include in every response to a stupid and fallacious attack on someone else with a list of everything I think they are wrong about.
Another poster here cited Alexander Hamiltons comments on immigration – I disagree with ASPECTS of Hamiliton;s views on immigration.
But that does NOT mean that I support the lawless nonsense of the left.
Minor – even occasionally larger disagreements with those not on the left does not alter the fact that TODAY the danger we face is almost entirely from the left.
When the MAGA mob is incarcerating Citizens of Jewish decent in concentration camps and gassing them – should that ever happen then I will consider comparisons to Nazi’s
In the meantime fascism was defined by Musolini as
Everything in the state
nothing outside the state
nothing against the state
”
That is pretty close to the OPPOSITE of MAGA
It is also spot on Woke.
It’s truly fascinating how the MAGA cult rushes to defend each other’s views and statements no matter how outrageous and offensive.
This is truly how cults operate.”
Actually no, your claim are incorrect both as to the facts and as to what constitutes a cult.
In my reply I pointed out that there was great intellectual and ideological diversity among republicans.
There is almost none among democrats.
You are trying to Cancel Sen. Fetterman for relatively minor disagreements with the woke cult ideology.
Differences between Cruz and Trump or Paul are far greater than those between Fetterman and the woke left.
Cults are defined by ideological purity – that would clearly be the work Left.
Even Bannon and Trump have some significant ideological conflicts, and if you had ever listened to Bannon you would know that.
But no one is throwing Bannon out of the GOP or MAGA or trying to cancel him or claim that he is mentally slipping.
There Actually WAS and argument regarding Fetterman’s capability immediately after his stroke. Further most people die withing 3yrs of their first stroke.
And Fetterman may still. At the same time while I disagree with him on many things, it is inarguable that Fetterman has mostly recovered and is competent.
I would have bet against that. But he has proved me wrong.
Beyond Fetterman who the left is trying to drive out of the party, are Gabbard and Kennedy – both leading lights in the democratic party that the woke left has driven out. And Sienema who is on the left side of the democratic party who you drove out, and Manchin who you drove out,
And I could go on and on.
“You accuse the left of being ideologically homogeneous”
More a fact than an accusation. Worse still they enforce absolute ideological purity.
“but your rush to defend a fellow cult member”
I did not rush to defend anyone – I attack YOUR stupid Faulty Generalization fallacy.
” the very definition of ideological homogeneity at all costs.”
Nope, and a stupid and illogical argument.
I will defend, Collins, Graham, Cruz, or even Democrats like Fetterman, or Manchin against stupid claims.
There is no ideological homogenity between these people.
Musk has left government, Probably because when you are part of the executive you are constrained in your ability to criticise the policies of that administration. Being part of the executive REQUIRES that when you can not agree with the policies of the administration, that you remain silent.
That is the price for being on the inside. Musk has chosen for many reasons to move to the outside.
He wants to get back to his businesses,
He wants to speak out further about the waste fraud and abuse he found.
He wants to speak out against a budget deal that is an abomination. But it is also probably the best we can do politically at the moment
and it is far better than the status quo.
Musk is likely to remain politically active from the outside.
He is likely to fund political candidates that move what is possible further towards fiscal conservatism.
And he remains welcome in the White House. No one in MAGA is trying to silence him.
Frankly MAGA likely wants his outside criticism.
Many of us want the current OBBB passed – as well as trillions in recsions bills – not a paltry few billion.
But the desire for MORE cuts does not require killing what is currently possible.
I am not MAGA – I have voted libertarian in presidential elections – both for president and other offices.
At the same time as imperfect as MAGA may be, it is the closest thing we have seen to libertarian governance since the 19th century.
I do not need to agree with MAGA or MAGA posters on everything to attack YOU as the clear and present danger to the country.
“This is an absolute requirement for the members of all cults.”
Then the woke left is a cult and MAGA is not.
“The statement “polluting our gene pool” is profoundly offensive and utterly indefensible.”
Incorrect. Nature aborts fetus’s that are defective – no pills or surgery necescary.
Further the phrase means very different things in different contexts.
Left wing nuts have sought to purify the gene pool by encouraging minority genocide through abortion – Margret Sanger was explicit on that.
We are early in an era of gene editing. We can wipe out the TseTse fly and the anopholese mosquito in a year if we want to.
We will soon be able to eliminate geneticly carried diseases.
Would eliminating Tay-Sachs or Hemophila be Nazi things to do ?
As cited by another poster – our founders were NOT big proponents of immigration.
Very very few countries in the entire world are not almost racially homogenous.
I personally beleive that Diversity is a strong NET positive. But that does NOT mean that it is without problems.
It also does not mean that diversity is ABSOLUTELY positive in all instances.
Nations do get to determine who gets into the country. What the culture will look like.
We SHOULD not preclude people because of the color of their skin. But we can and should preclude those who do not share our values, who intend to fundimentally transform the values and structure of the country.
We need not accept communists and socialists as an example.
We need not accept criminals.
We need not accept anarchists or violent religious fanatics.
YOU may have a differnet list or people we should exclude, but I would be surprised if you did not wish to exclude others.
You too seek to “cleanse the genepool” – you merely have different criteria for doing so, and do not use the same words when you talk about it.
But you favor the immigration of violent criminals and oppose the immigration of racially persecuted whites.
So OBVIOUSLY you are engaged in your OWN form of genetic cleansing, if you use other words.
“The fact that you do not agree with this assessment tells me everything I need to know about YOU.”
That you make statements like this prove you are incapable of critical thinking.
And that you have not read anything I have written.
“The fact that you defend this viewpoint”
I did not defend a viewpoint.
I attacked your faulty generalization.
Those are not the same.
Though above I pointed out that the specific remark you took offense to fits YOU in deed if not in word.
If the Nazi’s returned today – they would use different rhetoric – likely YOUR rhetoric.
As the left constantly points out it is trivial to cover evil deed with pleasant words.
A modern Hitler would use entirely different words and phrases to accomplish the same genocidal fascism.
“reminiscent of NAZI Germany, is also profoundly offensive.”
I am more worried about those who act like Nazi’s – YOU than those who allegedly talk like Nazi’s.
“You have absolutely no moral character, and absolutely no credibility as a member of the human race.”
ROFL
Morality requires respecting the actual rights of others.
It requires knowing what IS a right, and what is not.
The left is completely clueless about either and has no problem tramplining actual rights.
DHL TS
All I have to say at this point is thank you for proving my point.
Your astoundingly long, rambling, incoherent response full of absurd disconnected thoughts simply confirms what I believe about you.
You are mentally impaired
You are mentally impaired
************
Stay far away from mirrors.
That last paragraph is unworthy of you John Say.
Do you really think Charles and Kate became ill by chance?
*. If he had burned the Quran in his backyard would that make a difference? Is burning a prop merely an emphasis to his rhetoric of burn the Quran and be rid of this punishing religion? It’s provocative only in the sense of burn your Quran and not an exhortation to burn its followers? Could he have put the Quran in a paper shredder?
It’s mysteriously protecting Islam and don’t forget Charlie Hebdo (sp) in France and the wild protests in the US and so many other examples of such. Religion is something a man puts on and is not the same as the color of skin, eye color, big noses etc. Perhaps Islam should become mire tolerant of rejection rather than the reverse? Perhaps moslems should wisdom to live in Islamic nations?
It is an example of protection of an indigenous culture. A ticket for burning without a permit might be justified. Everyone actually knows it’s a form of evangelical Islam spreading the one true faith and the God only approves of that single divine faith as brought to mankind by the prophet Mohammed may his name be praised?
It’s BS. Personally burning anything is an attention getter. Freedom of speech is words and listening but then there are illustrations provided for the illiterate which require the press.
Ticket for burning in public space.
^^^^*. The best characterization of Islam is Stockholm Syndrome. No, really, I love being shrouded and peering out behind the weave of my head shroud. I really love it!
*. Is “pleaded” a real word? Be careful, we might be disappeared as I texted some blasphemy or maybe suicide. Own it!
One can foresee a time not in the distant future that Britain will being enforcing Sharia Law and let mobs lynch infidels with impunity What a sick suicidal country.
Thusly, burn the Koran.
In Britain they arrest a Christian women for silently praying in front of an abortion clinic and then they defend the sanctity of Islam. In the same breath you can hear them say “stop the hate”. We have been sold on the idea that Communism is on the left and Nazism is on the right. The truth of the matter is that both ideologies are more similar than different. History has shown that in the instrumentation of both of these forms of government the first right that is taken away is the right to free speech. Now in Britain they embrace the principles of Authoritarianism. The Tommies in heaven sing Danny Boy as they weep.
I think at this point, particularly given what modern Labour is and stands for, all we can do is watch Britain fall and let them be an object lesson as the lesson appears to be completely lost on the Brits themselves. It would seem karma has come for the empire.
😂, James, you really think the British simply caved and didn’t set up a play within a play?
They’re really brilliant.
The infection of vile judges and politicians poisoning countries that we see here in America from Professor Turley’s fellow Democrat members of the bar is not unique. Their indistinguishable fellow travellers are doing the same over in the UK as they are doing here.
So the laws against blasphemy and blasphemous libel were revoked and yet this man is convicted of what. That he had hatred, or a low opinion of Islam or setting an illegal fire in a public place or “religiously aggravated public order offence” (which I would interpret as blasphemy). Sounds like creative lawmaking by a judge. Surely that is not possible in England or the US. Better not tell the Federal District court judges over here, as they may get some ideas and will start arresting ICE agents, and Federal District Attorneys for upholding the law.
You know that is what they really want to do.
For a long time I had great respect for American law and the Justices who presided whether they be federal or state. Mainly because there were many areas of an appeal and always an ongoing attempt to better the law, it’s fairness and it’s equal application to us all. Even when I had great disagreements with some decisions I could understand and accept the other side.
I have lost that trust and now see the legal system as just another political war, where justice is not blind and point of view is more important than the law. I don’t think I am alone in that persuasion. Can we return to, at least, a more dispassionate view of the law or is that hope now gone. I sincerely hope it is not. It certainly seems lost in the Uk but even in this single case an appeal might reverse this outcome but the appeal should never have been necessary.
No, Turley just cherrypicked the facts. According to the news article that Turley posted, “Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
We absolutely have disorderly conduct laws in the US. Setting a fire (to anything) in front of a foreign consulate would certainly justify consideration of those laws.
This is a big nothingburger.
You cannot trust Turley’s cherrypicked details. Read the citations!
opps, we got fat-checker here folks.
I pleaded guilty. Own it!
Yes, it is hard to have a rational discussion without those pesky buggers, no?
ATS – We do have Disorderly conduct laws in the US – and those laws define disorderly conduct based on YOUR actions – NOT the possible response of others.
The
“within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
is precisely what is wrong with British law.
In the US Nazi’s can march through Jewish communities demanding jewish genocide.
In the UK they have made people criminally responsible for the potential response of third parties.
That is absurd and it is a rejection of the entire concept of Free will, which is the foundation of the social contract, self govenrment, western civilization – pretty much all religion – including islam, and even atheism.
“in the US. Setting a fire (to anything) in front of a foreign consulate would certainly justify consideration of those laws.”
FALSE -Texas Vs. Johnson
“if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Justice Brennan
Marshall,
Blackmum,
Scalia
Kennedy,
Incorrect. The crime absolutely involves the “possible response of others.”
Here’s an example from NY: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/240.20
As you can see, you engaging in “threatening behavior” may be grounds for the actus reus of a disorderly conduct crime. You can’t engage in threatening behavior without there being someone to threaten. Ditto for “obstruct[ing] vehicular or pedestrian traffic” or “creat[ing] a hazardous or physically offensive condition.”
Yet, again, your rambling diatribes are not rooted in reality.
§ 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or
meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
which serves no legitimate purpose.
I agree.
John Say’s rambling diatribes are never rooted in reality, as you correctly observe.
He is simply listening to the voices in his head.
He has significant mental problems.
There is a reason you are reffered to as ATS.
I specifically addressed the very stupidity you are eching here in several other replies.
But the quick version is that it is your mental deficiency in self deluding into believing I am of on a tangent, because I did not make the argument you expected, or because I attacked you rather than defended someone else,.
This is especially true when it was blatantly obvious that I was targeting YOUR stupidity.
You do not get to control how others respond to your arguments.
When you make bad arguments you should not expect others to play along, but to point out the flaws in your arguments.
Ok, that’s enough from you, bud.
Honestly – you respond to an argument that is based on meta principles that supercede law and government, with bad law and bad legal arguments ?
Free will means YOU ALONE are responsible for YOUR actions.
In ACTUAL law there are EXTREMELY few instances in which one is responsible for THIRD PARTY choices.
Pretty much ALWAYS these require bad or negligent ACTS on your part.
And even after that – at best they are TORTS, not Crimes.
This is the shallow garbage that comes out of the left ?
“threatening behavior”
Is BEHAVIOR.
I would note in the US SCOTUS has FREQUENTLY addressed what constitutes a TRUE THREAT.
“may be grounds for the actus reus of a disorderly conduct crime.”
What convoluted nonsense.
Do you under stand logic at all ?
“may” under some circumstances or if a variety of OTHER conditions are met.
And we are dealing with an ACT that is burning a Koran. That is NOT even an actual threat – except a threat to an ideology.
Threats that are NOT threats of ACTUAL HARM to a person are NOT within the scope of the law.
If I threaten to point out all the stupid logical errors in your posts – that is not and can not ever legitimately be made into a crime.
If I threaten to disrespect your religion or your values, to discredit them – that is not and can not ever legitimately be made into a crime.
You left wing nuts are not capable of critical thinking.
The errors you keep making are obvious stupid and shallow.
Wherever you were educated – you were robbed.
“You can’t engage in threatening behavior without there being someone to threaten.”
Of course you can and this is EXACTLY that instance.
ARE YOU REALLY THIS DENSE ?
You can threaten ideas.
You can threaten religions
you can threaten reputations
you can threaten all sorts of non violent and legal actions.
There are very specific requirements for a “threat” to be criminal.
ONE of those is that it must be against the actual rights of a person.
“Ditto for “obstruct[ing] vehicular or pedestrian traffic””
So you have jumped from words and threats – and not even criminal threats to actions ?
Obstructing traffic is an ACT. There is no crime of “threatening to obstruct traffic”
Though who knows in the UK or the peoples republics of NY and CA maybe there is.
““creat[ing] a hazardous or physically offensive condition.””
1). No “offensive” has no place in the law EVER. It is too broad and non-specific. Any law using “offensive” as a criteria in the US would be unconstitutionally vague or broad.
Outside the US it would just be stupid and unworkable, with a high likelyhood of abuse.
2). ignoring offensive, the rest of your statement is about ACTS.
You can ban burning things in public. But in the US atleast your ban would have to include exceptions for safely burning things in public as expressive speech or the law would be unconstitutional
Again
Texas V. Johnson.
Separately – generally, but especially regarding the first amendment, you can NOT have a law
that targets a view point
That attempts to neutrally target a view point
that as applied targets a viewpoint.
That infringes on free speech for less than a compelling reason
That infringes on free speech when there are non infringing alternatives.
While this is US specific law.
it is based on hundreds of years of experience.
Fundimentally it is Meta Law.
Look up Kants catagorical imperative.
“Yet, again, your rambling diatribes are not rooted in reality.
§ 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
PLEASE READ YOUR OWN CITE.
You do not seem to understand what the elements of an offense are.
Please list a single instance in YOUR cited law, where something that is NOT an ACT meets all the elements of the law required for conviction ?
You can’t.
But lets presume that you could.
Lets presume that there is a general NY law against burning things in public.
Lets try this case in NY.
It will be thrown out – hopefully by the lower courts, but if not ultimately by the supreme court.
It will FAIL on an as applied free speech challenge.
You can make whatever laws you wish.
If those laws infringe on free speech,
If they are not absolutely necessary
and if they do not infringe in the LEAST possible way then that law is either unconstitutional on its face, or unconstitutional as applied.
There is nothing wrong with the law you cite – except that as written it does NOT work as you claim.
When you read a law and you are looking for unusual ways to apply it that require broad reading, especially in a criminal context – you are automatically violated the constitution as well as “fundimental law” – i.e. supra constitutional law. Or the law of “this does not work”
We fight about specific laws and the constitution here.
But far too many – even occasionally Turley forget that laws do not come out of thin air.
We can not make anything we want a crime – not without creating a totalitarian state and violating free will.
Those of you who rant about slavery should know better.
Is slavery wrong because the post reconstruction constitution says that it is ?
Was it moral and legal before 1960 ?
Is slavery only a bad thing because 500,000 people died in the fight against it in the US ?
Slavery is wrong because it takes away an individuals free will. It is wrong whether the constitution says it is wrong or not.
You can take away someones free will by making them property and owning them.
You can also make a person a slave by chaining them in thousands of laws such that they have very little free will left.
Both are slavery, and both are wrong.
Well he was slashed. The slasher was not arrested. Guess that’ll teach him to just slash people.
So the laws against blasphemy and blasphemous libel were revoked … only against Christianity blasphemy.
One cannot blaspheme a false religion. Islam is functioning as a censor as are lgbt, blm, and a few others. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech in collision? They’re murdering people as blood libel. Well, it’s just part of their religion so it’s okay. Free exercise…
Watch what you say and write Rushdie. Those fatwa are serious curses. They enter the gene pool generation after generation.
Was the act an incitement to violence? If so, it would likely not be protected in the US, either.
You mention the violent response from a Muslim man without even discussing whether the act incited violence.
Seems like a gross oversight for a First Amendment specialist.
… and unsurprisingly, Turley left out that this was done right outside of the Turkish consulate. Intentional omission?
So we can arrest protestors burning Trump in effigy if done outside a public building? Seems the same thing to me.
It be like White man bad. Own it!
That is left out because to the extent it is relevant it makes this arrest even more egregious.
Where better to call attention to the egregious behavior of Ergodigan than outside the Turkish Embassy ?
You know Erdogan controls the water.
Anonynous, that makes sense. If the act elicited a violent response like being slashed with a knife then the expression was indeed inciteful. I’m sure Turley didn’t dive into the details of the judge’s reasoning because this would have also been speech not protected by our own laws either.
It it provoked a violent response and ended up with him being beaten up there might, might be a reasonable argument that the burning of the Quran, not the speech could be seen as inciting violence.
Sure you can burn a Bible here with no repercussions, maybe some angry threats or social media complaints, but you would not be prosecuted for it.
#9. <"Sure you can burn a Bible here with no repercussions, maybe some angry threats or social media complaints, but you would not be prosecuted for it."
You can also burn the American flag without repercussions, just don't do any wheelie burnouts across the gendermandering rainbows in the street.
The slasher is entitled to his free expression, too. Own it!
You can mangle what constitutes incitement,
But your argument is not only wrong,.
But your argument litterally demonstrates why you are wrong.
What constitutes a crime can NOT depend on WHO was offended.
If you can burn a bible – you can burn any holy book.
If you can burn a book of logarithms, you can burn any book.
Again people have free will – that is CORE to the entire western concepts of self govenrment and frankly even the concept of crime itself.
YOU are responsible for YOUR acts – NOT the acts of others – even if their acts are in response to your words.
This goes even beyond words. YOUR otherwise legal ACTS can not be criminalized because of the violent response of others.
Generally you may only respond with violence to ACTUAL violence by another, and than ONLY in defense of self or defense of others, and ONLY proportionate to the violence.
The allowed response to offensive, hurtful, violent words is YOUR OWN WORDS. Not ACTS of violence.
There isn’t free will until you understand right and wrong in your own person. Then and only then do you choose to continue in error or not.
Sure, people would think you’d had a bad day and see if they might help.
So is it your opinion that if a leftist burns an American flag in front of a military guy the military guy can stab him?
Is it your opinion that if a Hamas supporting illegal burns an Israeli flag in front of a Synagogue a rabbi can stab him?
Keep talking!
Not what I said.
If a leftist burns an American flag in front of a memorial to celebrate a fallen hero (which would be more akin to this situation), then he could certainly be considered for a disorderly conduct charge. That doesn’t give the soldier the right to stab him.
by the way, this is literally the heckler’s veto type of analysis that Turley has discussed at nauseum on campuses.
Do the Westboro Baptist Church folks know that?
Neither is speech nor press.
Texas v. Johnson
“”In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.”
Where it was reversed
“[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
“If a leftist burns an American flag in front of a memorial to celebrate a fallen hero (which would be more akin to this situation), then he could certainly be considered for a disorderly conduct charge”
Nope Texas V Johnson
Did you actually read Texas v. Johnson?
“[We have not permitted the government to assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but have instead required careful consideration of the actual circumstances surrounding such expression, asking whether the expression “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (reviewing circumstances surrounding rally and speeches by Ku Klux Klan)”
In that case, the government acknowledged that there was no incitement to breach the peace.
This UK case is completely different because we actually have evidence that the burning led to a violent response. At least read the cases before you blindly post them.
Did you actually read Texas v. Johnson? Yes
HOW stupid are you ?
“In that case, the government acknowledged that there was no incitement to breach the peace.”
Correct, and you cited Brandenberg. Brandenberg and its progeny define what constitutes incitement,
and it is really really really hard to reach incitement.
“This UK case is completely different because we actually have evidence that the burning led to a violent response.”
You are a complete moron.
The standard for incitement is NOT met simply because violence resulted.
Incitement ALWAYS means to deliberately rile YOUR supporters into committing acts of violence.
The demand for violence must be immediate, specific, and certain.
Otherwise no incitement.
By YOUR idiotic arguments the entire civil rights movement was criminal.
The entire Ghandian civil disobedience movement is morally reprehensible.
The efforts of King, Ghandi and myriads of others was SPECIFICALLY to provoke their opponents into violence.
The entire idea was to get your opponent – usually govenrment to respond to non-violent “incitement” with violence,
making them look bad.
In the UK case bring the Koran resuting in a Muslim stabbing someone. This is exactly the kind of act that King or Ghandi sought.
It discredits Muslims.
Trying to provoke others through rhetoric or non-violent actions into committing violence is EXACTLY the goal of civil disobedience.
And Both the Americans and the British should know better than to fall into that trap.
“At least read the cases before you blindly post them.”
Please go out and atleast rent a brain.
Your making an idiotic a postiori argument that has no place in law.
Something is NOT incitment to violence because violence resulted.
You will NOT find a single supreme court that says – this is incitement – because violence resulted, or this is not incitement because violence did not result.
Anonymous, did you miss the part where the man who burned the holy book was slashed with a knife? We have read your desecration of Christianity on this blog and now you declare the man who burned a Qur’an to be in the wrong. You have not once condemned the protestors for abortion rights protesting in front of an alternative to abortion facility and now you’re concerned that this man protested in front of the Turkish Embassy. With you it seems to be which holy book is being gored? True to form.
Thinkitthrough doesn’t know that many different people on this blog prefer to be anonymous.
moron thinks that a lack of screen name is what makes him anonymous.
yea, he knows how many of you idiots dont want to take ownership of your comments
I just hate signing in and another password.
then say you are lazy and not that you prefer being anonymous, which everyone here is (and is not).
#9. It’s fairly simple to add a moniker to one’s anonymous title. <<see. This allows for searching out your own posts, without providing forking over your email address for what exactly? So you can be notified of responses? Don't particularly care about that. Or so you end up with another 20 spam or phishing emails. Every time I've entered an email address for something connected to the grand internet, no matter the reason or the site, here comes another 20 daily spams. No thanks.
And how does some made up name or other separate one from everyone else any better than a moniker which one can type that separates one's post from the others? Registering as "Mikey" or some such is no different, and does not prevent anyone from just ignoring any login and posting as an anon, then going back and logging in and re-posting. No different than some anon's who carry on whole conversations with themselves.
The moniker, in this case #9., separates posts just as well as "Houdini" would, without giving any email address to be sold or otherwise used for something I have no use for.
There are very specific and hard to meet requirements for incitement to violence.
These are important – -ALL LAW must be narrow and specific, especially laws that punish citzens, otherwise it is always possible as you are doing to claim that something that you do not like falls in the broad reading of some crime.
Incitement to violence NEVER constitutes causing offense in others. If it did – all speech would be incitement to violence. Everything offends someone.
Regardless, you can NEVER make a crime out of the free response of another. Doing so denies the existance of free will in others.
Even when you allegedly “incite” your own followers, The requirements to be a crime are extremely high – again as those you are purportedly ehorting to violence have their own free will and YOU do not control it.
If some acts violently as a result of something you said THEY not you are responsible.
Free speech REQUIRES the right to offend others – otherwise it is not free speech.
The flagship case for free speech/incitement is Brandenburg vs,. Ohio and its progeny – though Justice Brandieses dissent in Whitney vs California is well worth reading and pretty close to the state of the law in the US today.
It is a sign of how badly the left has decayed that it was liberals that fought for free speech through most of my lifetime, while today it is the left that is the greatest threat to free speech.
Regardless, speech that “incites” another to attack you is NOT illegal. Atleast not in the US and should not be illegal anywhere.
The right to free speech REQUIRES the right to verbally offend others. Without that NO speech is free, because someone can force the censorship of any speech simply by claiming offense.
ATS
No it is not incitement to violence.
The standard for incitement is very hard to meet, and NEVER can be met as in this case, by provoking a violent response from someone who disagrees and is offended.
That would encode a hecklers veto into the law.
Which is exactly the stupid thing that the UK has done.
You can not in the US criminally incite violence by offending someone else.
You are never justified in the US to respond to the words of another with violence.
You are not only getting the first amendment and free speech wrong – but you are obliterating the foundation of self govenrment – free will.
See the above, what you said directly refuting by the example disorderly conduct statute I pulled from NY.
Then the NY statute is unconstitutional.
Texas V Johnson.
You can not overcome the first amendment with some state or local statute.
There are plenty of laws on the books that are unconstitutional.
I would note one of the core issues in this case – one that the judges decision rests on is that burning the Koran is intentionally destroying a SYMBOL.
That is specifically why you can not make it illegal in the US and why the UK is wrong – they are wrong right down to the way the law defines the crime.
In the US you CAN ban burning things in public – or so allows the supreme court, but the law MUST be neutral regarding speech.
i.e. it must ban flags, underwear, books, pretty much everything equally, and without regard to their content.
Even that is NOT enough. The law STILL must be constructed to interfere with speech to the least possible extent.
One way to do that would be to safely EXEMPT burning symbols – if done safely.
In the UK the law makes it a crime to express yourself in a way to cause offense to others.
That is 100% completely WRONG. That is the wrong way to go about law – both in theory and in practice and with respect to even the goal of maintaining public order.
You do NOT maintain order by making it illegal for people to say or do otherwise legal things that offend others.
You maintain order by making it illegal to use violence as a means to respond to the offensive expression of others.
Law that rests on speculation about the actions of 3rd parties negates free will. It presumes that Muslims or Turks or whoever is offended is inuable to restrain themselves. If that actually were the case – then people would be ungovernable – everyone would have a veto over anything anyone else communicated.
Whether you are dealing with the anglo saxon children of Brits or the illegal immigrant just off the boat, the expectation of all is supposed to be THE SAME.
You may not use violence against others EXCEPT under very limited circumstances in defense of self or others from ACTS of ACTUAL violence.
The foundation of the social contract – the basis of self government, is that we surrender the right to initiate violence against others to the state, in return for state protection against those who would initiate violence against us.
The social contract assumes that each of us is capable of controlling our own violent impulses. that we are capable of restraining ourselves from responding to offense with violence.
If you pretend that free will does not exist – then the social contract and self govenrment collapse.
Without free will – no acts of violence are wrong. Slavery is not immoral. Pretty much the entire basis for self government, and possibly all government collapses.
ANONYMOUS 1:14 PM-but you are quoting NY law, not exactly a high standard these days. Also, as I remember NY City was the most Tory loving city in the colonies back during our disagreement with the UK in 1775-1783. The more things change, the more they stay the change.
What state do you live in? Would Texas be better?
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm
The Texas statute is more restrictive than NY.
“”A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: . . . (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
AGAIN you keep citing law that references incitement,
and you ignore the FACT that SCOTUS has already made the incitement standard nearly impossible to meet.
You can not just gloss over the words in a law.
And please can we NOT revist the stupid argument that because violence resulted the prior acts MUST be incitement.
That is NOWHERE found in US law, and I would doubt it is in british law either.
Islam is fear. It’s Stockholm syndrome…
It’s pitiful.
Judges have a new favorite television program, an Apple original called The Silo. A society of people living in a silo where the “Judiciary” is a dictatorship that runs the place.
#9. Sad to be sure, but in essence that is why we are over here leaving them, over there. Worked out nicely.
Britain has crossed the Rubicon – there may be no coming back for them. Alas for the Mother Country
Actually its the Thames.
Oh for goodness sake it’s some stupid pay back for the endless wars in Mesopotamia…
The Rubicon has nothing to do with Mesopotamia.
Bring on the clowns …