The Rude Pundit: Koran Burning, the First Amendment ...

[meegbear]

and the Right to Be a Fucktard

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution allows one, nay, encourages one to be a total fucking douchebag asshole in support of whatever fucktarded cause one and one's yahoo posse want to hoot and holler over. It's that simple. It's that cut and dried. And the reason it encourages such behavior is that judging who is a total fucking douchebag asshole and whose cause is fucktarded is in the eye and ear of the beholder. For, indeed, one could have argued that blacks in the Jim Crow south who were peaceably assembling at lunch counters were the assholes. And one could argue the opposite. Many people considered the Chicago Eight a bunch of unAmerican hippie cocksuckers who deserved only imprisonment, if not exile. One could argue that Gregory Lee Johnson was a complete cunt for burning an American flag outside the Dallas City Hall during the Republican National Convention in 1984. But the Supreme Court said in 1989 that his level of cuntishness didn't matter. What mattered was that it was speech (with even Scalia agreeing). And that as such, go fuck yourself with your precious little hurt feelings.

That's the deal. That's why you say rights are rights. As New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has emerged as this passionate advocate for free speech, said, "The First Amendment protects everybody, and you can't say that we're going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement." Bloomberg was commenting on Pastor Yosemite Sam's plan to burn a pile of Korans outside his shitty little church in Gainesville, Florida.

And you know who else is right? Fucking Pastor Yosemite Sam himself. Yeah, he's a hateful redneck son of a donkey ass-fucker (more or less). But read what he says on the church's website about why he's burning a Koran:

"In a day and age where ideas are confined to 140 character tweets, the violence of modern films dulls our senses, and the attention of most is on the frivolous dribble of celebrity gossip, sports and weather, we all know how much it takes to grab our attention." Argue if you want as to whether the weather is "frivolous" information, but if he was talking about burning Cheney in effigy, most of us would be cheering him.

Sam adds, "A small church, in a small town, down a back road, burning copies of its own books, on its own property, is not responsible for the violent actions anyone may take in retaliation to our protest." And, painful as it is to say these things, that motherfucker is right. If some stoked up vet beats the shit out of someone who burns an American flag, is the flag burner responsible for his beating? Principles are principles. And, frankly, fear of stirring violence isn't a good enough reason to restrict even idiotic speech.

Now the flip side is that free speech allows us to condemn the actions of the Dove World Outreach Center and all the people supporting International Burn a Koran Day. It allows us to call them fucktarded. It allows, say, the Rude Pundit to start a Facebook group. One that's called, for the sake of argument, and for shits and giggles, "Burn a Bible on Christmas." It's a stupid and childish response to a stupid and childish action. God or Allah or Whoever or Nobody bless the First Amendment for allowing us to "nyaah" in response to their "nyaah." And, perhaps, it might drive a few fundamentalists over at the Dove Center a little nutsy.

So join up. Shit, it's Facebook. No one's gonna check to see if you actually burn a Bible. But it's saying back to Pastor Yosemite Sam, "Yeah, we got your free speech right here." And the cool part? We do.

(By the way, as far as General Petraeus saying that Pastor Yosemite Sam shouldn't exercise his right to free speech because it might endanger our troops in Afghanistan, oh, sweet General, what endangers our troops in Afghanistan is having troops in Afghanistan.)

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[Fumesucker]

1. Pastor Yosemite Sam...

:rofl: The rude one has a nice turn of phrase..

[Flubadubya]

2. Well, he's right...

this fundie bigot has just as much right to burn his copy of the Koran as the Park51 project has of proceeding without a hitch. It's that simple.

[Kweli4Real]

7. Please don't even try it ...

They both have the right to do their particular act; but for completely different reasons. The Park51 Project is not an expression of political speech ... it's not speech at all. It's not even an exercise of the Establishment Clause; the Project is merely the exercise of property rights. It only becomes an Establishment Clause issue when we try to defend (or when the detractors attempt to prevent) this commercial transaction on 1st Amendment grounds.

I submit this is a corruption of the U.S. Constitution ... but more disturbingly, another example of liberal/progressives allowing others to define the rules of engagement. And when one allows this, one is well down the road to defeat.

[WinkyDink]

3. Now let's hear the arguments against the RP! I dares yas!

[FlyByNight]

4. "Yeah, he's a hateful...

...redneck son of a donkey ass-fucker (more or less)."

:rofl:

Kidding aside, the shocking, vulgar ignorance of this knuckle-dragging "pastor" astounds me (although it probably shouldn't); the corporate media seem to have done their "job" all too well. This "pastor" is nothing but a mentally retrograde carnival barker looking for some attention for his blissfully stupid flock.

Once again, the Rude One nails it.

[gratuitous]

5. Uh oh

I have it on reliable authority that this constitutes the Rude Pundit "applauding" the actions of Mr. Jones. Prepare yourself, Mr. Pundit. Those who know the limits of free speech will be upon you!

[dgibby]

6. I have no problem with the First Amendment;

however, if the Govt believes he represents a threat to the Troops, could he be charged with aiding the enemy or something covered by the Patriot Act?

[ceveritt]

8. Pretty unlikely—

although I don't know enough about the execrable Pat. Act to speak with any authority.

The First Amendment must work for everyone, regardless if we disagree with their point of view, or they with ours. There can be no exceptions (except the really moronic ones, such as yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater—that does not, never has, never will fall under protected speech).

The point here is not so much about the First Amendment. It's about a hateful old man, who pretends to be a man of the cloth, who wants to burn Qurans out of sheer hatred, stupidity and bloody-mindedness. Unhappily, there are no laws to take care of that. Unless, of course, it creates an air pollution problem. ...

I fully realize this is an impossibility: However, if everyone, including the media, simply ignored this foul bigot, that would be the best solution. Such gormless goons hate being ignored, and is sufficient punishment.

[billh58]

9. Common Misquote

The common misquoting of Justice Holmes' opinion in Schenck vs. United States misses the entire point of the statement (and the opinion) by omitting the word "falsely."

"The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous."

"Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

In this case, falsely claiming that the Islamic faith and its adherents worldwide (as opposed to a few religious fanatics) are responsible for the 9/11 attack, would not seem to be "protected speech" for yet another set of religious fanatics. The actual burning of Qurans is symbolic in nature, and only subject to local Fire Codes. The message the act is intended to convey, however, is patently false, and therefore most likely not protected by the First Amendment.

There are indeed recognized and reasonable limits to, and on, "Free Speech" and ALL other so-called "inalienable" Constitutional Rights.