Fox news priest: ban satanic masses in the name of "freedom of speech"

[Askold]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/fox-news-priest-demands-government-ban-satanic-masses-in-the-name-of-free-speech/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/21/satanic-group-plans-mass-that-includes-denouncing-jesus-christ-stomping-on-host/

Boohoo! The freedom of speech should only concern stuff that I want to say...

“But what if I want to go and desecrate a Koran out in front of my church?” Father Morris asked. “What if I want to speak pro-Nazi stuff right in front of my church and get people all fired up on a public sidewalk? I think at some point government has to step in the name of free speech.”

Yes. Because Father Jonathan Morris is not allowed to desecrate Koran then satanists shouldn't be allowed to desecrate the host...

Actually, am I crazy or does that bit make sense? WHY is it ok for the satanists to desecrate christian symbols when desecrating other religious symbols is not allowed? There was an outburst when that one priest (I can't be bothered to check if it was this guy because then this would be really ironic) wanted to burn Koran and I think it was cancelled. But now this is protected by free speech?

[Art Vandelay]

Is Koran burning actually illegal? Because really, that's bullshit on the government's part.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Is Koran burning actually illegal? Because really, that's bullshit on the government's part.

I would agree with that.  Either you ban the burning of all religious texts, or none at all.

[Veras]

Koran burning is not illegal.  At least no more illegal than burning something in public is anyway.  It is allowed in the name of free speech, as is the massive public outcry against the action.

[Cerim Treascair]

The reason folks got all up in arms over the Koran burning was because we were involved and currently in the middle of fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yes, by all means, burn it, piss off the extremists and probably the moderates and put the soldiers over there in even more danger.  Fucking moron...

[Sigmaleph]

“But what if I want to go and desecrate a Koran out in front of my church?” Father Morris asked. “What if I want to speak pro-Nazi stuff right in front of my church and get people all fired up on a public sidewalk? I think at some point government has to step in the name of free speech.”

Then you are probably an asshole, but you should still be legally allowed to do so. Unless you get them "fired up" enough to actually harm someone, in which case you are definitely an asshole and the legal matter gets more complicated.

Father Morris argues this isn't covered by free speech because it's incitement to violence, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't work (not a lawyer though). It's very hard to argue that the event was offensive enough one should predict people will get violent (especially now, considering the event already happened and it didn't get much more violent than the standard protest).

As an aside, the obvious incentive argument: if you ban speech that provokes its opponents (rather than its adherents) to violence, you are essentially rewarding people for getting violent by shutting up speech they dislike. The sort of situation laws should avoid.

[Ultimate Paragon]

“But what if I want to go and desecrate a Koran out in front of my church?” Father Morris asked. “What if I want to speak pro-Nazi stuff right in front of my church and get people all fired up on a public sidewalk? I think at some point government has to step in the name of free speech.”

Then you are probably an asshole, but you should still be legally allowed to do so. Unless you get them "fired up" enough to actually harm someone, in which case you are definitely an asshole and the legal matter gets more complicated.

Father Morris argues this isn't covered by free speech because it's incitement to violence, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't work (not a lawyer though). It's very hard to argue that the event was offensive enough one should predict people will get violent (especially now, considering the event already happened and it didn't get much more violent than the standard protest).

As an aside, the obvious incentive argument: if you ban speech that provokes its opponents (rather than its adherents) to violence, you are essentially rewarding people for getting violent by shutting up speech they dislike. The sort of situation laws should avoid.

That seems like a good analysis to me.

[Ironchew]

Yes. Because Father Jonathan Morris is not allowed to desecrate Koran then satanists shouldn't be allowed to desecrate the host...

We're not allowed to desecrate religious scriptures? What?

Actually, am I crazy or does that bit make sense? WHY is it ok for the satanists to desecrate christian symbols when desecrating other religious symbols is not allowed? There was an outburst when that one priest (I can't be bothered to check if it was this guy because then this would be really ironic) wanted to burn Koran and I think it was cancelled. But now this is protected by free speech?

If this is the same guy that wanted to burn the huge pile of Korans, he decided not to if I remember correctly. Personally, I have environmental objections to burning books. The book is effectively destroyed while sequestering the carbon content if you bury it instead.

[I am lizard]

Pretty sure the destruction of books in General is wrong from am ethics perspective,.

[Witchyjoshy]

From what I recall, if you provoke someone to attack you, you're to blame in that scenario, legally speaking.

An by "provoke" I mean "directly and intentionally."  Or at least that's what it should mean.  I could be talking out of my ass though.

So stuff like "Your mother sucks cocks in hell" right after that person visited a funeral for their mother?  Totally your fault.
Stuff like "*walks like a gay person*" is not your fault.

Of course, that doesn't excuse murder, and it doesn't excuse the reaction to previous Quran burnings.

Too many people, like that egotistical priest, seem to think that free speech means "I get to say whatever I want, and you don't get to say anything bad about what I said."

By definition, free speech cannot violate free speech.

As far as book burning itself goes, I oppose it on the principle that it's a form of censorship of ideas.

[Dakota Bob]

Sorry Mr Morris, being offended doesn't mean the government is obligated to make the "evil" satanists go away.

[I am lizard]

From what I recall, if you provoke someone to attack you, you're to blame in that scenario, legally speaking.

An by "provoke" I mean "directly and intentionally."  Or at least that's what it should mean.  I could be talking out of my ass though.

So stuff like "Your mother sucks cocks in hell" right after that person visited a funeral for their mother?  Totally your fault.
Stuff like "*walks like a gay person*" is not your fault.

Of course, that doesn't excuse murder, and it doesn't excuse the reaction to previous Quran burnings.

Too many people, like that egotistical priest, seem to think that free speech means "I get to say whatever I want, and you don't get to say anything bad about what I said."

By definition, free speech cannot violate free speech.

As far as book burning itself goes, I oppose it on the principle that it's a form of censorship of ideas.

I don't think you can be prosecuted for provoking an attack with speech.

[Ironchew]

From what I recall, if you provoke someone to attack you, you're to blame in that scenario, legally speaking.

I hope not. I still want to draw Mohammed every now and then.

Exploiting an expected reaction from responsible people is illegal (the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario.) Death threats with demonstrable intent are illegal. Allegedly inciting violence is different. If someone attacks you because of words you said, the attacker is always to blame.

[I am lizard]

I've also heard that telling someone to kill themselves is illegal and you can be charged with 3rd degree murder if they do. 

[Barbarella]

Banning Satanic Masses to preserve Freedom of Speech....

Fr. Morris is the guy on the rocket.