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

[Cerim Treascair]

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.

The old phrase 'them's fightin' words' comes to mind.  Provocation, at the least, making you at least partially liable... It's why they have things like 'aggravated' assault as a crime.

[Art Vandelay]

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

Maybe in the middle ages, but in this day and age of not only mass printing but also internet, it's pretty inconsequential.

[Sigmaleph]

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.

There is a "fighting words" limitation to free speech, though as far as I can tell it's very narrowly applied (still not a lawyer).

[Danarth]

Personally, I don't believe in burning books either.

I am, on the other hand, I do believe in recycling.

[Nemo]

Free speech should rule in this case. I don't care if it hurts somebody's feeeeelings. An idea which must be protected from criticism with violence is not an idea which is worth holding. So, to answer this priest, yes, the satanic parody mass should be permitted, as should your Quran burning. And if anyone tries to react with violence to either group, let them have it with the full force of the law.

[Art Vandelay]

Free speech should rule in this case. I don't care if it hurts somebody's feeeeelings. An idea which must be protected from criticism with violence is not an idea which is worth holding. So, to answer this priest, yes, the satanic parody mass should be permitted, as should your Quran burning. And if anyone tries to react with violence to either group, let them have it with the full force of the law.

Damn straight.

[Dakota Bob]

Free speech should rule in this case. I don't care if it hurts somebody's feeeeelings. An idea which must be protected from criticism with violence is not an idea which is worth holding. So, to answer this priest, yes, the satanic parody mass should be permitted, as should your Quran burning. And if anyone tries to react with violence to either group, let them have it with the full force of the law.

Yep, absolutely this.