Hate crime or free speech?

[JODO 2]

Koran desecration arrest flushes away free speech

Mon, 07/30/2007 - 2:45pm.

In the United States, it's legal to burn the country's flag; it's legal to put a Christian cross in a glass of urine and call it art; and it's legal to create a painting of the Virgin Mary that incorporates elephant dung. Despite the fact that many people understandably find these acts to be highly repugnant and offensive, they are protected as free speech.

Last Friday, however, a 23-year-old man was arrested on hate-crime charges after surveillance photos linked him to two incidents of throwing Korans into toilets at Pace University in New York. Granted, the behavior was offensive and inappropriate: It does not elevate the debate about Islam and terrorism.

But in the compelling interest of protecting free speech, this man's alleged Koran flushings should be treated as property crimes, not hate crimes. He appears to have taken the Korans from the university's meditation room. If true, then he should be charged with theft. If the toilets' plumbing was damaged, then he should also be charged with vandalism.

In fact, Pace University initially classified the first book flushing as an act of vandalism, but later referred it to the hate crimes unit of the New York Police Department. If the university wishes to punish such asinine behavior, then as a private university, it has the right to establish a code of conduct that takes disciplinary action against those who create a hostile environment on campus.

Free speech is essential for democracy. It doesn't require us to agree with what everyone says, but it does require us to tolerate—and even defend—the right of others to express themselves in offensive ways.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/5668

[homesick_american 1]

Retarded. He should be charged with theft, possibly vandalism....since the Korans didn't belong to him. Other than that, free speech.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Koran desecration arrest flushes away free speech

Mon, 07/30/2007 - 2:45pm.

In the United States, it's legal to burn the country's flag; it's legal to put a Christian cross in a glass of urine and call it art; and it's legal to create a painting of the Virgin Mary that incorporates elephant dung. Despite the fact that many people understandably find these acts to be highly repugnant and offensive, they are protected as free speech.

Last Friday, however, a 23-year-old man was arrested on hate-crime charges after surveillance photos linked him to two incidents of throwing Korans into toilets at Pace University in New York. Granted, the behavior was offensive and inappropriate: It does not elevate the debate about Islam and terrorism.

But in the compelling interest of protecting free speech, this man's alleged Koran flushings should be treated as property crimes, not hate crimes. He appears to have taken the Korans from the university's meditation room. If true, then he should be charged with theft. If the toilets' plumbing was damaged, then he should also be charged with vandalism.

In fact, Pace University initially classified the first book flushing as an act of vandalism, but later referred it to the hate crimes unit of the New York Police Department. If the university wishes to punish such asinine behavior, then as a private university, it has the right to establish a code of conduct that takes disciplinary action against those who create a hostile environment on campus.

Free speech is essential for democracy. It doesn't require us to agree with what everyone says, but it does require us to tolerate—and even defend—the right of others to express themselves in offensive ways.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/5668

Point has been made before that the right to free speech is not absolute.

As far as 'hate crimes' go - there's a world of difference between attacking ones own religion - and in attacking another which (in this case) represents a minority group.

[Jenn! 918]

The guy was an a$$%hole, as were those who desecrated the cross and the Virgin Mary painting, IMO. But I don't think it's a hate crime.

[^KK^ 3]

Um...why would he feel the need to flush Korans down the toilet. Doesn't he know that could clog up the toilet. I hated when the toilet get clogged up.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Retarded. He should be charged with theft, possibly vandalism....since the Korans didn't belong to him. Other than that, free speech.

Yup. There's a double standard. We must tread lightly around that religion as not to OUTRAGE certain members.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Much depends on the intent behind the message IMO. Not much of a double standard as I see it.

[almaty 19]

i agree,,it is the intent...to burn a cross in front of a minority house is a hate crime..........or to put the N word on a african-aerican garage is a hate crime....it is all in the intent

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Retarded. He should be charged with theft, possibly vandalism....since the Korans didn't belong to him. Other than that, free speech.

If putting a cross in urine, or using elephant dung to sculpt Mary is free speech, then so is vandalising a Quran, Granth, Avesta, ....

In reply to Jenn, I agree he is a chopfrack.

Edited August 1, 2007 by CherryXS

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If putting a cross in urine, or using elephant dung to sculpt Mary is free speech, then so is vandalising a Quran, Granth, Avesta, ....

I firmly believe that context defines usage, and by extension whether or not it is acceptable.

[homesick_american 1]

Retarded. He should be charged with theft, possibly vandalism....since the Korans didn't belong to him. Other than that, free speech.

Yup. There's a double standard. We must tread lightly around that religion as not to OUTRAGE certain members.

It does seem that way sometimes, yup.

[SteveLaura 0]

In the instance of the crucifix in urine, I don't doubt that the artist intended to shock. And as the link states:

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic, consecrated virgin and Catholic nun, voiced her approval of Piss Christ. She explained in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.

Much in the same way that John Lennon said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus - decrying what little value religion had at that time - it can be argued, as a Catholic nun has here, that the artist is doing much the same.

In the case of the elephant dung picture, and again from the link provided:

By now we all should know that in Africa, where the dung idea came from, elephant droppings carry none of the horrible connotations that ###### carries in New York. Before offending us all with his own bullshit, Giuliani might have troubled himself to learn about the sacred nature of pachyderms and their dung in other parts of the world.

... it appears that no offense was intended.

Finally, in this case, there are precedents at this school that provide context. From the link:

The incidents came amid a spate of vandalism cases with religious or racial overtones at the school. In an earlier incident on Sept. 21, the school reported another copy of the Quran was found in a library toilet, and in October someone scrawled racial slurs on a student's car at the Westchester County satellite campus and on a bathroom wall at the campus in lower Manhattan. Police did not connect Shmulevich to those incidents.

I don't know why this man decided to put the Koran down a toilet. But I can understand why, giving the history of events at this school, why they are investigating the possibility of a hate crime.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In the instance of the crucifix in urine, I don't doubt that the artist intended to shock. And as the link states:

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic, consecrated virgin and Catholic nun, voiced her approval of Piss Christ. She explained in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.

Much in the same way that John Lennon said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus - decrying what little value religion had at that time - it can be argued, as a Catholic nun has here, that the artist is doing much the same.

In the case of the elephant dung picture, and again from the link provided:

By now we all should know that in Africa, where the dung idea came from, elephant droppings carry none of the horrible connotations that ###### carries in New York. Before offending us all with his own bullshit, Giuliani might have troubled himself to learn about the sacred nature of pachyderms and their dung in other parts of the world.

... it appears that no offense was intended.

Finally, in this case, there are precedents at this school that provide context. From the link:

The incidents came amid a spate of vandalism cases with religious or racial overtones at the school. In an earlier incident on Sept. 21, the school reported another copy of the Quran was found in a library toilet, and in October someone scrawled racial slurs on a student's car at the Westchester County satellite campus and on a bathroom wall at the campus in lower Manhattan. Police did not connect Shmulevich to those incidents.

I don't know why this man decided to put the Koran down a toilet. But I can understand why, giving the history of events at this school, why they are investigating the possibility of a hate crime.

Also given the history of that specific incident (Guantanamo Bay), hard to believe that the one isn't somehow connected to the other.

[mawilson 2,133]

Throwing the Koran in the toilet and calling it 'art' is not the same as just throwing it in the toilet.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Throwing the Koran in the toilet and calling it 'art' is not the same as just throwing it in the toilet.

A piece of private petty vandalism is not the same creating a controversial work of art for the public consumption and discussion.

How do you think this student will justify his act - Will he be able to explain the reasoning behind it or was it purely impulsive?