Should Sinead O'Connor been jailed for "hate speech" back in 1992?

[apocalypsehow]

Story here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Saturday_Night_Live_performance

[Modern_Matthew]

1. No. I disagree with the whole notion of hate speech. nt

[Goblinmonger]

2. Who's the person who voted yes?

Has to be someone trying to stir the shit.

If that's hate speech, we're all fucked.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

3. unrec for stupid irrelevant post.

[apocalypsehow]

6. Why, thank you very much, Hannah. Your input is appreciated. n/t.

[pintobean]

23. Recced. Stupid is why it's relevant

:rofl:

[piratefish08]

51. recc'ed again. VERY relevant.

[blondeatlast]

4. Robb is a dingbat. nt

[baldguy]

5. How many people did rampaging Catholics kill because of her actions?

[dems_rightnow]

8. Assume for a moment that they did.

Wild-eyed enraged Catholics killed a dozen people. Assume it.

Would it have been her fault?

[baldguy]

25. If a reasonable person could forsee such an outcome - yes.

Incitement of violence is a crime.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. No, actually, saying something that might piss people off

even if you know it might piss people off

is NOT a crime.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. So it's 'hate speech' only if people overreact?

violently?

[Sky Masterson]

7. I voted no.

But as I recall the SNL Pope picture rip didn't offend Catholics enough to kill Irish people over it.
(

[apocalypsehow]

9. So, it only becomes "hate speech" if someone gets killed? Interesting. n/t.

[Sky Masterson]

10. No.

Hate is hate no matter how you dress it.

[Lost-in-FL]

12. +1, nt

[apocalypsehow]

20. That's a tautology, and not particularly constructive in the context of this discussion. n/t.

[Lost-in-FL]

11. Hers was a genuine focus to protest the church, not of instigating a bunch of religious nuts.

If this poll is about the current riots in Afghanistan due to the burning of the Quran in Florida, I can argue that this particular example is misguided at best. It is not the same.
There was an intent to harm and not to demonstrate peacefully against a religion one disagrees.

[apocalypsehow]

19. Terry Jones says his is a genuine focus to protest Islamic extremism. It is PRECISELY the same set

of circumstances in the context of giving offense (desecrating a "holy image"), and who was offended (a large body of believers worldwide).

"There was an intent to harm and not to demonstrate peacefully against a religion one disagrees"

Sez you. Jones and his cruddy ilk say that's not their intent at all.

[Lost-in-FL]

26. Desecrating a picture of the pope same as burning the Quran... Umhum... yeah... exactly the same.

:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

27. Feel free to add something substantive at any time. n/t.

[riderinthestorm]

29. See that's the thing, we've already "grown" as a culture and understand the difference

I'm dead cert that in earlier cultures that type of heresy against the Catholic Church would have produced the same results but we have outgrown that.

For some backwards Islamic societies, it's the same. Obviously the same.

[bigwillq]

13. No (nt)

[The Northerner]

14. No, her actions are protected under the 1st Amendment

There are no exceptions for blasphemy or desecrating one's religious private property.

[dipsydoodle]

21. Its a curious state of affairs

if a foreigner could claim protection under your Constitution given that its not worth a light outside of the USA. :shrug:

[JaneQPublic]

15. Is it hate speech when you're a member of the group you're offending...

...and your offensive language toward said group is in response to an assault on you by a leader of that group?

Sinead O'Connor was raised as a Catholic and was sexually assaulted by a priest when she was younger. Her appearance where she tore up the picture of the pope was her response to those occurrences.

This is far from a parallel situation to Rev. Jones and the Koran burning.

[apocalypsehow]

24. So, we shift premises again: now it's not just the ACT of desecration/blasphemy that is "hate speech

," nor is it whether someone is killed/injured in the aftermath, but rather whether the person committing the "desecration/blasphemy" is a "member" (at the time O'Connor was not a practicing Catholic, BTW) of the "group" that is offended?

So, if Salman Rushdie, let's say, burned a Koran and the same reaction took place overseas, i.e., several people were killed by a mob claiming to be "incited" by that action, your position is that Rushdie would nevertheless get a pass on the "hate speech" charge because he, too, is a Muslim?

I gotta tell you: trying to keep up with all these shifting premises and "yes, but" exceptions I keep hearing - the latter being part & parcel of the logical fallacy special pleading - keep me plum tuckered out, I reckon. :crazy:

[JaneQPublic]

28. You ignored the second part of my question...

... where I asked: and is it hate speech when "...your offensive language toward said group is in response to an assault on you by a leader of that group?" The main thrust of my comment was that Sinead's beef with the pope was that she was sexually abused by a priest when she was younger and she held the pope responsible for that crime.

When taking my entire comment into account, your Salman Rushdie analogy doesn't fit.

But isn't fun finding that page listing all the logical fallacies and picking out one to pin on each person who disagrees with you?

BTW, according to the link in your OP, Sinead has said that, at the time of the SNL show, she was "in rebellion against the faith, but still within the faith."

[apocalypsehow]

47. I ignored nothing, and my Rushdie analogy fits perfectly. BTW, you shifted your premises. *Again*.

"But isn't fun finding that page listing all the logical fallacies and picking out one to pin on each person who disagrees with you?"

Not as fun as spotting the posters who obviously don't click through to those same pages defining said logical fallacies, and take a little time to bone up on them. I get that a lot....

[JaneQPublic]

49. And you proved nothing.

Simply stating something doesn't make it so. Without evidence or an argument, your response is the equivalent of "Nuh-uh. Did not!"

And in your "Not as much fun as..." statement, you basically restated what I originally suggested you were doing, not offering something different.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Unrec for anti DU flamebait and raising a strawman issue

[apocalypsehow]

22. Your analysis, my friend, is always much cherished by me: thank you for the reply. n/t.

[tekisui]

17. Of course not.

Destroying images or replications of religious texts are not in and of them self hate speech. Something like burning a cross in an African-American's yard would be hate speech. Spray painting swastikas in Jewish cemeteries or on Jewish homes would be hate speech.

Ripping a picture of the pope and burning books are protected forms of expression. If those acts were accompanied with more words or actions, it could rise to hate speech. If when the Quran was burned, there was an explicit 'call to arms' or any promotion of violence, it could be seen as hate speech.

As it is, we are free to burn or rip anything we want. They are all symbols. Like the flag, symbols are free to be used as symbols. Free to be destroyed as a practice of expression.

[The Northerner]

18. I agree

Desecrating your own religious private property is protected BUT desecrating another person's religious private property should never be condoned.

[JCMach1]

30. Hell no, she was right about a political issue: pedophilia

among the priesthood.

[Ramulux]

31. What?

Is this in reference to something else that happened, because I dont see how anyone could possibly think what she did should be illegal.

[JI7]

32. There is no comparison of what O'Connor did to that guy burning the Quran

and i agree that guy has a right to do what he did and he is not responsible for the killings over what he did.

but what Sinead O'Connor did were not done for the same reasons as that Quron burning guy did.

[upi402]

33. how so? n/t

[donheld]

36. The Koran is a Holy Book, Sinead tore up a picture.

[Frank Cannon]

38. The Koran is a book full of fairy tales, as is the Bible and, for that matter, Dianetics.

I have never understood why we have to protect the delicate sensibilities of people who stake their lives in fantasies. We don't give a shit about telling kids the truth about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

This world would be a lot better if it were a lot less religiously insane.

[The Straight Story]

39. I feel the same way about atheists, like China's leaders, etc through history

Plenty of wars and hate without religion, but nice try. I consider what you said hate speech, should I go stab someone up now :)

[Frank Cannon]

42. Any extremism that causes someone to abandon reason and civility is bad.

And yeah, I might put your hardcore atheists in that category, as well.

But I would submit that religious nutjobs cause a lot more problems in this country (and this world) than atheists do.

[toddaa]

43. Burning books is political speech

I could go down to the local B&N, buy a Quran, take it home, and toss it on the old Weber grill. No one would give a shit. Putting on a show in front of the media is a different matter. It's the political motivation of the burners that disturbs me.

While I find most religious belief to be nonsense, I do think that the intense anti Islamic rhetoric that is being fomented by the right disturbing. Islam is an easy target due to its extremists, but I still find the local batshit insane fundamentalist Evangelical to be the greatest threat to me and my family.

[apocalypsehow]

48. It's not a "Holy" book to me, while an image of the Vicar of Christ is sacred to millions upon

millions of Catholics.

And who says 'A' must say 'B'....see how that works? :shrug: If Jones gets sanctioned for his hateful expression, so does O'Connor.

Starting to grasp why we don't let religious objections and terms such as "it was a holy book/picture/object" interfere with our civil liberties? Or do you still think folks who desecrate "holy" images like "Sinead" (are you on a first-name basis with the singer?) and that moron in Florida did should be sanctioned with some kind of penalties?

[Loudmxr]

37. she was talking about child abuse ... which turned out to be ... RIGHT!!!

[Dorian Gray]

41. If you think

Terry Jones should go to jail, you should think she should have been prosecuted as well. (I don't think either.) I wonder if the four yes votes are consistent.

[dembotoz]

44. my only wish is that we had understood what she was singing about

saw a back stage snl special a few weeks back and they promoed what Sinead did rather heavily.
I watched the whole damn thing to find out they were mad at her.....

just another reason i have not watched snl in years

[justiceischeap]

45. It seems folks aren't taking into consideration what it was like to grow up in Ireland

I could see how her environment led to her feelings about the subject. That said, she takes back what she did, apologizes for it and claims it was a mistake. (Paraphrasing from what I've read from her)

If anyone did that now, she would be opposed to it.

As far as the underlying question, hate speech should not be protected by the 1st amendment. However, then we have to figure out who polices the speech and makes the decision on whether it was hateful or not. I definitely think that if a direct statement causes the death of someone, and it's hateful and inflaming then it becomes hate speech. For example, Hitler talking about the Jews, that's hate speech. Westboro Baptist, only if it leads directly to the death of someone. That would be my barometer.

[CBGLuthier]

46. I truly fear those who vote yes.

[wellst0nev0ter]

50. How Many Catholic Countries Were We Occupying And Robobombing Back Then? n/t

[Bake]

52. Holy crap! SEVEN people voted YES???

WTF!!!

Bake