h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>If you steal a bible and burn it I suspect you'd get a less stringent punishment.
>>Is 'I suspect' the same as 'there is a legal precedent that?'
Talk me through it. What are the grounds for your suspicion?>>



While people do get prosecuted for theft, I am not aware of anyone ever having been prosecuted for burning a bible.

'I am not aware of anyone ever having been prosecuted for burning a bible.'




Be aware:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=zZu63qz85nsC&pg=PA464&lpg=PA464&dq=bible+burning+%60prosecution&source=bl&ots=KwlG0P4HHt&sig=RIQW4ItMYMKWNxoXbIiSH7J3b8U&hl=en&ei=kB-xTefoC-ru0gGX7tU4&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bible%20burning%20%60prosecution&f=false

Not withstanding your link to a webpage about a book on blasphemy, as far as I am aware (and I admit I could be wrong) no-one in modern Britain has ever been arrested for burning a bible.

I'm not saying people should be arrested for burning bibles. I just think there should be equal treatment. If you wouldn't be arrested for burning a bible, you shouldn't be arrested for burning a quran, either.

This is my point, WG. You suspect it would attract a lesser penalty - but you're unaware of any instances of its occurrence, let alone any smaller penalties.

So on what do you base your suspicion? Must be something.

And it should be repeated ONCE AGAIN: A man was convicted for *stealing* a book, but nobody was convicted specifically for *burning* one. That in itself would not have been illegal.* The burning was an element of a wider act of religiously aggravated harassment which included yelling anti-Muslim slogans in a busy shopping street.





*Not quite. ~You stole library property...and then you *destroyed* it?!!!!~

Frs:
>>Absolutely. Free speech goes to the heart of it.

Provided it stops short of harassment and/or incitement. Surely to Christ you can see that we might want to discourage those? Don't be so one-dimensional!




(I'll concede that it will always be a risky judgement call as to when the line is crossed. Hey ho. Life ain't straightforward)

btw,,,I'm sure I think of a long, long list of legal limitations on free speech that you'll heartily approve of. Shall we give it a try? If I'm right (I'm not!) the Free Speech objection in this case might start to look bizarrely selective.

I think we've done this one to death.

You draw your line and I draw mine. But what counts most is that we have a kind of stupid dream about freedom..and we don't need to go on about it like the yanks...

Lets have a stout old sing song..

My old man said follow the van...and don't dilly dally on the way

....

we dillied, we dallied, we dallied and dillied...

I seem to remember that someone said the courts will not allow you to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. This is a danger to other people. They will however allow you to burn the national flag if it poses no risk to onlookers.

Freedom of speech vs freedom of thought:

I shall place thee on the North Pole and allow thee the freedom to
point in any direction ...

And I will point along any meridian I like. The joy of freedom.

I hope you provide warm clothing though

Just re-watched one of the annual BBC last night of the Proms singing of "Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free...

I always think of Mum putting the kettle on...

If people really can't think of any valid limitations on free speech, they're *very* unimaginative.
- Perjury?
- False representation in advertising?
- Hoax calls to te fire brigade?
- Etc.

Should I be allowed to post leaflets through Effers' neighbours' doors claiming that she took a dump on the Cenotaph, followed up by burning her in effigy? Maybe so, so long as recipients, knowing her to be the sweet soul that she is, can be trusted not to take it seriously. But I don't think a magistrate can make that judgement. Nor Effers, btw: What if I pick on someone else next time?

I'd have complete confidence that my neighbours would assume such a thing was the work of a nutjob weirdo.

Fair enough.

*But* what if it came in the wake of a sustained media campaign against you?

That's not really my point, though. Magitrates can't be in the business of making subjective judgements of your neighbours' gullibility or willingness to think ill of you.

Hell - I'd believe it!

Crikey you really do have a low opinion of people.

And no I don't really have a cue about your point.

Then try think, dearie.

Surely the whole point of the law is that we can't always trust people? Or did I miss something?

I thought the reason for law is you need some Authority you can quote to avoid anarchy.
For example: You can not steal my lawnmower because the City will put you in Jail.
without that anytime your grass got long you would just take it. Mow your lawn then swing by the pawn shop and sell the lawnmower.

But the real question is not is it legal- but is it wrong.
It may be legal to burn a flag in protest gbut it is still wrong.
And it may be legal to burn a copy of the Quran (assuming you own the copy) but it is still wrong.