Althouse: A Metafilter thread that begins as a celebration of a skateboarder who took a Koran from a Christian who was planning to burn it devolves into a discussion of theft.

September 13, 2010

A Metafilter thread that begins as a celebration of a skateboarder who took a Koran from a Christian who was planning to burn it devolves into a discussion of theft.

"Why are you even interested in a 'theft' angle? Why would that be a priority for you? That's what I don't immediately see."

Ha. It's America, man. We actually care about the rule of law... and the general principles embodied therein.

50 comments:

Moose said...: I'd be impressed if a skateboarder stole a flag from a leftie group planning on burning it.

Meh.; 9/13/10, 11:23 AM
1charlie2 said...: Once again, a progressive idiot embraces "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

And this is how freedom dies, not with a shout but with a whisper.; 9/13/10, 11:27 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Funny.

Like I said, I am no fan of book burnings. I am no fan of theft either, or quashing free speech, but this is more humorous than anything.

Burning flags and books is childish.

But there is a serious side to all of this. Let's remember it was people who were burning on 9.11.01. Don't forget that. That is what we need to resist and fight. That form of extremism.; 9/13/10, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: The fact that Nutso Preacher was about to burn the book before Spicoli took it away from him makes it hard to get too interested in the theft angle.; 9/13/10, 11:43 AM
Diamondhead said...: "The fact that Nutso Preacher was about to burn the book before Spicoli took it away from him makes it hard to get too interested in the theft angle."

So you're in favor of taking criminal action in order to suppress the peaceful free expression of opponents.; 9/13/10, 11:55 AM
dbp said...: The skater dude is lionized in the Metafilter thread, but really he is an enemy of free speech. He committed theft in order to prevent the Christian from engaging in his planned speech.

One comment really encapsulates the short-sightedness of most of the thread posters:

"...but yet I'm sure a lot of people would be up in arms if there was a Bible-burning, no?"

Yes, but none of the posters on the Metafilter thread would have had any bad things to say about a Bible burner. Because that is offending to people who deserve to be offended.; 9/13/10, 12:00 PM
Skyler said...: Their complaint is that burning a koran is to show hate?

But I recall that christians are called upon to hate evil. Once a year in Catholic liturgy, we had to recite that we hated satan and all that he stood for.

I'm an atheist and I'm not sure what satan is in the real world, but the message is clear that you are supposed to hate evil.

I submit that people that bury women up to their necks and then kill them by throwing rocks at their heads are evil. I make no apology for saying I hate them. And their stupid book.

I had no interest in burning a koran, mostly because I don't want to give them money by buying one, but I'm all in favor of it now.

We're in a religious war, but we don't seem to notice it.; 9/13/10, 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: "...but yet I'm sure a lot of people would be up in arms if there was a Bible-burning, no?"

And you would see Christians rioting in the street and you would see beheadings. That's why nobody does it. They're scared of the violent reaction they'd get.; 9/13/10, 12:13 PM
Sigivald said...: Burning books might well be childish, but it sure as hell is speech.

When an individual does it, with their property, they're basically speaking as loud as possible about their opinion of the target.

Stealing their property to prevent that is specifically trying to silence that speech, because one disapproves of it.

Why MetaFilter posters can't even understand that speech-they-don't-like is still speech, and part of The American Experiment, well... is not even surprising, really.

MetaFilter is worthless, after all.; 9/13/10, 12:47 PM
jimspice said...: Aw crimeny! None of you had any problem with silencing speech when it was nutjobs screaming down the opposition at town hall meetings. This is no threat to free speech. It is not the government doing the tamping. Sure, it's theft, but if a Koran get's stolen in the woods and there's no one there to press charges...; 9/13/10, 1:25 PM
Michael said...: Stealing a Koran (Qu'oran) is not a crime if done to save it. Killing someone for desecrating it is not a crime either. Celebration called for.; 9/13/10, 1:33 PM
knighterrant said...: If it is theft to take a Koran about to be burned is it not also arson to burn that Koran?

It burning a book is "free speech" is not preventing that book's burning also freedom of speech?; 9/13/10, 1:34 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: The skateboarder is violating Islamic law too, as non-Muslims aren't even supposed to touch the Koran.

Very culturally insensitive.; 9/13/10, 1:38 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: Isn't this just a twist on the civil disobedience the Republicans have been encouraging? The public has to take things into their own hands, guns, bibles, korans, etc. and over-throw what we dislike.; 9/13/10, 1:38 PM
Diamondhead said...: KnightErrant, you might want to find a dictionary before you start tossing around big complicated words like...arson. To save you the trouble, though, arson is burning someone else's property. See the difference?; 9/13/10, 1:38 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It burning a book is "free speech" is not preventing that book's burning also freedom of speech?

Not if its my book. Then its called theft.

An equivalent analogy would be if I grabbed some pregnant girl in an abortion clinic waiting room and held her in confinement until she came to term in order to save her unborn child. I doubt many on the left would see the nobility in saving a human child and instead jump for joy when I was convicted for kidnapping and false imprisonment.; 9/13/10, 1:48 PM
knighterrant said...: Re Diamondhead: "arson is burning someone else's property"

So, it is perfectly legal for me to burn my own warehouse, eh?

Since you are a stickler for language the 'Lectric Law Library begins: "a criminal offense occurring when a person intentionally sets fire to or burns something"; 9/13/10, 1:51 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Isn't this just a twist on the civil disobedience the Republicans have been encouraging?

Not even close. Last time I checked there has been a dearth of 'rightwing violence' but rather a lot of anticipation of going to the polls in November. I mean its really neat how you tried to tie in electorate dissatisfaction with our goverment (which prior to Obama was called true patriotism) to some nimrod stealing someone else's property to protect an inanimate object.; 9/13/10, 1:51 PM
Diamondhead said...: Yeah, if you're trying to commit some other crime, like fraud. Under your definition, it is illegal to burn a piece of firewood, or to incinerate your garbage, or to light a fucking cigarette, genius.; 9/13/10, 1:54 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Since you are a stickler for language the 'Lectric Law Library begins: "a criminal offense occurring when a person intentionally sets fire to or burns something"

Please be sure to include the rest of the definition since yours would clearly criminalize anyone lighting up a Marlboro or a candle.; 9/13/10, 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: So you're in favor of taking criminal action in order to suppress the peaceful free expression of opponents.

Not really; just pointing out that Nutso Preacher would have ceased to be the owner of a Koran within a few minutes either way, which lowers the stakes a bit. Though it makes me grin to think of Spicoli opening his new book to the page where it says his hand is supposed to be cut off for stealing it.; 9/13/10, 1:59 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: If it is theft to take a Koran about to be burned is it not also arson to burn that Koran?

Probably not - but it depends on the specific definition of arson in the relevant jurisdiction. My memory on the bar exam is that arson typically requires the burning of a building.

Now, there may be ordinances that would be violated by the burning if a license hadn't been acquired before then.

It burning a book is "free speech" is not preventing that book's burning also freedom of speech?

But keep in mind that freedom of speech involves state intervention to prevent the speech.

Yes, you could argue that enforcing larceny laws could stifle free speech here, but that would likely not prevail. The reason is that they would be applied in a content neutral way.

In other words, the 1st Amdt (made applicable to the states through incorporation by the 14th) is not a license to violate any law you wish to in order to make a point.; 9/13/10, 2:01 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Now if it were an American flag that was about to be torched and someone stole it, you can be sure the left would be demanding an APB for the thief.; 9/13/10, 2:08 PM
knighterrant said...: We here in Southern California (wildfire capital of the world) don't take the issue of gratuitously setting fires lightly.

Here, setting fire to weeds in your backyard is illegal and, if the Santa Ana winds are blowing, can get people killed.

Where I come from, snatching the fuel away from someone trying to set a fire is not theft but an act of heroism.; 9/13/10, 2:11 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Where I come from, snatching the fuel away from someone trying to set a fire is not theft but an act of heroism.

That's nice but it wasn't really the basis of your original comment which was the thief was really expressing his free speech rights.

It burning a book is "free speech" is not preventing that book's burning also freedom of speech?

I mean if where you are from is such a tinderbox, I wonder why any open flame (grills, cigarettes, candles etc) would not be outlawed.; 9/13/10, 2:20 PM
Michael said...: roesch-voltaire: You should hope not given the left's lack of guns, ammo and balls.; 9/13/10, 2:22 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: Hoosier I am all for voter dissatisfaction and expressing it at the polls, but not for the way the "sovereign citizens" like Jerry and Joe Kane express their dissatisfaction, nor for the veiled threats from Sharron Angle who calls for us to exercise our "Second Amendment remedies."; 9/13/10, 2:48 PM
Palladian said...: "It burning a book is "free speech" is not preventing that book's burning also freedom of speech?"

Don't trust anyone who puts "free speech" in scare quotes.

"Where I come from, snatching the fuel away from someone trying to set a fire is not theft but an act of heroism."

Where you come from (Southern California), people have a lot of stupid ideas.; 9/13/10, 3:01 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier I am all for voter dissatisfaction and expressing it at the polls, but not for the way the "sovereign citizens" like Jerry and Joe Kane express their dissatisfaction, nor for the veiled threats from Sharron Angle who calls for us to exercise our "Second Amendment remedies."

Yes and I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of Tea Party folks and conservatives don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Sharon Angles comments can be construed as much as other politicians marching hand in hand with protestors screaming NO JUSTICE NO PEACE.

Sorry R-V but its not the 'right wing' or the Tea Party you see throwing rocks and at cops at demonstrations. Its not the Tea party or right wing that's trashing Starbucks and any business that has the gall to make a profit.

Joe and Jerry Kane have a lot more in common with the ski mask adorned leftwing anarchists who show up torching cars at every economic summit than they do with conservatives.; 9/13/10, 3:02 PM
Michael said...: Absolutely no threats, no second amendment remedies, but if, on the other hand, you don't permit me to build my mosque where I wish then we might well have world war three.; 9/13/10, 3:20 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: I wonder which wing sent the chairmen of the Delaware Republican Party a death threat for being a "ass-kicking RINO,"; 9/13/10, 3:31 PM
Thorley Winston said...: Since you are a stickler for language the 'Lectric Law Library begins: "a criminal offense occurring when a person intentionally sets fire to or burns something"

Since Texas is the relevant jurisdiction, why not just use the actual definition from the statute?; 9/13/10, 3:38 PM
Bender said...: The reporting is ambiguous as to exactly what happened, but it sounds like it went beyond mere theft and might constitute robbery, a much more serious felony. Of course, the person who he gave it to is guilty of receiving stolen property.; 9/13/10, 3:45 PM
Chris said...: In the three years I had a Metafilter account, it was always my experience that threads, regardless of subject, devolve.; 9/13/10, 4:23 PM
Fen said...: just pointing out that Nutso Preacher would have ceased to be the owner of a Koran within a few minutes either way, which lowers the stakes a bit.

Thats not what SCOTUS said about flag burning. One of the key points they wanted cleared up was that the flag burner was not torching someone else's property.; 9/13/10, 4:37 PM
Fen said...: Libtard: None of you had any problem with silencing speech when it was nutjobs screaming down the opposition at town hall meetings.

Except thats not what happened.

A member of the audience would respectfully ask their congress-critter a question, he would bullshit them. The next citizen would politley reframe the question for him, he will bullshit them some more. Eventually, they would become outraged and demand he address their question.

Hardly "nutjobs screaming down the opposition" at Townhalls.; 9/13/10, 4:43 PM
Synova said...: "I had no interest in burning a koran, mostly because I don't want to give them money by buying one, but I'm all in favor of it now. "

How often is that now stated in the past tense?

Presuming that someone is actually trying to make things more friendly for Muslims in the US and around the world... gotta ask, how is that "winning hearts and minds" thing working for you lately?

(We credit COIN and the surge, but how much of our success in Iraq was directly related to the "insurgents" not seeming to understand that all the sh*t they did to the local populations, had consequences.); 9/13/10, 5:29 PM
rhhardin said...: Yesterday's discarding of a sacred large screen TV was immediately eclipsed today by an entire entertainment center.

Other tossed TVs.; 9/13/10, 5:45 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I wonder which wing sent the chairmen of the Delaware Republican Party a death threat for being a "ass-kicking RINO,"

I don't know why don't you tell us?; 9/13/10, 6:09 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: That was a pretty nice looking copy, if the one the imam is holding is the one the skater nicked. I always visualized them burning an inexpensive soft cover copy like mine.; 9/13/10, 6:40 PM
Cedarford said...: Part of the Lefty mentality I don't like, from the Metafilter comments praising the "saving" of the sacred book by theft:

"At some point, perhaps we need some legislation that puts burning the religious documents, books, artifacts of a religion into the same pot as any other hate crime?"

The Lefty mindset is that free speech exists only as they define it. While other speech the Left abhors is "a hate crime". And what we need to control unwanted speech is legislation defining unprogressive thoughts and protest as criminal.

Saying "ni$$ah" unless you are black is a heinous offense that requires someone's firing or school expulsion. "Nappy-headed 'ho" is a hate crime..

Tea Party events need to be blocked by "concerned people backed by Rule of Law" to prevent "hate-spreading".

The Jewish Bolsheviks then the Stalinists played this game in a more serious fashion, obviously. But even with the worst practicioners on the ash heap of history as dead as their liquidated enemies of counter-revolutionary thought under Soviet Article 58 offenses...their disciples like Saul Alinsky, Herbert Marcuse had a profound impact on the US Left and selective use of free speech as a weapon.; 9/13/10, 7:07 PM
$9,000,000,000 Write Off said...: According to Bill James, we don't actually care about the rule of law that much.; 9/13/10, 7:19 PM
pst314 said...: Also on that Metafilter thread:

"I...was disappointed to see a "MUCK FUSLIMS" sign in a brand-new yellow Dodge Charger...If I could have done so discreetly I would have done something to inconvenience the car."

Leftists are okay with vandalism as long as it its purpose is to silence those they disgree with. Sieg Heil.; 9/13/10, 7:39 PM
Revenant said...: It burning a book is "free speech" is not preventing that book's burning also freedom of speech?

"Is preventing speech also freedom of speech?"

That'd be a no.; 9/13/10, 8:01 PM
GMay said...: I appreciate the irony of one of the more ignorant metafilter morons lamenting the length of time for natural selection to kick in.; 9/13/10, 8:28 PM
Known Unknown said...: Rick Monday was a thief!; 9/13/10, 9:11 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Skyler,

"We're in a religious war, but we don't seem to notice it."

Actually several, both foreign and domestic, but yea. It's taboo.; 9/13/10, 10:54 PM
rhhardin said...: What are the recycle bin rules for Korans, is the question, if you can't burn them.

I'd guess the glass and plastics bin.; 9/14/10, 4:35 AM
jr565 said...: Knight Errant wrote:
If it is theft to take a Koran about to be burned is it not also arson to burn that Koran?

It burning a book is "free speech" is not preventing that book's burning also freedom of speech?

so when someone burns a flag that is both free speech, but also arson? Which rule should overwrite the other?
Also, it may very well be free speech to steal a koran but it's free speech at the expense of free speech for the person wishing to burn a koran so also a denial of free speech.; 9/14/10, 8:51 AM
Fen said...: it may very well be free speech to steal a koran

Its not. Its called theft.

Again, when SCOTUS reviewed flag burning, one of the first things they looked at was property rights - the falg being burned must belong to the burner.; 9/14/10, 3:45 PM