Why Terry Jones is Relevant

by DD (06/05/2011)

Someone asked me, why do you reply to comments by “nobodies”, is this person important, etc.?

Simply, I am exercising my right to free speech; to disagree with anyone I deem is not being fair, or is abusing her “free speech”, or similarly if someone is blogging about an issue which people are interested in, I can voice agreement to it, comment, etc.

Sometimes, people begin with an argument, but then get wildly lost; losing focus. This makes reading their arguments tedious or an irritation, instead of a worthwhile exercise. This happens to everyone at some point, but shouldn’t be a ‘way of life’.

Terry Jones, most people who have followed the news a little bit know, was going to burn the Qur’an on 9 11, but was prevented. He later burned it on another date; I was informed of that later on, and haven’t even had the time to go and verify that, but that’s the impression I’m left with (it was in Richard Falk’s article two days previous on Jazzera English blog)

Regardless, Terry Jones is relevant (as most people are) but for a very bad reason. And while some argue that his Qur’an burning is “freedom”, or “freedom of expression”, I argue that it isn’t.

My argument is simple: there should be rules for “freedom” and “freedom of expression”. In fact, there are already such rules. But they are not always applied. For example, there is a rule on Facebook, because it is a private owned entity, that members cannot just post whatever content, be it photos, or writing that they think is fit. It’s up to the FB site to allow members to post content on their page according to rules set out by the FB owners.

Therefore, while Facebook is public, it doesn’t allow members to post whatever they feel like, if it’s against FB rules, to which everyone must sign their agreement. That doesn’t prevent some people (I saw a teenage boy who posted very disturbing comments, which would have to be removed, and tried to file a complaint, but it seems there was a problem with the site, maybe a huge watershed of other people’s complaints, that prevented mine from being registered...I don’t know) from posting disturbing comments or opinions occasionally. Incidentally, the teenager was having a stick figure drawing complaining about being sexually abused, sodomized, etc. It was disturbing and ugly.

If you own a house, not anybody can just walk in because he’s expressing his freedom. That might lead to a lot of problems, so it’s not something considered “normal”. There are rules that are governing who can come into your home. There are many good reasons for the rules (in other words privacy laws, ownership laws, etc) and you can probably think of many of your own reasons, as a reasonable human being who knows that this is for society’s own good.

Some laws permit the ownership of a rifle, some are against it. It could be dependent on where you live and what you would need the rifle for. In Texas, for example citizens need a rife (‘in case’) to shoot the dangerous wild boar, which often attacks people (or so it’s been claimed, but some of those photos of men posing beside the animal look faked; as my son pointed out, the pig is always from the same angle except the photo has been flipped; he also said, “the pig is the size of an elephant!”)

This brings me pretty quickly to the reason for the “wrongness” of what Terry Jones did. By burning the Qur’an he is trying to have a strong negative response from Muslims, obviously. Some people, like Hannah, think that’s okay; because since she believes Muslims are extremists, they would control themselves in this one instance? Or Terry Jones, Hannah, and people like them, don’t care about consequences. If they insult all the Muslims, the Prophet of Islam, and burn the Qur’an, that’s ‘okay’. But let someone else suffer the consequences; Terry Jones himself said, and I will try to verify this, he doesn’t care if some Christians or people get hurt. It’s worth it! (It was R. Falk in the same article as mentioned above.)

What is worth it? What does Terry Jones get out of it? What is the unsubstantial, unverifiable benefit to him?  Will he be sainted in the unforeseeable future?  Is his fifteen minutes of fame worth the suffering (if other people get hurt)? Then isn’t it worth a terrorist’s time to blow up a few commuters in London, and call it freedom of expression; especially, if he gets some kind of really good feeling from it? Maybe (to his mind) even his own suicide/martyrdom; isn’t it worth it, or for arguments’ sake, isn’t it his right to only threaten to do something? NO. Maybe in the terrorist’s mind it is worth it; but our society considers this abhorrent, and it is. For this reason, society sets up rules, called laws, etc that are enforceable, can land anyone in prison for breaking them, and keeps everyone else (outside and inside, hopefully) relatively safer. His threat would be comparable to yelling ‘fire’ in a packed movie theatre, as Falk points out.

Decades ago, society realized that drinking and driving needed to be controlled; no driving permitted when blood alcohol is past the legal limit. This was to prevent (other) peoples’ deaths, and the drunk’s (would-be criminal) as well. Suicide is still considered illegal in most places; you’re not free to kill yourself. Why does society lock up criminals, even permanently?

I hope soon, society will realize that the general safety shouldn’t be compromised for some fools’ “freedom of expression”, and make better laws to reflect what a lot of people feel should be amended; the lack of enough strictures on (what is termed) “freedom”.

Dictionary –

Strictures: controls