This week, Tom Van Howe unloads on the Florida preacher who threatened to burn a bunch of korans on 9/11. This time, there were two things I really liked, and only one I didn't. First, Tom turns the guy into an object of ridicule by listing all the stupid stuff he's already done. Second, he never mentions the guy's name or the name of his church. This implies a critique of the media that he never unpacks. Why has this guy
been front page news on every major outlet? One preacher, with a church of 50 decides to do something stupid and we make sure the entire universe hears about it? How is that helpful? How is that even news?
Now we get to the part where Tom and I disagree. He says:
We are told repeatedly that he has the right to burn the Koran if he wants to. Why? Free speech does have limits. You can't stand up in a theater and shout fire. What's the difference here?
The difference is huge. One is a protest designed to piss people off, the other is prank designed terrify, injure or kill. Both might end in people getting hurt, but they are in NO WAY the same thing. If I say something truly vile about your mom and you punch me in the nose, I'm not going to jail for assault. What he was about to do is morally suspect, politically stupid, and considering the situation our troops are in, potentially dangerous. Given that, the worst you could get him for is inciting a riot. But that only works if we keep putting him up on the world stage. Without minute-by-minute media coverage, he's not inciting a riot, he's preaching to his 50 person choir.