Afghan riots over Quran-burning: 2 days, 20 dead

[tackattack]

---

If someone tells me people will die

And that was the terrorists who made the threat. It wasnt an "if such and such happens, people will die" - it was an "You will NOT do this or we will kill people" There is a big difference. One is being careless and the other is refusing to be frightened by a threat. If someone said "Dont you dare pray in public or their blood will be on your hands" would you be thinking the same way about this? If someone went ahead and prayed would you consider it hate speech if the terrorist went on a killing spree like mad dogs? Would you blame the one who prayed? Praying is first amendment protected. Burning korans is first amendment protected.

Fine. Lets say you are right, and this is NOT a peaceful protest. Then that means the man can get arrested for doing this.

Why hasnt he been arrested?

Your example already has an illegal object in it..a bomb. The Mayor would not think twice about calling in a bomb squad. How does a bomb equate to burning a koran? Making a bomb is NOT second amendment protected. Burning a koran IS first amendment protected.

---

If someone told me that praying in public on youtube would cause people's death or that there would be blood on my hands because of it, I wouldn't do it. Especially if the threat is realistically going to be carried out. Yes I would also put some culpability on the pray-er but the majoity of course would be on the individual killing. Both of your examples, in my mind, are being careless. The first is careless because it's plausible that they could and have hurt people in the past, the second for the same it's just more direct. I refuse to be careless with other people's lives. If somone said I would die for praying in public, then I would pray. It's alittle rebellious of me, which is typically out of character. It would also be careless and reckless, but only with my life and therefore I could justify it.
He couldn't get people to join his church, and buy into his doctrine of hate, other than his family so he went and turned inciting known already angry, terrorists (not a majority, but some are) who already warned him what would happen once. Then they backed down, got some guns, and did it anyways. Then he hid behind free speech and his religion to justify the fact he intentionally incited people knowing some would die, for publicity, that didn't even work for getting him more people paying him tithe. I'm not a lawyer, he does have the first amendment right to express himself. If what he did is not criminal, it should be.