No, you won't. You'll end up with sections 3,4,5 and 29 of the Public Order Act, which you probably still haven't read, together with any associated case-law.
...and even easier to rewrite the rules of engagement to limit "game-changing" violence and make it easier for your side can keep what it's, uh... won.
Why do you think there was a differential response to the book-burning in Florida and the one in the UK ?
Wow, I hadn't realized that it's not only apparently illegal to burn some books in the U.K., but also that the statute is such common knowledge and noncontroversial that The Guardian didn't even feel the need to mention it. Just a matter of fact comment that the police arrested him once they saw the video.
I think this is a very good question, but any response from me will only be of value once we work out why there was violence in Afghanistan after the Jones protests. Until an investigation into the events is finalised, my opinion would only be speculation.
The violence in Afghanistan happened weeks later, only after the Imams stirred people up. It isn't like most people in Afghanistan read Bigsoccer daily. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/03/fareeds-take-quran-firestorm/
the guardian has no problem with book burning.... if its book he dosent like. It seems he more interested into jailing people for reading books.
My understanding is that this law related to the Finsbury Mosque type scenario - hate preaching.... is that right Umar? EDIT: I see in part it was to plug this loophole exploited by the BNP in promoting race hate http://www.economist.com/node/5498807
It was first mooted in the aftermath of the Twin towers attacks, but failed to get passed into law. The wording means that it will allow for prosecution of hate-preachers, but it won't protect Muslims from being targets of abuse (as opposed to targets of threats). That's why this idea that Muslims are being specially treated is nonsense - they might be "specially treated", but only in the way that Muslims at airports are given "special treatment".
If the same act yields different legal results depending on whom it's directed at, then the law is very clearly broken.
I don't follow your logic unless you are are stating that Islam = incite to violence, which I doubt. Free speech has to be restricted when there is reasonable expectation that such speech will result in violence, incitement to murder and other illegal acts. The classic example is falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. So if there is good evidence that someone (an Imam via sermons, an anti-Muslim via youtube) is deliberately fomenting violence via speech or other communications, than the state has the right to arrest. Hence the arrest in the UK over the book burning. Frankly, had there been violence in Floridia incited by the the preacher's book burning, I wonder if he could have been arrested as well ? So if you believe these statutes are inherently anti-Islam than you must be saying that Islam itself (not the radical preachers) incite violence. Is that what you believe ?
wait a minute, so because another person is given to violence, I have to restrict my constitutional freedoms/rights? yelling "fire" is one thing. the resulting deaths would be from panic, not the willful acts of another person. a person does not have right not to be offended, and he cannot use another person's exercise of his constitutional rights as the excuse why he can't control his own actions.