As I think this is closely related, but no one mentions it, what do you think about those laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
If I paid for that flag, then I should be able to use it as a cum sock if I want to.
you can, just not in public
I am fairly sure that’s already covered by other laws!
Yea and if I want to burn a Bible that’s my choice too, I mean, paper is paper and paper works well to start a fire!
Tricky subject with no easy answer. What I will say, is that I think the governments should not grant allowance to burn religious scripture, or destruction of important symbols outside of embassies. That I think is 100% taking it too far. You are now purposefully, intending to incite a group of people. And there is no doubt that, that is your intent.
Personally I’ve been back and forth on my stance as I’ve reflected on the proposal, various arguments for and against, and my thoughts. I’m leaning towards it shouldnt be banned in public in general. But it should not be allowed directly outside of embassies as the only intention to wanting to do that is to incite others.
Nope. Freedom is Freedom. Can’t compromise with extremists. Burn any book whenever, wherever. If you’re offended, tough cookies.
Not nope. You do not have the freedom to incite violence.
Come up with a better argument than “freedom is freedom” because that simply does not exist.
You also do not have the freedom to roam the streets nude.
We have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That doesn’t mean you can say anything you want. You can’t express yourself in any way you want.
Hate speech is not protected speech here.
And it’s not about giving in to extremeists. They may want the same thing. That doesn’t mean it’s the reason for it.
If you have an actual argument for your stance. Please share it.
You seem to think I’m offended by burning books. I’m not. Doesn’t mean I can’t understand the viewpoint that it can be seen as incitement.
And it’s not about giving in to extremeists. They may want the same thing. That doesn’t mean it’s the reason for it.
So how exactly do you justify the ban without referencing the reaction by violent extremists?
As mentioned already. You can justify it by classifying the action as incitement.
Incitement is illegal. What the bill proposes. Is to classify burning of religious texts as incitement.
The reaction to the burnings can also be illegal, if that reaction is violence and/or threat of violence. Two wrongs doesn’t make a right.
The violent reactions are also not the only ones. Those are just the ones you hear about, because making an article of how some people talk about why they think it’s wrong and hateful in a peaceful way just doesn’t sell as many papers or generate nearly as many clicks.
So who exactly is going to be incited if there are no violent extremists?
making an article of how some people talk about why they think it’s wrong and hateful in a peaceful way just doesn’t sell as many papers or generate nearly as many clicks.
And those people are absolutely entitled to their opinion but not to laws banning all the actions they consider wrong. There are many, many, many things that we consider basic freedoms that someone else considers wrong (religious people seem to be particularly prone to that but far from the only ones). The reasons we ban things should be based on objective facts and objectively burning a single copy you own yourself of a symbol of something that exists in billions of copies is just about as inoffensive as criticism of a group can get when it goes beyond mere words.
Burning a symbol to upset people is a shitty thing to do, but it should not be illegal.
Assaulting people, whether they burned a symbol you like or not, is a shitty thing to do that should remain illegal.
And yes, some people in my country have burned symbols that represent people like me recently. Nobody from my community assaulted the people who did it in response. Just the way it should be.
The burning of qurans is clearly meant to incite hate and violence though, and frankly people shouldn’t be burning anything in public anyways.
They’re still perfectly free to invite anyone to their backyard book burnings, don’t act like this is some authoritarian limit on freedom, this is an active intervention to PRESERVE freedom from the nazis who want to take it from us.
I do not approve of burning holy books, but I think it should be legal.
What people shouldn’t do and what should be banned are different things. I don’t want to live in a place where what is not mandatory is banned. There has to be some room for freedom of expression, even for people expressing ideas we dislike.
There has to be some room for freedom of expression, even for people expressing ideas we dislike.
And there still is plenty of room of public expression of opinions without burning a book representing a religious group. Seriously there are thousands of ways to do so.
But European countries did learn some lessons and that’s why some actions such as calling for religious or other minority groups to be killed or to intimindate such groups with displays of violence isn’t allowed in many of them. And burning a religious book in public is such an act of intimidation which serves absolutely no constructive purpose. That’s why many European countries don’t allow such behaviour.
that’s why some actions such as calling for religious or other minority groups to be killed or to intimindate such groups with displays of violence isn’t allowed in many of them
Then why are you giving groups who threaten violence an incentive to do that more often by giving in to their demands?
Well, rightwing people have proved over and over again that they’re willing to not only burn books but to burn people.
So we should make action A by right-wing people illegal because they are known to do action B?
So we now should base our laws only on doing the opposite of what a few lunatics demand regardless on how it will affect a lot more people? I really don’t think so.
I do not approve of burning books, full stop. I couldn’t care less whose imaginary friend the book is or isn’t about.
But I completely agree that the government should categorically not be legislating which books you can and cannot burn. Burning a book is a form of free speech. It’s often offensive to many people, but it’s still important - if for no other reason than it lets the people doing the burning show their true colors.
Exactly. People can burn anything they want in their backyard. Just keep out of public spaces
That’s absolutely not what I am saying.
If I am not wrong Sweden tried something similarly stupid, luckily some court ruled against it in the end!
If you came for the comments, turn back now 😂
Europeans believe in freedom, as in freedom from harassment and hate speech, for everyone, for the good of everyone
Americans believe they personally should have freedom to do or say anything, even if it’s hateful and incites violence, as long as they personally are “free”, even if it is bad for society as a whole
These are incompatible views and no good can come of this thread
I am a European and I do believe in the real freedom (the one that ends where someone elses starts) but I don’t see how this applies whatsoever here, plasphemy laws in 2023 is nuts and shouldn’t be a thing!
Fuck this. The right to free expression is at the very core of a free society. Religious assholes need to deal with it or get the fuck out. If they can’t live in the west without starting violent riots every time someone offends their beliefs then they have no place in a pluralist and democratic society.
What even is free expressing. There are already limits to free speech in Denmark. This is just another.
Obviously there isn’t completely free speech possible. I myself am german, we have several laws dealing with nazism in relation to the right to free expression.
That doesn’t mean I welcome additional restrictions to placate religious zealots who are implicitly threatening violence if they don’t get their way. Even if I agreed with their demand I would categorically reject it out of principle.
The ability to cope with ridicule and adverse opinion is the absolute base line for life and participation in a healthy society. If someone can’t, that’s an insufficiency on their part and not a cue for society to drop their values and principles to accommodate them.
German
Quoth §166 StGB, “Revilement of religious faiths and religious and ideological communities”:
-
Whoever publicly or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)) reviles the religion or ideology of others in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.
-
Whoever publicly or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)) reviles a church or other religious or ideological community in Germany or its institutions or customs in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs the same penalty.
…we already have that law. Have had for ages, AFAIK it was introduced after the 30
dayyear war to make sure Lutherans and Catholics stopped with the incitement.(side note: “ideological community” isn’t a good translation, the original says Weltanschauung. Think Humanism, Stoicism, and the like, philosophies dealing with subject matters also close to the heart of religions).
Which then leads to things like the Catholic Church complaining about a pig nailed to a cross in he leaflet of one of WIZO’s albums (a punk band), which led to them not lifting a finger and trying to fight it – they could’ve easily won if they had given a damn. Thing is having a big “censored by decision of court on request of the Catholic Church” censor bar slapped over it is a much more punk artistic statement than the pig on the cross itself.
Then there was that guy who printed “The Quran, the holy Quran” on toilet paper and sent rolls to mosques and TV stations. That’s not ridicule and not mere adverse opinion, that’s revilement, an important distinction.
The Churches themselves don’t really ever get in trouble based on that paragraph – that’s because they have had plenty of time to learn their lesson and get used to toning it down: Lutherans did not cease to call Catholics idolaters because they changed their doctrine, or because Catholics ceased to pray to beings that are not gods (such as Mary), but because it’s inciting. If they were to start saying things like “Atheists are inherently immoral and vicious” they’d get in trouble, fast (though that’s incitement of the people not reviling of a world-view, couldn’t think of a proper example right now).
[30 day war 1897](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War _(1897))?
Or rather 30 years war 1618/1648?
Definitely years, brainfart.
But it taught me that there was indedd a 30 days war. Thanks for that!
-
This is in defence of Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Do not forget: this includes EVERYONE.
As I see, it describes that freedom of religion shall be protected. It says nothing about harming what other religions may or may not consider to be sacred.
is that just an excuse to burn down any temples. Be it a church or a sock exchange.
That is arson, and illegal.
Unless it is your own property, like those books.
And burning things in public is dangerous, which means it shouldn’t be allowed.
Yes, that includes cigarettes, they cause fires.
And if this was a general law against burning things in public you might have a point but it is not and the issue would be exactly the same if they had used some other means to deface and destroy it.
Tbh, I kind of think it should be. Not de facto illegal, like if you accidentally burn it somehow, but if you intentionally do it to piss people off then that intention isn’t exactly right itself. If you’re putting on a public display purely to incite and antagonise people by destroying things they hold dear, then you’re not merely exercising your freedoms but actively seeking to harm others.
It’s all very grey area though, and any punishment should reflect that the harm is not physical and relatively low. This law almost definitely goes too far.
But then you could always pretend to be offended by something to get it banned. I understand that by your definition it would only include things done to spite other people but the line is thin. And it would create a dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.
I might become offended by people wearing a tie. If it becomes well-known, should we ban ties?
I agree that in an ideal world, people shouldn’t be assholes and burn Qur’ans just to antagonise people. But it should also be clear to the offended people, that this actually harms no one. It’s like burning a dictionary. It’s idiotic but harmless. If you expect to live in an open society, you have to realise that the book of your religion is just an object.
What I’m getting at is not the victim’s view of it, but the perpetrator’s intent. If you can prove that harmful intent, then there would be a crime. Granted, that would be incredibly easy to subvert and get around, and kind of rightly so - it can only be a relatively low level of non-physical harm.
But it is still harm, in the form of causing emotional distress. People aren’t burning Qurans because they feel oppressed by Qurans or what they represent, they’re not disposing of possessions they no longer want, they’re doing it to upset Muslims. Burning a dictionary isn’t the same, a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.
a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.
That is a ridiculous comparison. The copy of the book they are burning represents no real unfulfilled need for the believer like the food does for the starving child.
though i disagree with their sentiment, i sort get their example. it is not about practical need, but more of the object’s perceived value. the qran is valuable to its believer as much as food is to the starving. that was not a ridiculous comparison.
There are good reasons not to go by perceived anything when it comes to offense though. Offending people is very much not something that can be avoided for everyone simultaneously, unlike needs and desires in the real world like food, water,… which are much more predictable and much less incompatible.
If i went into the street and condemned people for whatever choices they make, without harassing them, that would be legal. You’re not harming anyone by burning a book and you wouldn’t hurt anyone either by just pissing them off. The problem is a very vocal part of the world have been brainwashed to incite violence when this specific area of their feelings get hurt.
It’s only made a gray area because you can’t tell them that they can in fact just learn to ignore it and practice their religion in peace and expect it to work. Their beliefs are not built upon letting others express their views freely if they react with violence when someone burns their printed holy word. Their actions would be justified if there was only one copy or a building was burnt down, but it’s a worthless material thing, and the disrespect it signifies will not go away just because you disallow people to express it.
Sorry, long rant to say I actually agree that this law goes too far.
If you went to the streets with posters or speeches that talk about how you believe the teachings or religious organizations to be wrong that is perfectly legal.
If you cannot think of civilized ways to express critique and opposition, than it is your problem and not that of the people that rightfully fear the burning of symbols to escalate into violanece against the people, like it did many times in history.
If you think burning religious books in public should be legal you also think that burning a Torah in a former concentration camp, or in front of a synagouge should be legal. If these ideas make you uncomfy, then you should ask yourself, why you want muslims to be treated differently from other religions.
Your last point is wrong and I don’t think you should assume those are my views. Behavior in concentration camps should obviously be policed, because it’s significant and not recreatable and should therefore be preserved as a place for the people it is significant to. A privately owned printed book is not, so you should be able to attempt to piss other people off by burning it, if that is your perogative. If we’re getting specific, I don’t think you should be allowed to start a fire anywhere near buildings you don’t own, unless it’s to light a cigarette or w\e
Other than that, I agree you should find a civilized way to express your beliefs, but we shouldn’t, for good reasons, police the way people express themselves. A law like this sets a precedent for religious organizations; that they can have their way if they (re)act violently. It will lead to more violence down the road so we need a better solution.
A privately owned printed book is not, so you should be able to attempt to piss other people off by burning it, if that is your perogative.
How is it your right to upset people? Freedom of speech is for speech towards the government, not everyone else. It isn’t about what you’re doing to the government, but to other citizens. You do not have a right to hurt or upset people, be it physical or non-physical.
Other than that, I agree you should find a civilized way to express your beliefs, but we shouldn’t, for good reasons, police the way people express thenselves. A law like this sets a precedent for religious organizations; that they can have their way if they (re)act violently. It will lead to more violence down the road so we need a better solution.
We shouldn’t police peoples’ expressions, but we should police their harmful actions against other people.
The law in this article is wrong, absolutely. It goes way too far and protects the symbol, which like you say the religion could then expand their symbols to cover more things. I’m saying the symbol shouldn’t be protected, however it would be reasonable for the law to recognise the harmful intent against others and police that.
So, if you were to privately burn books or destroy religious symbols, that would be fine. However if you did it in public in front of religious people, then that could only reasonably be done with intent to cause harm, so it would be illegal.
We do not agree on what constitutes harm. I believe you should be free to try to upset others by expressing your views any way you want as long as it doesn’t harm them. Getting upset is not getting harmed.
I would say targetting individuals when trying to upset them should be policed, however this is not about individuals but a large group.
If you, say, bankrupted someone’s company so they had to sell all their possessions and then went up to them and burned the Quran they got from their now dead father as a present as a child or that had been in their family for generations right in front of them, that would be something that should be illegal as targetted harassment.
However here we are talking about criticism of a religion by burning a symbol of the religion, not one particular person’s possessions.
To me, this falls under the Paradox of Tolerance. Acts of hate should be strongly discouraged.
That doesn’t work in this case since it applies to both sides. The rioting religious people and the Quran burners are both filled with hate.
“BoTh SiDeS aRe BaD!”
To be perfectly honest, no, both sides aren’t equally bad, the one that burns the book isn’t as bad as the one who tries to kill the other over it, at least not for the book burning (they might very well be for other actions they take). But both come from a position of intolerance.
The one that burns the book is overwhelmingly nazi, which is quite possibly the worst thing anyone can possibly be.
That is a nonsense argument. We don’t make every action someone does illegal because we don’t like that kind of person. We make actions illegal because of the kind of action it is.
how does it applying to both sides make it not work?
yall act like you can either be fine with religious riots or be fine with inciting religious riots
“inciting” is basically just a fancy euphemism for “those people are violent in a very predictable way” in this case. It is not as if we are talking about someone holding a fiery speech, telling people lies until they are angry enough to become violent. They are violent in the first place. So predictably violent for so long in fact that people apparently make laws forbidding others from triggering the predictably violent people.
And yes, if you make those laws you are absolutely in favour of religious riots because you do what the rioting people demand which has rarely been considered a disincentive for any behaviour.
This is a clear violation of peoples right to free expression. religious nutjobs have no place determining what we can and can’t do in society
No it is not. Hate speech should not be mislabeled as free expression and many countries exempt hate speech from protected speec and criminalize it.
Religion has no place in the law
I dont know about your country but mine grants the freedom of religion by constitution. Forcing citizens to be atheist or not protecting peoples right to life their religion within in the constraints of the law is no better than ordering people to adhere to a specific religion.
That’s not what he was saying. Everyone should have right to worship whatever spaghetti monster they wish, but it’s still within my rights to mock it. As it’s my right to be allowed to mock anything else.
And it is perfectly legal to mock it. But it isnt legal to apply and incite violence by burning symbols of a minority group in public. Because that is and will be the first step in an escalation towards murdering people, like was saw time and time again in human history, in its worst form in Nazi Germany, where book burnings were very popular.
Burning a “holy” book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it’s pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn’t give a flying fuck)
“It s just a prank bro” he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning.
Freedom of religion is not a special super-right that lifts every rule of every religion to the status of a protected right though.
How would you even define hate speech
So you tell us that religious nutjobs do not have that very same right? and we are in place to determine what they can believe?
When someone’s free expression starts inferring with national security, I’m not sure it should be free.
Let’s say you had the passwords for Pentagons servers. Would it be free expression to give these to Putin? I doubt it.
The book burners know exactly what buttons they’re pressing and they do it for that reason.
Religiius nutjobs and fascist nutjobs have no place determining what we can and can’t do in society.
Lets take a comparable example.
Some armed people break into a bank and are robbing it. While they are busy carrying out their loot someone notices them but isn’t noticed by them. That person can see that they are armed and will likely start shooting if he tells anyone. Should that person then be held responsible for the violence if they inform the police or even other members of the public about the bank robbery? Should they be legally obligated to not tell anyone because violence might happen if they do?
No books should be burnt just because you don’t like them or are “controversial”.
Burning Mein Kampf because it’s controversial, is the same as burning To Kill A Mockingbird.
There is a difference between collecting all copies of a book and burning them as a means of removing that book entirely and one person burning one copy of a book that they themselves own as form of protest.
I’m not sure which of the two you are referring to.Ok, so you are saying what is the difference of an act of expression/protest vs an act of oppression then?
So where do you draw the line between the two then?
Genuinely asking, not trying to start an argument.
If the state or some public institution decides to burn all copies of To Kill A Mockingbird and deprives the public from the possibility to read it then it’s censorship.
If you burn your own copy of To Kill A Mockingbird then it’s not stopping anyone else from reading the book and you’re effectively just burning your own money.
