• Atomic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Malek061@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope. Freedom is Freedom. Can’t compromise with extremists. Burn any book whenever, wherever. If you’re offended, tough cookies.

      • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • taladar@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • taladar@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What? There doesn’t have to be a violent response for something to be incitement.

                Do you understand what incitement means? It’s what we call actions that intend to provoke unlawful behavior.

                There does not need to be a response for something to be provokiotive. The question is. How much provocation us too much.

                You have to balance freedom against what is too much provocation. We do it all the time. If you go into town and just start to insult random people. You might be charged with disturbance of the peace. Freedom isn’t limitless.

                You can be charged with “Incitement against ethnic/religious groups” that is already illegal. And we decided those are actions punishable by law. That already exists.

                They are arguing that burning their holy scripture in public, is a form of hateful incitement. That it is inciting enough that it shouldn’t be allowed in public.

                Others are arguing that it is not inciting enough to be deemed unlawful. Even if done in public.

                You are, and will be allowed to burn whatever book you want in private. No one is banning that. No one is taking that right away from you. This is solely about if it should be allowed in public. If it’s just a form of protest. Or if it is too inciting.

                Personally. In general. I don’t think it is too inciting to be banned in public. Unless done outside of embassies or religious buildings. I think that’s too far, that is too inciting with the sole purpose of needless incitement.

                If your opinion differ that’s fine.

        • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You also do not have the freedom to roam the streets nude

          Where I live there’s no ban on public nudity. The law forbids actions that are “sexually offensive and otherwise indecent behaviour”.

          That means you can walk the streets naked, sunbathe in a park og the beach naked or with no top on etc. No one has gotten arrested or sentenced in our courts for being naked in public and minding their own business.

          • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right. But we’re not talking about where you are from. We’re talking about where this bill is ongoing. Which is Denmark. What is and isn’t allowed elsewhere isn’t really relevant now is it?

              • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Let me be more specific. You are not allowed to be butt naken in the streets of copenhagen. That would be disorderly conduct.

                You do not have the freedom to be naked wherever you please.

                The argument of “freedom is freedom” is not a good one. Because that doesn’t exist anywhere. Your freedom is always limited one way or the other.

                  • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If you are confident in you assessment. I implore you to go and try it out for yourself. Please.

                    You can repeat that phrase as many times are you wish. It doesn’t make it true.

                    You are bound by the laws and responsibilities that come with being a citizen of whatever country you’re a citizen of. Some may have more freedom than others. But if you truly believe that your freedom doesn’t have any bounds. You are nothing but disillusioned.

                    Go 1 year without paying your taxes, and you’ll see just how much freedom you truly have.