There is a move, generally, in the world to silence the intelligent lest the ignorant be offended. This isn't going to end well. I don't see the point of antagonizing people for no reason, so I can understand the Danes wanting to avoid civil strife. That said, the problem isn't with the people burning magic books, but with how religious zealots respond. Secular government is under attack by such people, and they must be resisted.
Actually, this statement takes the Dunning-Kruger effect one very dangerous step further. It not only says., as Isaac Asimov once stated, that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," but that attempts to exercise knowledge in forms such as purposeful blasphemy should be met with punishment.
This is weaponizing stupidity and ignorance, and it deserves to be fought, tooth and nail.
I did, and so did just about everyone I know. Even the types who say you shouldn't ridicule people for being ignorant recognized that the movie was essentially a portrait of today's America, very thinly disguised as science fiction.
Is it "purposeful" blasphemy? Or is it simply provocation by right-wing extremists? Seems to me that the burning of korans or Bibles for that matter in some sort of random way doesn't have a great deal to the debate about religion that its place in society. If they were doing it in response to something the religious have done maybe not so much, but it seems to me at the moment it's an extreme right tactic to stir up trouble, and perhaps try to get government retaliation against Muslims in particular.
I like the take; giving a book a special status for protection even while in the book it gives blasphemers a special status, namely freely to be targeted for death is completely bonkers.
And that's only one of the very good reasons book burnings should stay legal. This scares me. Both Denmark and Sweden. When will the rest of EU follow? Or is this a part of Sweden's NATO membership campaign?
I think all computers and phones should come equipped with something that lets people punch people in the face. The internet has made people waaaay too comfortable with being a horrible shit and not getting their teeth broken.
Sure, but it works for some people. I have a friend who used to get really mouthy, then he mouthed off to the wrong guy. Ever since he's been much more polite. Heh.
So hate speech/racism is OK ? For your information, imams were condemned under the same law. Marine Le Pen still is a presidential candidate. We are so anti free speech that Mein Kampf is not censured anymore. But yes, we are so mean, it's not like millions of people were killed because of the free speech rights of one man 🙄
Racism is not OK in that it should be illegal to discriminate. But someone should be able to say unsavory things without being arrested or fined.
" We are so anti free speech that Mein Kampf is not censured anymore." Not sure what you mean by that. The US has a decent record on free speech vs Europe. Mein Kampf should be legal. Banning a book on a bad ideology doesn't make it go away any more than banning LGBT books changes people's sexual orientation.
Remind me in which country January 6th happened ? Last time I checked it wasn't mine. You can continue with your false equivalents, no LGBTQI+ book led to a genocide of straight people. Exercise your free speech alone, I am done answering you.
Not sure how Jan 6 relates to this discussion. I agree that democracy is under threat in the U.S. There is no false equivalence here. My point is that banning books of any kind is bad.
It's not "OK" but it shouldn't be illegal either. Bardot was fined for saying France was being invaded by Muslims. It's not a nice thing to say but people don't have a right to not be offended. She was also fined for publicly insulting hunters. So burning a Koran is OK but saying Muslims are invading isn't? Gimme a break.
Heh, yeah, nothing stops the religious like being persecuted. They *hate* that... oh wait, that would be real persecution. They'd definitely hate it. Dammit, am I pro-book banning now? ;)
Um, no. I can't believe many people liked that, sarcastic or not. So you want to combat religious fascism with atheist fascism ? I guess 1970s Soviet Union is your ideal government?
Defending free speech has to include defending speech you don’t like, or is unpopular. For the government to give into the violent retaliation of that free speech is to give a win to terrorists.
I don’t like book burnings but fighting them is best done by sucking the oxygen from them, by not getting upset, yes I’m talking about the muslims as much as media and government ignoring them. Laugh at their idiocy and ignorance, like we did when wassisname checked an LGBT book out from the library to burn a while back. Prosecute any crime, destruction of property in the case of the library book, but don’t give them the attention they’re looking for.
Isn't eating cows considered blasphemy or soemthing similar to Hindus? Would you get thrown in jail for cooking burgers at a public picnic? This is asinine BS that I thought most Euros had grown out of.
??? If that's a joke it went over my head and if serious I don't have a clue. If it was a bacon cheese burger I could understand. Eating anything cooked in a non-kosher or 'unclean' kitchen could be offensive, kosher laws are really strict and really really weird
My beard certainly looks it. There's still a few specs of pepper, but it's mostly salt. On top of my head, thinning but mostly brown with a little grey at the temples.
I don't want to live on a planet without cheeseburgers. I'm not necessarily picky about the source of the meet involved (I've had bison burgers and they were good. Also tried an impossible burger once. It was okay)
That's the trick, isn't it? We need to convince people that their opinions aren't facts. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed it. It's fucking childish.
I love burgers of virtually any kind. Not to big on turkey burgers, I'm not trying fake meat yet. Letting it advance some more before I try it. Although I once had an amazing bean based burger. Man, I need to find that recipe.
Good to know, I'll have to try them out. I have no intention of going veggie, but I love food. Gonna make a stir fry with the flavors of potstickers tonight, good times. :)
The vegan Veggie Grill here has a couple of versions of the Beyond Burger. And even the non-vegan Lunchbox Lab has a Beyond Burger. It also has chicken and bison. All good for me. 😋
Oh cmon, Denmark, you're better than this. It's not going to help, the zealots will just move on to demanding more and nothing short of theocracy will sate them. Inches, miles, cmon folks, you know how this works. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to have the government force people to stop. Ugh, there are going to be all kinds of false equivalences and what-abouts comparing this to LGBTQ rights, aren't there?
And sliding down that slope... the Book of Mormon? The Rig Veda? Dianetics? The Satanic Bible? The Pali Canon? The Popol Vuh? Daodejing? The Wiccan Bible?
Bobby Henderson's 2006 book is available in all the usual places both online ala Amazon and in brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes & Noble. Heck, even my own library has it in eBook form.
I recently read the new Thrawn books, damn they're good. The Aftermath trilogy was a lot of fun, too. Right, buying more books when I get paid. Need moar books!
For what it's worth, I wasn't referring to any of the SWEU novels. There are books on the Jedi religion itself that are followed by the religion's earthly adherents.
Frankly, the Danish government needs to grow a pair. Granted that they don't to my knowledge have anything like the Free Speech clause of our First Amendment, but they DO have some degree of common sense, or I would at least hope so. If they can defend their own cartoonists against Islamic extremists, they can understand that the quran and the bible and any other so-called "holy books" are, in the final analysis, JUST BOOKS. There is nothing sacred about them, nothing special, nothing that would give them the right to be elevated about human beings and THEIR rights.
The second anyone prioritizes a THING above people, problems follow, and that holds for holy books as surely as it holds for guns.
Denmark has a freedom of speach paragraph from 200-300 years back. The proposition will cover burning so called holy books at the front of embassies. If I read the news article correctly. Not a total ban, but not exactly good anyway.
I'm frankly okay with banning the burning of the Koran within 100 meters (or whatever) of a foreign Embassy.
Yes, the Danish government should allow it's citizens to protest against the Embassy of a foreign nation. But that's such a narrow ban that it seems sufficient to allow interested Danes to make their disapproval of Iran or other nations known in many other ways. In US-legal-speak, that might qualify as a "time/place/manner" restriction rather than a content restriction on speech. Which is generally more acceptable under US law.
It may be an unpopular stance, but I take issue with the exception for only 𝒅𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕 threats. It is too narrow. I think there should be consequences for an authority figure to call for the government to line unpopular people up and put a bullet in their brain. That isn't, technically, a direct threat, but it is a dangerous threat to the unpopular population. And for spreading slander/libel about such populations.
Fuzzy categories are harder to enforce fairly. That doesn't mean "never try," but it does mean such rules tend to be more easily abused, corrupted, and open to selective judgment. When you make a restriction on human freedom, the goal must be part "prevent socially destructive behaviors" but also part "make the rule idiot/government-proof." Attempts to make indirect threats illegal can fall afoul of the second.
The problem is illustrated by a cut-the-cake-like game. You play the legislator and tell me your rule for what counts as a prosecutable indirect threat. I play the executive and am in charge of enforcement. Oh by the way, I really don't like liberal positions. I'll be going over them verrrrry carefully and enforcing the ban whenever I can find any justification in your text to apply it. So when you're ready, tell me your rule. Then I'll tell you who I prosecute with it. :)
Calling for genocide. Such as the "indirect" threats Stephen Anderson has made against LGBT people on multiple occasions. Maybe even calling for the death of people who haven't hurt you or put you in danger, though that may be a little too wide.
BDS supporters support Hamas, which calls for Palestine 'from the river to the sea' which as executive I construe as a call for genocide. Certainly *some* of Hamas and it's supporters mean it that way, and best we err or the side of caution. So I'm gonna use your rule to arrest all US liberals in the BDS movement.
Anderson calls for death to gays. Posters on this site regularly say they hope some right-winger dies. That could be construed as a veiled threat, so I can arrest them using your rule (the liberal posters here, not Anderson).
So far so good. Any other speech you want to make illegal?
IMO, a good rule of thumb when considering criminalizing speech is to assume your very worst political opponents gets to implement it. Because 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙. Whether it's Trump in 2024 or some other GOPer in 2028, 2032, it WILL happen that the executive control over the rule you make will be put in the hands of people who want to get you, to screw you over. Instead of it being used to get the people you think are causing trouble, it'll be used against you. Which is why, IMO, it is best to minimize government's power to criminalize speech.
Hoping that someone dies is not the same as calling for their death. It's not saying someone should kill that person. Anderson is saying exactly that. It certainly isn't calling for genocide.
If Hamas calls for genocide then maybe supporters should rethink their support.
You're stretching to find something. Any sane judge would throw out a case of someone wishing someone dead as a threat. And if we're going to posit cases without a sane judiciary 'free speech protections' means nothing.
You honestly think there should be no repercussions to calling for genocide?
I can get the logic, but I don't agree with it. I'm concerned that this law will be selectively applied. Popular and loud religions would be protected while smaller and less vocal faiths would not. Burn a holy book of an Abrahamic faith would result in jail. Smash a statue of the Buddha in a takeout restaurant and nothing will happen. And who decides what's a "holy object" anyway? Would Atheists have any? Would the Jedi religion be protected? Would Michael Bay be arrested for his blasphemy against Transformers? What about D&D and other TTRPGs that have their versions of real religions?
I agree. This topic also negs the question how far can we go to ban burning books. Does this issue only stem to religious books, or secular books as well.
As I wrote elsewhere: Denmark has a freedom of speach paragraph from 200-300 years back. This proposition will cover burning of so called holy books at close to the front of embassies. So it is not a total ban.
"But religious beliefs are meant to apply only to the believers"
Try convincing those believers of that.
Seriously, all too often the faithful have not respected that very boundary and have, in essence, insisted that their religious rules 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 apply to everyone. That is what's happening here, the Islamic community is protesting that their special book must be respected by everyone, and burning it must therefore be forbidden to all on the basis of that unearned respect. Okay, sure, the law as proposed would apply to all religious texts, but the reason for the proposal is Muslim outrage. The outrage is to be expected to some degree but that is no reason to give all religious texts a special privilege under the law, particularly one they haven't earned. To do so would be to encourage Muslims to think that their religious rules should apply to everyone rather than just the believers.
Take a pass on this one, Denmark. It's more trouble than it's worth.
"In theory, that means publicly burning a blank book with no writing inside, while merely saying it’s the Bible or Qur’an, could also land you in prison if you do it repeatedly."
This foolish and cowardly law will be tested and taunted again and again. Picture this:
Some Danish nationalist provocateur videos himself taking a single blank piece of paper, writing (in Danish) "This is a Qur'an" on it, and after carefully showing both sides of the otherwise blank piece of paper, sets fire to it, holding it up until he lets go of the last shred of burning ash. That will be a "fuck you" to both the law and to the Muslims. Will that provoke violent protests, and then violent counter protests? Will the law have to become broader and more vague?
Instead, how about addressing the root causes of the ignorance-driven discord that feeds the Danish nationalists' grievance ideology, and the reactionary distrust and anger by the Muslim citizens? Is the government of Denmark doing anything about educating their youth against these cancers? Are they doing anything to promote reconciliation between these two factions? Are they doing anything to promote better assimilation of the Muslim immigrants into the general society?
Here’s my favorite “ignorant American” joke, which I’m pleased to say I made up myself. First, you have to know how “voila” is pronounced, which I assume most people here do.
“Voyla!, as the French would say — if they spoke English.”
There is a move, generally, in the world to silence the intelligent lest the ignorant be offended. This isn't going to end well. I don't see the point of antagonizing people for no reason, so I can understand the Danes wanting to avoid civil strife. That said, the problem isn't with the people burning magic books, but with how religious zealots respond. Secular government is under attack by such people, and they must be resisted.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒, 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦, 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑.
Actually, this statement takes the Dunning-Kruger effect one very dangerous step further. It not only says., as Isaac Asimov once stated, that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," but that attempts to exercise knowledge in forms such as purposeful blasphemy should be met with punishment.
This is weaponizing stupidity and ignorance, and it deserves to be fought, tooth and nail.
I fear the United States is devolving into a celebration of stuidity.
Who knew "Idiocracy" was a documentary?
I did, and so did just about everyone I know. Even the types who say you shouldn't ridicule people for being ignorant recognized that the movie was essentially a portrait of today's America, very thinly disguised as science fiction.
IKR?
I’ve never seen that and I keep meaning to. At this point I imagine I won’t find it even mildly amusing.
May I recommend some tissue and a stress ball?
Tradition.
I gotta...
https://imgur.com/gallery/aeNPW13
Is it "purposeful" blasphemy? Or is it simply provocation by right-wing extremists? Seems to me that the burning of korans or Bibles for that matter in some sort of random way doesn't have a great deal to the debate about religion that its place in society. If they were doing it in response to something the religious have done maybe not so much, but it seems to me at the moment it's an extreme right tactic to stir up trouble, and perhaps try to get government retaliation against Muslims in particular.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒, 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦, 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑.
𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦.
TY
I concur.
I like the take; giving a book a special status for protection even while in the book it gives blasphemers a special status, namely freely to be targeted for death is completely bonkers.
And that's only one of the very good reasons book burnings should stay legal. This scares me. Both Denmark and Sweden. When will the rest of EU follow? Or is this a part of Sweden's NATO membership campaign?
According to the article Sweden said, "Yeah, it's legal to be an asshole. Doesn't mean it's a good idea."
I think all computers and phones should come equipped with something that lets people punch people in the face. The internet has made people waaaay too comfortable with being a horrible shit and not getting their teeth broken.
I friend of my dad used get his teeth broken for talking and behaving as an asshole anytime he was drunk. He never ever learned anything.
Sure, but it works for some people. I have a friend who used to get really mouthy, then he mouthed off to the wrong guy. Ever since he's been much more polite. Heh.
It's not like Europe is known as a bastion of free speech. Brigit Bardot was repeatedly fined for saying nasty things about Muslims and racial mixing.
So hate speech/racism is OK ? For your information, imams were condemned under the same law. Marine Le Pen still is a presidential candidate. We are so anti free speech that Mein Kampf is not censured anymore. But yes, we are so mean, it's not like millions of people were killed because of the free speech rights of one man 🙄
And note that a certain orange baboon is defending his plot to destroy the American Constitution as "free speech."
Racism is not OK in that it should be illegal to discriminate. But someone should be able to say unsavory things without being arrested or fined.
" We are so anti free speech that Mein Kampf is not censured anymore." Not sure what you mean by that. The US has a decent record on free speech vs Europe. Mein Kampf should be legal. Banning a book on a bad ideology doesn't make it go away any more than banning LGBT books changes people's sexual orientation.
Remind me in which country January 6th happened ? Last time I checked it wasn't mine. You can continue with your false equivalents, no LGBTQI+ book led to a genocide of straight people. Exercise your free speech alone, I am done answering you.
Not sure how Jan 6 relates to this discussion. I agree that democracy is under threat in the U.S. There is no false equivalence here. My point is that banning books of any kind is bad.
It's not "OK" but it shouldn't be illegal either. Bardot was fined for saying France was being invaded by Muslims. It's not a nice thing to say but people don't have a right to not be offended. She was also fined for publicly insulting hunters. So burning a Koran is OK but saying Muslims are invading isn't? Gimme a break.
Europe is much more than France.
The UN says there are 50 nations in Europe.
Yea, but the free speech limitations are similar throughout. Most countries have a ban on public displays of Nazi flags.
Ban holy books. Problem solved./s
Heh, yeah, nothing stops the religious like being persecuted. They *hate* that... oh wait, that would be real persecution. They'd definitely hate it. Dammit, am I pro-book banning now? ;)
Um, no. I can't believe many people liked that, sarcastic or not. So you want to combat religious fascism with atheist fascism ? I guess 1970s Soviet Union is your ideal government?
If you'll look to the right of larry's comment, you'll clearly see a sarcasm tag.
He was snarking.
The thing is Substrack has a like button, but no ROFL-button.
Defending free speech has to include defending speech you don’t like, or is unpopular. For the government to give into the violent retaliation of that free speech is to give a win to terrorists.
I don’t like book burnings but fighting them is best done by sucking the oxygen from them, by not getting upset, yes I’m talking about the muslims as much as media and government ignoring them. Laugh at their idiocy and ignorance, like we did when wassisname checked an LGBT book out from the library to burn a while back. Prosecute any crime, destruction of property in the case of the library book, but don’t give them the attention they’re looking for.
You are exactly right. Unpopular ideas years ago, such as atheism and homosexuality became normalized due to educated unpopularism.
Isn't eating cows considered blasphemy or soemthing similar to Hindus? Would you get thrown in jail for cooking burgers at a public picnic? This is asinine BS that I thought most Euros had grown out of.
Eating a cheeseburger can be considered offensive to Jews.
??? If that's a joke it went over my head and if serious I don't have a clue. If it was a bacon cheese burger I could understand. Eating anything cooked in a non-kosher or 'unclean' kitchen could be offensive, kosher laws are really strict and really really weird
"You won't eat a lamb cooked in his mother milk". Jews can't eat meat and dairies in the same meal.
I've never eaten a diary with meat. Does that make me kosher?
Depends. Are you among the salt of the earth ?
I'm more like the pepper, or at least I try to be.
My beard certainly looks it. There's still a few specs of pepper, but it's mostly salt. On top of my head, thinning but mostly brown with a little grey at the temples.
No cheeseburgers? No pepperoni or sausage pizza?
I saw a guy like that once. It was at a museum. He was one of the exhibits.
?? Pepperoni pizza does not involve eating a diary. The ink would run all over the pepperoni, wouldn't it?
AIUI there's a rule about meat and dairy together.
I wonder if Jews could do fake meat and cheese?
I don't see why not. There's a whole business* that caters to breaking the spirit of the law without breaking the word.
*I saw it in a documentary by the BBC, I think, it was really interesting. I'll see if I can find a link.
And that String Theory thing they do to fool their omniscient deity.....
Wow, I somehow missed that one, it's like no clothing of more than one type of materials.
I don't want to live on a planet without cheeseburgers. I'm not necessarily picky about the source of the meet involved (I've had bison burgers and they were good. Also tried an impossible burger once. It was okay)
Cheeseburger just ain't my cup of tea, but I don't think everybody else should have to abandon them because I don't want it.
That's the trick, isn't it? We need to convince people that their opinions aren't facts. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed it. It's fucking childish.
I have nothing against a cheeseburger (or any burger) a couple of times a year 😉
I love burgers of virtually any kind. Not to big on turkey burgers, I'm not trying fake meat yet. Letting it advance some more before I try it. Although I once had an amazing bean based burger. Man, I need to find that recipe.
Beyond Burgers are great.
Bob's Burgers is greater. 😉
Never seen a single episode. Does this make me a bad person? 🙂
Good to know, I'll have to try them out. I have no intention of going veggie, but I love food. Gonna make a stir fry with the flavors of potstickers tonight, good times. :)
They are the best I have tasted and they are cheaper than Garden Gourmet and Happyvore. Their sausages are not on the same level for me.
The vegan Veggie Grill here has a couple of versions of the Beyond Burger. And even the non-vegan Lunchbox Lab has a Beyond Burger. It also has chicken and bison. All good for me. 😋
Depends on where.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65229522
Right, that's the whole point, the Denmark law seems to be if anyone anywhere objects to what you do because 'religion' you can be charged.
Oh cmon, Denmark, you're better than this. It's not going to help, the zealots will just move on to demanding more and nothing short of theocracy will sate them. Inches, miles, cmon folks, you know how this works. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to have the government force people to stop. Ugh, there are going to be all kinds of false equivalences and what-abouts comparing this to LGBTQ rights, aren't there?
And sliding down that slope... the Book of Mormon? The Rig Veda? Dianetics? The Satanic Bible? The Pali Canon? The Popol Vuh? Daodejing? The Wiccan Bible?
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? All the books on Dudeism and the Jedi religion?
"The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" Dang, where can I get one?
Bobby Henderson's 2006 book is available in all the usual places both online ala Amazon and in brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes & Noble. Heck, even my own library has it in eBook form.
𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐽𝑒𝑑𝑖 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛?
Burning many of the Star Wars novels produced in the '90s would be a public service. Though not the Thrawn ones.
I liked several besides Zahn's. There were McIntire's and Anderson's that I enjoyed.
I recently read the new Thrawn books, damn they're good. The Aftermath trilogy was a lot of fun, too. Right, buying more books when I get paid. Need moar books!
"Burning many of the Star Wars novels..."
For what it's worth, I wasn't referring to any of the SWEU novels. There are books on the Jedi religion itself that are followed by the religion's earthly adherents.
Yeah, it was a joke based on my opinion of their quality. ;)
Ah! 🙂
Can't say as I've read more than one or two. Too many to keep up with.
Way to give in to the snowflakes, Denmark.
Thought they were smarter than us. Why are they trying to emulate the US caving to religious fanatics?
Because Denmark has allowed and abetted the importation of religious fanatics. US fanatics are mostly home grown.
Frankly, the Danish government needs to grow a pair. Granted that they don't to my knowledge have anything like the Free Speech clause of our First Amendment, but they DO have some degree of common sense, or I would at least hope so. If they can defend their own cartoonists against Islamic extremists, they can understand that the quran and the bible and any other so-called "holy books" are, in the final analysis, JUST BOOKS. There is nothing sacred about them, nothing special, nothing that would give them the right to be elevated about human beings and THEIR rights.
The second anyone prioritizes a THING above people, problems follow, and that holds for holy books as surely as it holds for guns.
Denmark has a freedom of speach paragraph from 200-300 years back. The proposition will cover burning so called holy books at the front of embassies. If I read the news article correctly. Not a total ban, but not exactly good anyway.
I'm frankly okay with banning the burning of the Koran within 100 meters (or whatever) of a foreign Embassy.
Yes, the Danish government should allow it's citizens to protest against the Embassy of a foreign nation. But that's such a narrow ban that it seems sufficient to allow interested Danes to make their disapproval of Iran or other nations known in many other ways. In US-legal-speak, that might qualify as a "time/place/manner" restriction rather than a content restriction on speech. Which is generally more acceptable under US law.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e9189a16b90975a160a480e8c504912e95d9dce617faf69cfa24d0eea4aa41f1.jpg
It may be an unpopular stance, but I take issue with the exception for only 𝒅𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕 threats. It is too narrow. I think there should be consequences for an authority figure to call for the government to line unpopular people up and put a bullet in their brain. That isn't, technically, a direct threat, but it is a dangerous threat to the unpopular population. And for spreading slander/libel about such populations.
Threats against THINGS are one thing. Threats against PEOPLE are entirely another, and Denmark needs to recognize that.
Fuzzy categories are harder to enforce fairly. That doesn't mean "never try," but it does mean such rules tend to be more easily abused, corrupted, and open to selective judgment. When you make a restriction on human freedom, the goal must be part "prevent socially destructive behaviors" but also part "make the rule idiot/government-proof." Attempts to make indirect threats illegal can fall afoul of the second.
The problem is illustrated by a cut-the-cake-like game. You play the legislator and tell me your rule for what counts as a prosecutable indirect threat. I play the executive and am in charge of enforcement. Oh by the way, I really don't like liberal positions. I'll be going over them verrrrry carefully and enforcing the ban whenever I can find any justification in your text to apply it. So when you're ready, tell me your rule. Then I'll tell you who I prosecute with it. :)
Calling for genocide. Such as the "indirect" threats Stephen Anderson has made against LGBT people on multiple occasions. Maybe even calling for the death of people who haven't hurt you or put you in danger, though that may be a little too wide.
BDS supporters support Hamas, which calls for Palestine 'from the river to the sea' which as executive I construe as a call for genocide. Certainly *some* of Hamas and it's supporters mean it that way, and best we err or the side of caution. So I'm gonna use your rule to arrest all US liberals in the BDS movement.
Anderson calls for death to gays. Posters on this site regularly say they hope some right-winger dies. That could be construed as a veiled threat, so I can arrest them using your rule (the liberal posters here, not Anderson).
So far so good. Any other speech you want to make illegal?
IMO, a good rule of thumb when considering criminalizing speech is to assume your very worst political opponents gets to implement it. Because 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙. Whether it's Trump in 2024 or some other GOPer in 2028, 2032, it WILL happen that the executive control over the rule you make will be put in the hands of people who want to get you, to screw you over. Instead of it being used to get the people you think are causing trouble, it'll be used against you. Which is why, IMO, it is best to minimize government's power to criminalize speech.
Hoping that someone dies is not the same as calling for their death. It's not saying someone should kill that person. Anderson is saying exactly that. It certainly isn't calling for genocide.
If Hamas calls for genocide then maybe supporters should rethink their support.
You're stretching to find something. Any sane judge would throw out a case of someone wishing someone dead as a threat. And if we're going to posit cases without a sane judiciary 'free speech protections' means nothing.
You honestly think there should be no repercussions to calling for genocide?
I can get the logic, but I don't agree with it. I'm concerned that this law will be selectively applied. Popular and loud religions would be protected while smaller and less vocal faiths would not. Burn a holy book of an Abrahamic faith would result in jail. Smash a statue of the Buddha in a takeout restaurant and nothing will happen. And who decides what's a "holy object" anyway? Would Atheists have any? Would the Jedi religion be protected? Would Michael Bay be arrested for his blasphemy against Transformers? What about D&D and other TTRPGs that have their versions of real religions?
I agree. This topic also negs the question how far can we go to ban burning books. Does this issue only stem to religious books, or secular books as well.
Of course it would apply to burning Good Omen, Gone With the Wind, Kama Sutra and Sult too. To me those books are wholy.
As I wrote elsewhere: Denmark has a freedom of speach paragraph from 200-300 years back. This proposition will cover burning of so called holy books at close to the front of embassies. So it is not a total ban.
"But religious beliefs are meant to apply only to the believers"
Try convincing those believers of that.
Seriously, all too often the faithful have not respected that very boundary and have, in essence, insisted that their religious rules 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 apply to everyone. That is what's happening here, the Islamic community is protesting that their special book must be respected by everyone, and burning it must therefore be forbidden to all on the basis of that unearned respect. Okay, sure, the law as proposed would apply to all religious texts, but the reason for the proposal is Muslim outrage. The outrage is to be expected to some degree but that is no reason to give all religious texts a special privilege under the law, particularly one they haven't earned. To do so would be to encourage Muslims to think that their religious rules should apply to everyone rather than just the believers.
Take a pass on this one, Denmark. It's more trouble than it's worth.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
"In theory, that means publicly burning a blank book with no writing inside, while merely saying it’s the Bible or Qur’an, could also land you in prison if you do it repeatedly."
This foolish and cowardly law will be tested and taunted again and again. Picture this:
Some Danish nationalist provocateur videos himself taking a single blank piece of paper, writing (in Danish) "This is a Qur'an" on it, and after carefully showing both sides of the otherwise blank piece of paper, sets fire to it, holding it up until he lets go of the last shred of burning ash. That will be a "fuck you" to both the law and to the Muslims. Will that provoke violent protests, and then violent counter protests? Will the law have to become broader and more vague?
Instead, how about addressing the root causes of the ignorance-driven discord that feeds the Danish nationalists' grievance ideology, and the reactionary distrust and anger by the Muslim citizens? Is the government of Denmark doing anything about educating their youth against these cancers? Are they doing anything to promote reconciliation between these two factions? Are they doing anything to promote better assimilation of the Muslim immigrants into the general society?
https://streamable.com/yj428j
Howabout a law banning the burning of any books?
Too broad?
Well, a compromise - a law banning the burning of any book anyone finds important?
No again?
Well, heck, I guess we just all have to recognize that religion needs special treatment, right?
It's special pleading. It's dang near ALWAYS special pleading.
It's not like poor ol' god can take care of himself, after all.
Define “holy book”.
A book with lots of plot holes. That covers the bible.
"La bible du tricot", and the variant for heretics "La bible du crochet".
Here’s my favorite “ignorant American” joke, which I’m pleased to say I made up myself. First, you have to know how “voila” is pronounced, which I assume most people here do.
“Voyla!, as the French would say — if they spoke English.”
If that’s a funny, my virtually non-existent French isn’t up to it.
I'm guessing it's a knit or crochet Bible.
Both.
I don't know French, but I know a little about fabrics and such.
Well, yeah, as both of those were options. 😉
There is also a cross stitch and several embroidery bibles 🙂