• aurele
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you really want the state to recognize some things as sacred? Where do we start and where do we stop?

      • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here in Russia we relatively recently had got a law for “protection of the rights of believers”. And boy, did it go wrong.

      • curiousaur@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The book burning was not malicious. It was a test to see if the other party is malicious.

          • curiousaur@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Easy to see through? What are you talking about?

            It’s not aggressive.

            It’s only desecration if you believe Islamic law.

              • curiousaur@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not even close to malicious as it gets. That brain dead take is the point of burning it.

                If you think burning paper is as malicious as it gets, where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?

      • aurele
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How about we stop at obviously malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence?

        Is such an incitement not an offense in Sweden already? I know it is in France for example.

      • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s kind of strange that some countries have laws and punishments dealing with libel, slander, and defamation of character (disrespect of individuals) but “malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence” (well said) makes some people throw their hands up and say “welp what can you do, it’s freedom”. The “Where do we start and where do we stop?” camp doesn’t seem to have enough mental tarmac to even take off in search of a solution.

        • pineapple_santa@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because libel and slander are targeted at individuals. Groups and worldviews do not enjoy the same protections as individuals by most law systems. That’s mostly a good thing.

          I have no love for the right-wing nutjobs trying to incite intercultural violence but at the same time I don’t think what they’re doing can be made illegal in a liberal society.

          • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Sounds reasonable to me.

            The US first ammendment (“free speech”) protects citizens from reprecussions from the government if a citizen criticizes the government. That’s it. It doesn’t mean you can say whatever tf you want, as some people interpret it. In fact, in the US, some people who misinterperet the first ammendment will be summarily executed by someone who misunderstands the second ammendment!