• CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thats a very thin defence. The point is that private citizens should be allowed to burn their own belongings as a form of protest/expression. That’s effectively been banned now.

    • Atomic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re not allowed to be naked in public. Doesn’t matter if you want to protest jeans. You can’t be naked.

      You’re not allowed to take a shit on the curb outside of whatever you want to protest either.

      You’re not allowed to burn flags of forgein nations.

      plenty of expressions that can be used to protest are banned. What’s so different here? You can still burn as many books as you want in your own backyard. You just can’t do it at the town square.

      And as a final note. It’s a proposition. It hasn’t been voted on. How about you save your outrage until they’ve actually decided on what to do?

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Noone is talking about indecent exposure or defecating in public, we’re taking about burning your own possession.

        I’d also argue a private citizen should be allowed to burn any flag they want. It’s the same thing as with books.

        • Atomic
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Point is. There are plenty of things we can’t do.

          What purpose does a public book burning serve beyond provoking and insulting?

          That’s why it’s not allowed to burn forgein flags. It’s just a means to insult a group of people in public.

          Now, I’m not for a ban on book burning, religious or otherwise. If you have the permit go nuts. But the arguments people present are just really really bad.

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point is, you brining up things we can’t do outside of the burning symbols discussion is irrelevant. We’re not allowed to slap people, therefore we should not be allowed to criticize the government simply does not follow.

            We’re talking about having the right to burn your OWN possessions. The government should not be in the business of deciding what is offensive or isn’t. It’s a slippery slope that can’t end well.

            • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can burn your own things in private, just as much as you can be naked in private, jack off to furry porn, do drugs or worship a Hitler statue in private. But you cannot and shouldn’t do so in public.

            • Atomic
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are not taking away your right to burn your own possession.

              They’re just telling you, you can’t do it in public. You’re free to burn whatever book you want in your own backyard. What’s so difficult to understand?

              • LongbottomLeaf@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And when the religious extremists next come for queer public displays of affection? Are people supposed to only do that in private, too?

                It’s a book. They can get over it. I won’t hurt them if they want to burn LoTR, The Selfish Gene or any other book (or flag) privately or publicly.

                Ultimately this is capitulation to threats of violence. It’s a rather slippery slope.

                If this kind of thing becomes the trend, it will only beget more violence not less. And climate activists using this strategy will be the least of our worries.

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

                  I think we’re done here. You have nothing but strawman arguments and “it’s bad cause I say so”.

                  You choose to look past that it’s done with permits from the government. With the sole intention of provoking and inciting. And they have to give those permits due to how the law currently is written. It becomes state sponsored incitement and that’s what people get upset about. And that’s what they want to avoid.

                  And when the religious extremists next come for queer public displays of affection?

                  That is 100% unrelated to them. It has nothing to do with religious people. Unless they make it about them. Same thing can not be said for religious scripture.

                  Like I said you have nothing but strawman and bad faith arguments.

                  • LongbottomLeaf@lemmy.nz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I mean, you need permits for large protests/assemblies right? What’s the intention there? Expression, incitement, a hope that change can be provoked?

                    Shouldn’t the state sponsor protection of expression, within reason?

                    As long as they aren’t starting other fires when burning, I really don’t care. I’d rather they use a method that results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions (perhaps an ax and a block of wood?), but it’s ultimately a small amount in that regard.

                    I genuinely wasn’t trying to strawman or bad faith anything. I understand why some people really don’t like religion. What I do not understand is why people lose their heads over the condition of someone else’s copy of a book that believers didn’t even author.

                    It’s silly. Those who are offended by this behavior are making it about themselves. They aren’t hearing the burners’ side. It’s the believer’s way or the highway, and their way is unreasonable.

                    Threatening violence over this nonsense is absurd. Now people are gonna burn out of spite. This is going to have the opposite of the intended effect.

                    It’s just a book. And a flag is just cloth. How is this the hot topic when the atmospheric [CO2] is over 420ppm?

                    They can get over people burning copies of their own books. No one is coming for temples or holy sites or libraries here. No one is talking conversion.

                    Some people think that book is holy, some think it’s trash. I think both groups should be able to express their opinion however they like, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. And if they want to live in a world where people don’t want to burn their book, perhaps they should write a better one. Or just get over it. It is just a book after all. It’s not like crops burned.

                    No, I suspect this is really about power. It’s a powerful statement, the act of burning something in public. If it weren’t powerful, it wouldn’t be so…inflammatory. And a certain amount of any structure’s power comes from the perception of that power. Allowing this to occur anywhere in the world is an erosion of that power. It says there are those who resist, there are those whose priorities are otherwise, and they have the strength to publicly display their opinions. And they do so without setting fire to a bunch of other stuff. It’s a very controlled and specific criticism. I want people to have this power. Doing it privately is meaningless, it may as well have not occurred.

                    Anyway…do what you will. I think it’s fine. You want to restrict it. We’re neither of us budging, I agree.

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          you know in most places it is illegal to start any fire in public? You are not allowed to start a campfire on a public plaza or barbeque in most parks already. Why should there be a specific exception for burning things to incite hatred and violence against people?

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            All of that is fine. Limit where you can burn something, limit the toxicity of the item burned, but do not limit burning things based on “offense”.

            You need to see the difference between limiting something because it’s dangerous vs causing offense. That is a dangerous road no democratic government should go down.

            • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Inciting violence in public by burning symbols of a minority group is a threat to democracy and should be prohibited. Take it from a German, we have experience with escalating hatred and because of that we also have proper laws against hate speech now.

              Burning a religious book is a form of hate speech and serves only to incite hate.

              • madcaesar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Listen to what you are saying.

                I for one refuse to cower to those threatening violence in return for burning a piece of paper. Any person that threatens violence in retaliation to a symbolic action is not to be treated with tolerance or respect, because they themselves are not giving any.

                How tolerant are those same people towards atheists or other religions?

                The core of all of this is simply that, you taking offense, whatever that means, should not be enforced by the state in the form of punishing me. It is a slippery slope that can’t end well.

                Take whatever offense you want, ban it in your private house or business, just keep the government out of deciding what is “offensive” and what is a matter of protest.

                I for one find a lot of the text inside the Bible / Qur’an idiotic / offensive, but I’d never advocate for the government to step in and ban the books.

      • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The significant difference is that public nakedness (which isn’t specifically illegal in most European countries) and shitting on the curb have concrete consequences for others. The laws are there to protect others from unwanted sexual attention (exhibitionism) and literal disease (shit on the street).

        The limit for the freedoms of one person should be the safety and freedom of others. Burning books does not infringe on other’s safety or freedom.

        Finally: it’s stupidly easy to circumvent this. The same provocative assholes that are burning Qurans now, will just shift to other forms of desecration or other ways of offending Muslims. If the goal is to prevent protests that provoke authoritarian or extremistic regimes, you’re just going to have to make that the law, because laws like this will just make people protest in another, equally provoking way.

        • Atomic
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There is a thing called “incitement against ethic group”

          Grabing a microphone and preaching in public that Muslims are subhuman camel-piss drinkers. Would not be legal, despite it not infringing on someones immediate safety or freedom. It’s incitement against ethnic groups.

          As opposed to preaching that “Islam is a bad religion that promotes gender inequality”, which is fair criticism.

          One is incitement, the other criticism.

          The framework is already there. The proposition would probably put that the burning of religious scripture in public falls under that category. (I don’t actually know if that is the case, but it’s a fair assumption)

          Obviously you can desecrate and provoke in other ways. And I’m sure people will find other ways. And there will be new debates and court cases to decide if it’s incitement against ethnic groups or not.

          I’m personally not 100% sure where I stand if it should be legally OK to burn books in public or not. There are many things we are allowed to do in private, that we are not allowed to do in public. Maybe book burnings outside of embassies is one of those things. Just like we don’t burn flags outside of embassies.

          • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Incitement is illegal, yes, because it indirectly infringes on others safety and freedom. By encouraging violence against a group of people, that group is put in danger.

            Luckily, there is a justice system that can apply nuance to each case, so that people can be convicted of inciting violence even though the do not explicitly threaten anyone. A “thinly veiled threat” or implications can be enough.

            My opinion is that we have robust laws in place to prevent threats, incitement of violence, etc. adding blasphemy laws restricts freedom of expression without adding any protection of value.

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

              They’re not adding blasphemy laws. How are you not keeping up?