• 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
      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
          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.