Man who participated in Qur’an-burnings convicted of incitement in Sweden
-
This is a difficult thing because in theory burning books is not illegal, a person is allowed to buy a book and burn it. So making it illegal to burn this specific book sends signals of Islamification of the law but context is important here. This book means very much to Muslims, not just in the obvious religious way but personally, individuals will remember their grandfather teaching it to them when they were a child. This makes burning it very emotional, it is like someone burning a photograph of your mother outside your house just after she died. It is true that burning pictures is not illegal but the context here is emotive to the point of incitement. It is not Islamification to view this book as a special case, it is about honouring beliefs you do not share and respecting other people.
-
individuals will remember their grandfather teaching it to them when they were a child. This makes burning it very emotional, it is like someone burning a photograph of your mother outside your house just after she died.
But you're not burning somone's personal book or photo. It's your own copy. If you have an emotional investment in a copy of a book I bought, you need mental help.
-
It is not about ownership of copies it is about respect for significance. If I print a photograph of a member of your family I will own that print, can I then deface it in front of you and will you remain passive and unaffected.
-
-
Yeah but he didn't burn a picture of anyone's family. He burned a fiction book written over a thousand years ago
-
-
I firmly believe everyone should have the right to burn whatever symbol they want, be it religious, national, or otherwise.
After the US invaded Iraq in 2003, a friend and I burned an American flag to express our anger at being lied to and our disagreement with going to war in general. People we knew well came by and called us traitors, which we expected, though it was still intense. To us, burning the flag did exactly what we wanted it to. It shocked people into actively coming up to us and asking us why we were doing something so extreme. Our answer was “because it’s often the only way we can get people like you to pay attention and engage with us. You need to be shocked into realizing what we’re doing is actually patriotic.” We would then often get into a serious discussion about 9/11, Saddam Hussein, and WMDs and people would leave more or less agreeing with us, but still angry about the flag. Mission accomplished.
I can understand that the Quran might be a bit different, but it’s still just a book that holds significance for some people and not for others. If someone’s faith can be that shaken by such a simple thing, then I think they might have larger issues.
-
The best response to a quran burning free speech troll is to copy their free speech, burn a bible etc. who cares? It’s all nonsense anyways, and people need to get over it. There’s no need for violence or bloodshed
-
But it's not a picture of your mother (also qUaRaN forbids depictions of people) it's a book of random bullshit made by a warlord thousand years ago. And noone defaced nothing in front of anyone their point was that muslims allowed to ignore laws and try to use some savage "laws" to punish people that disagree with them.
-
-
The US has a lot of beliefs about free speech that have been shown by actual history to not be accurate.
The US has an extremely broad definition of free speech. Even hate speech is legal. In fact, you can actually openly run for high office on an explicit campaign of literal genocide. You could run for president openly promising as a campaign platform that you are going to open up death camps and kill millions of people. US free speech laws are so broad that unless you are threatening to commit an act of violence outside of the state apparatus, you are completely free to do so.
The theory behind this is always some hand wringing about, "well, if we ban hate speech, who is to define what hate speech is?" Yet, history has shown that this is a slippery slope fallacy. Plenty of advanced democracies, (the US is a primitive democracy), have shown that these fears are unfounded. The same hand wringing that applies to restrictions on hate speech could be applied to any number of crimes we already outlaw. You could equally lament that we can't possibly fairly define fraud, false advertising, harassment, or any number of crimes that involve a speech component.
The correct response to Koran burning is not simply to burn Bibles, because the Nazis burning Korans clearly know that you're just trolling them. They're doing it as an actual attempt at hate and intimidation; you are just doing it for the luls. No one is going to seriously fear that you're going to start rounding up and putting Christians in camps. But burning Korans is intended to send just that message.
Is it possible that Nazis, if they get power, will wield anti hate speech laws against their adversaries? Sure. But they don't need anti hate speech laws to do that. Our current Nazi president is already gaining control of the media. For those outlets and platforms he and his allies don't own outright, he's getting numerous press outfits to settle spurious lawsuits with no legal basis behind them. Trump, our Nazi president, is already restricting free speech. He didn't need anti-hate speech laws to do so. Because ultimately Nazis do not care about laws. They'll simply use threats, intimidation, and blatantly corrupt courts to enact their will regardless of law.
Anti-hate speech laws do not give Nazis any abilities they wouldn't already possess once in power. Anti-hate speech laws can however greatly assist in preventing Nazis from gaining power in the first place. There is a reason the German constitution, a constitution written by Americans themselves, has anti-hate speech provisions within it.
-
-
-
-
Fuck all religions, not just the popular cults.
-
Note that the Qur’an burnings is not what they were on trial for, but for what was said during the events.
Also, Tingsrätten is filled with laymen and almost always appealed in these kind of cases.Criticism: Bundling together
Freedom of expression expert Nils Funcke believes that there are still question marks about how far freedom of expression extends.
– If you look at what Momika and Najem say in the transcription found in the preliminary investigation, I would say that Najem speaks about the Koran, about Muhammad and about the religion of Islam, and I think that falls within a broad freedom of expression.
I think that Najem and Momika's statements are lumped together and thus Najem is blamed for what Momika said.According to Mark Safaryan, Salwan Najem's lawyer, the verdict will be appealed.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/nu-faller-domen-efter-koranbranningar-i-stockholm
-
Europe / UK / Australia you would have no difficulty doing this
-
The point is we can't compare it directly, because no one is burning bibles or torahs...
And certainly not with widespread international news coverage.
-
I feel like you either didn't read or didn't understand my original comment
-
We have to compare the apples to oranges because no one is burning bibles and torahs...
Because it's never about testing free speech
