Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[May90]

We need them for when assholes are out to make trouble, and the other laws does not fit.

Such as? Give an example where lack of the blasphemy laws leads to someone getting hurt.

[I Push Buttons]

We need them for when assholes are out to make trouble, and the other laws does not fit.

No need for such abusive language, friend.

You might trigger one of the dainty little snowflake babies you are trying to protect with hate speech like that.

[Zecora]

I have sympathy... but again, I would rather live in a world where tables have corners. I do not support a nanny state where all social ills are under the control of state laws.

I disagree, both with the notion that the victim should bear the cost and the responsibility of avoiding abuse, that assholes should be free to cause however much trouble they want with no legal repercussions, and with the idea that having laws that does not exclude any harm but the physical somehow should lead to a "nanny state" ( which I honestly find to be a moronic expression born of the same "wit" as such terms as "SJW" and "big government").

I can, however, agree to disagree and live well with that.

[zorkuus]

Such as? Give an example where lack of the blasphemy laws leads to someone getting hurt.

It doesn't.

Only Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and San Marino have blashphemy laws in europe. Clearly all the other european countries must be a living nightmare to live in due to the lack of this law.

[Zecora]

And how exactly does that matter? As long as you burn your own book it really should not matter.
If you want to follow a religion that is fine, but you can not shove your value's in someone else their faces and expect them to agree with you. It is just like the whole flag burning discussion there was not to long ago, and the conclusion was "as long as it is your own stuff that you are burning then no one can complain about it".

As I recall, there was no conclusion to that discussion, there rarely is to any discussion on here. Regardless, there is a difference between not agreeing with the values of a religion, and go out of your way to harm the symbols most central and cherished of that religion purely in order to cause trouble and incite others to do the same.

That's a very bad reason to support blasphemy laws.

That's your opinion, you're welcome to it. I however, do not share it.

Point out where it doesn't fit that isn't already covered by other laws.

Denmark, clearly, since they decided to use this law instead of others.

Such as? Give an example where lack of the blasphemy laws leads to someone getting hurt.

Where behaviour likely to increase the amount of racial and religious tension and cause more extremism on both sides ends up going unpunished because other laws does not cover the behaviour.

For more examples, read up.

No need for such abusive language, friend.

You might trigger one of the dainty little snowflake babies you are trying to protect with hate speech like that.

No, I think you'll be alright.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't.

Only Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and San Marino have blashphemy laws in europe. Clearly all the other european countries must be a living nightmare to live in due to the lack of this law.

Nice hyperbole. Ran out of arguments again, did you?

[May90]

It doesn't.

Only Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and San Marino have blashphemy laws in europe. Clearly all the other european countries must be a living nightmare to live in due to the lack of this law.

Well, I can think of a few nitpicked scenarios where the blasphemy laws could save someone's life, such as someone being extremely sensitive about their religion witnessing someone else burning a book and dying due to a heart attack - but those scenarios are so marginal that they hardly deserve to be considered, and, for the most part, they are already reasonably covered by other laws.

Where behaviour likely to increase the amount of racial and religious tension and cause more extremism on both sides ends up going unpunished because other laws does not cover the behaviour.

For more examples, read up.

Then the law should be about extremism-promoting activities, and most countries have these laws to some extent already. Protecting religion specifically doesn't make logical sense.

[zorkuus]

Nice hyperbole. Ran out of arguments again, did you?

Facts trigger you? No wonder you want blashphemy laws.

On 23 October 2008, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters, issued a report about blasphemy, religious insult, and incitement to religious hatred.[9] The report noted that, at the time in Europe, blasphemy was an offense only in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and San Marino. In its conclusions, the report stated "it is neither necessary nor desirable to create an offense of religious insult" and "the offense of blasphemy should be abolished".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

[Canpinter]

you shall all hold hands and sing kumbaya or you shall go to jail!

[Deleted]

Defining where the line should be drawn is not my task, not your task, but the lawmakers task. If they draw that line in a place we dislike, we can always push for it to be moved.

Why is burning a book worse than a comedian making catholic pedo jokes?

- - - Updated - - -

[SIZE=3][SIZE=4]What most ppl fail to understand is just because you have the freedom of speech , it doesnt mean you should do it to insult and offend others.

That has nothing to do with 'should', but right.

And all kinds of freedom of speech, by design, is insulting. Want to outlaw dark humour?

[Zecora]

If you put your hand in the fire, and burn it, is the fire at fault? Are you at fault, or both? Or neither?

That metaphor is flawed. A far better one would be "if you drink water from the local well and someone pisses in it, resulting in you becoming ill, is that person at fault, are you at fault for not walking fifty clicks to the next well every day, or both, or neither?

-Social media isn't something people (especially kids) can do without today, not without also choosing to forego all social interaction with their peers.

Social Media is chaotic, there can be good and bad; When someone is causing abuse and it is beaking already established laws, go after them. If someone is overly sensitive, and lacks mental grit, warn them on the dangers of social media and anonymity. Teach them self-discipline so they can withstand the stupidity of others.

You persist in blaming the victims. I am surprised you think this is okay.

Wrapping law around social interaction is what the nanny state does. It is like your mother going around and safeguarding every danger that exists in society... putting you in a protective bubble of illusion/delusion.

The world Connal, is more than black and white. There is such a thing as having laws that protect people, without applying them where it is unnecessary. Most countries have laws against jaywalking, yet you don't get arrested for doing so. Will you get charged if you do so and cause an accident though? Absolutely.

The world really does look better when you aren't restricted to black and white, everything or nothing.

[LuminaL]

And how exactly does that matter? As long as you burn your own book it really should not matter.
If you want to follow a religion that is fine, but you can not shove your value's in someone else their faces and expect them to agree with you. It is just like the whole flag burning discussion there was not to long ago, and the conclusion was "as long as it is your own stuff that you are burning then no one can complain about it".

I dont understand how you have just turned the topic into "dont shove your religion to others" as clearly this guy tries to "shove" his hate of a religion to others, how is if "shoving" religion to others not acceptable, I dont see why "shoving" your hate against anything not just religion is acceptable.

[Zecora]

Why is burning a book worse than a comedian making catholic pedo jokes?

It isn't. Burning a holy book, adding a few mocking rants, filming it and putting it on the net as an incitement for others to do the same to stir up trouble, all because you don't like the people whose holy book it is, is however worse.

[Deleted]

It isn't. Burning a holy book, adding a few mocking rants, filming it and putting it on the net as an incitement for others to do the same to stir up trouble, all because you don't like the people whose holy book it is, is however worse.

What about an individual uploading a video to youtube, mocking Catholicism and insulting Catholics thats viewed by thousands of people, just to annoy people.

Is that equivalent?

- - - Updated - - -

I dont understand how you have just turned the topic into "dont shove your religion to others" as clearly this guy tries to "shove" his hate of a religion to others, how is if "shoving" religion to others not acceptable, I dont see why "shoving" your hate against anything not just religion is acceptable.

Who is shoving their hate anywhere? No-one's forcing you to watch someone insult your religion or burn your religious scripture.

[Zecora]

Facts trigger you? No wonder you want blashphemy laws.

Hyperbolic statements of "all the other european countries must be a living nightmare to live in due to the lack of this law." are not facts. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept...

[zorkuus]

Hyperbolic statements of "all the other european countries must be a living nightmare to live in due to the lack of this law." are not facts. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept...

Not a fan of sarcasm I see...

[Zecora]

Then the law should be about extremism-promoting activities, and most countries have these laws to some extent already. Protecting religion specifically doesn't make logical sense.

Most countries aren't all countries. Clearly there is a reason why Denmark chose to use this paragraph.

[May90]

There is such a thing as having laws that protect people, without applying them where it is unnecessary.

There is no such thing, really, because the laws are enacted by real people, which are also more than black and white. Whenever a law is devised, the first thing one should ask themselves is how it can be abused, or misused, or misinterpreted. The blasphemy laws, apparently, can be used as a form of freedom of speech restriction, which exactly is what happened in the story in the OP. The guy burned Quran, this is such an insignificant act, it doesn't harm anyone, it doesn't carry any serious message: it is merely a noise. Yet the government is happy to jump in and to take credit for fighting evil bigots, even if in this particular case the bigot merely set on fire his own book.

Blasphemy laws do not protect people. They protect some people's world views and feelings, and don't protect others' world views and feelings. In other words, they are discriminatory. Discrimination never protects people, it only alienates them from one another.

Most countries aren't all countries. Clearly there is a reason why Denmark chose to use this paragraph.

There was also a reason why Spanish Inquisition burned everyone who wasn't getting in line with their precious religion. Doesn't mean it was a good reason though.

[Zecora]

Not a fan of sarcasm I see...

Wouldn't call such feeble attempts worthy of the term.

[zorkuus]

Wouldn't call such feeble attempts worthy of the term.

Anyways... back to the question you have been avoiding from answering: "Give an example where lack of the blasphemy laws leads to someone getting hurt."

[Zecora]

There is no such thing, really, because the laws are enacted by real people, which are also more than black and white. Whenever a law is devised, the first thing one should ask themselves is how it can be abused, or misused, or misinterpreted. The blasphemy laws, apparently, can be used as a form of freedom of speech restriction, which exactly is what happened in the story in the OP. The guy burned Quran, this is such an insignificant act, it doesn't harm anyone, it doesn't carry any serious message: it is merely a noise.

And then he put the vid of himself doing this on the 'net, combined with a rant of mockery, which most CERTAINLY can cause harm, carry a serious message and cause a lot more than just "noise"

Yet the government is happy to jump in and to take credit for fighting evil bigots, even if in this particular case the bigot merely set on fire his own book.

Blasphemy laws do not protect people. They protect some people's world views and feelings, and don't protect others' world views and feelings. In other words, they are discriminatory. Discrimination never protects people, it only alienates them from one another.

They do, however, serve a purpose.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways... back to the question you have been avoiding from answering: "Give an example where lack of the blasphemy laws leads to someone getting hurt."

I have answered it twice already, once to you. You choosing to ignore it is your problem, not mine.