Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Deleted]

Yirrah, would you support this law being used to arrest people for making insulting comments about Christianity or Islam?

[May90]

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"

At this point, you are advocating for a totalitarian censorship. Almost anything said or done in public can cause some harm. Even our discussion going on right now can provoke some sensitive soul to joining ISIS to fight evil heretics seriously debating whether religion should be protected. Let's jail everyone?

They do, however, serve a purpose.

A very malicious one.

[Zecora]

Yirrah, would you support this law being used to arrest people for making insulting comments about Christianity or Islam?

Sorry to disappoint you, but not really so long as it doesn't fall under the legal definition of hate speech or the like. Arguments most definitely fall under the definition of free speech, and opinions does not carry the symbolic value that holy writ does. Put differently, there is nothing that can be said by burning a book that could not be said by words instead, the reverse does not hold true.

[zorkuus]

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

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.

Ok, so where? Name the time and the place. Is it Sweden? Perhaps the UK? Or do you just want to create laws on hypothetical situations and places?

[Deleted]

Sorry to disappoint you, but not really so long as it doesn't fall under the legal definition of hate speech or the like. Arguments most definitely fall under the definition of free speech, and opinions does not carry the symbolic value that holy writ does. Put differently, there is nothing that can be said by burning a book that could not be said by words instead, the reverse does not hold true.

But that is what a blasphemy law could be set up to do. That is what they really do.

[Post]

Is it? Do you imagine that allowing people to freely burn holy books, rant and mock the followers of a religion, film it and put it on the 'net, and incite others to do the same have absolutely no effect on the victim's standing in society, or the way they are received?

Not really, there are actually people out there that mock people for believing the Earth is round, I don't see our standing in society being affected. Even if it did, I don't see a problem with it, we should be able to criticize groups for their harmful beliefs, that's how people decide which ideas are bad.

[Zecora]

At this point, you are advocating for a totalitarian censorship. Almost anything said or done in public can cause some harm. Even our discussion going on right now can provoke some sensitive soul to joining ISIS to fight evil heretics seriously debating whether religion should be protected. Let's jail everyone?

Nice strawman. Total bullshit. Try to understand that different acts has different consequences and is deserving of different responses based on that, instead of resorting to ridiculous hyperbole and outright lies about what I am advocating.

A very malicious one.

If you feel that stopping people from increase racial, religious and cultural tension for shits and giggles is malicious, then that is on you.

[Moratori]

If you feel that stopping people from increase racial, religious and cultural tension for shits and giggles is malicious, then that is on you.

You don't need blasphemy laws for that. Blasphemy law would only add to the tension if the majority aren't religious.

[Deleted]

Just insulting Islam publicly increases cultural and religious tension.

This is just inconsistent of you at this point.

[Zecora]

Ok, so where? Name the time and the place. Is it Sweden? Perhaps the UK? Or do you just want to create laws on hypothetical situations and places?

Also answered that. You really are a tiresome little man, aren't you. At least Connal bothers to come up with actual arguments based on his convictions, which i can respect. You however, are just ignoring what people reply to you and pushing oneliners that ask questions that have already been answered.

[May90]

Nice strawman. Total bullshit. Try to understand that different acts has different consequences and is deserving of different responses based on that, instead of resorting to ridiculous hyperbole and outright lies about what I am advocating.

It depends on many factors. A very innocent act can have sometimes drastic consequences, and a very malicious act can lead to positive consequences. Basing the law on what "might happen" is one of the worst things a government can do. This example was not a strawman, it was a real possibility. So my question to you is: where is that threshold of potential consequences that warrants governmental involvement? Should the government punish me for uploading a meatloaf recipe that offends Hinduists taking "sacred cows" overly seriously? Where is the line? Or is the line wherever the society and the government desires? If so, it has little to do with a free society.

If you feel that stopping people from increase racial, religious and cultural tension for shits and giggles is malicious, then that is on you.

No, I feel that trying to do it by means such as "blasphemy laws" does exactly that: increases racial, religious and cultural tension.

[Zecora]

You don't need blasphemy laws for that. Blasphemy law would only add to the tension if the majority aren't religious.

If you have other laws that fit the bill, then by all means. As I have said several times, I'd rather there be no need for blasphemy laws.

[llubtoille]

Hmm, we need to bring back sun-worship. Anything not being actively burned is in defiance of the sun-god!

[LuminaL]

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 - - -


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

first: Im not worried about the ppl with that religion, they clearly respect it and seeing someone insulting things they hold holy surely doesnt make them hate their own religion.

but when a an idiot who is alrdy a hay waiting for an ignite sees this, they think its ok, next you will see tensions in streets, bullying, abusing face to face because they think "well that guy did it, I can do it too, even better! "

I think you and I can agree on one thing, usually ppl who do this are not in their common sense and right mind. you and I may dislike things, but I for one dont go out there burning every specific car when I dont like it !! sowhy would anyone waste their time on insulting others if it doesnt make them feel better?

second: your way of seeing "no one is forcing you " is the most invalid way of seeing something. just because there is no "should" and "must" and "force" behind something it doesnt make that thing ok, when someone throws eggs at your house, no one is forcing you to do anything about it, yet can you just sit there and be ok with it? I mean it doesnt even hurts you, you should just let them continue and invite others to do so until they just get bored, but they dont.

at the end my point is: if A has a religion and B doesnt, why should B feel like they need to abuse or offend A for its beliefs ? if the argument of " dont force your religion " is valid, dont spread your hate toward it should be a thing too, as religion is a belief, so is hate toward it.
IF you say dont come to my house because I dont like you, please dont go to their house either ! if you want to hold something in a Zero zone, and dont want others to push it to your side, dont push it to theirs!

its what America is doing to the world the whole time, they are like: no dont ruin my country , yet they ruin so many others.

[Deleted]

first: Im not worried about the ppl with that religion, they clearly respect it and seeing someone insulting things they hold holy surely doesnt make them hate their own religion.

What religion? I didn't say people seeing their religion being insulted made them hate it.

but when a an idiot who is alrdy a hay waiting for an ignite sees this, they think its ok, next you will see tensions in streets, bullying, abusing face to face because they think "well that guy did it, I can do it too, even better! "

This is ridiculous. Most things like that are just lost to the noise of the internet. No-one cares, and there's too much else going on.

second: your way of seeing "no one is forcing you " is the most invalid way of seeing something. just because there is no "should" and "must" and "force" behind something it doesnt make that thing ok, when someone throws eggs at your house, no one is forcing you to do anything about it, yet can you just sit there and be ok with it? I mean it doesnt even hurts you, you should just let them continue and invite others to do so until they just get bored, but they dont.

This is not a valid comparison. If someone was to throw eggs at their own mirror, then it would be valid. They'd only be hurting themselves. If you throw eggs at me, or my house, you inflict upon me.

at the end my point is: if A has a religion and B doesnt, why should B feel like they need to abuse or offend A for its beliefs ? if the argument of " dont force your religion " is valid, dont spread your hate toward it should be a thing too, as religion is a belief, so is hate toward it.
IF you say dont come to my house because I dont like you, please dont go to their house either ! if you want to hold something in a Zero zone, and dont want others to push it to your side, dont push it to theirs!

its what America is doing to the world the whole time, they are like: no dont ruin my country , yet they ruin so many others.

We're not talking about what people should or shouldn't do but whether or not the state should intervene when they do so.

[Zecora]

It depends on many factors. A very innocent act can have sometimes drastic consequences, and a very malicious act can lead to positive consequences. Basing the law on what "might happen" is one of the worst things a government can do. This example was not a strawman, it was a real possibility. So my question to you is: where is that threshold of potential consequences that warrants governmental involvement? Should the government punish me for uploading a meatloaf recipe that offends Hinduists taking "sacred cows" overly seriously? Where is the line? Or is the line wherever the society and the government desires? If so, it has little to do with a free society.

Do you HONESTLY expect me to sort every possible incident into "yes" and "no" categories? Deciding where the limits of the law lies is the work of the legal system, rulings in the courts of law is what sets precedent for what the law covers and what it does not. As in other cases, probable harm is weighed against punishment.

No, I feel that trying to do it by means such as "blasphemy laws" does exactly that: increases racial, religious and cultural tension.

Like I have repeated again, and again, and again, if there are other laws that covers it, that's just peachy. I am no fan of blasphemy laws for the sake of having blasphemy laws.

[zorkuus]

Also answered that. You really are a tiresome little man, aren't you. At least Connal bothers to come up with actual arguments based on his convictions, which i can respect. You however, are just ignoring what people reply to you and pushing oneliners that ask questions that have already been answered.

Your answer is a hypothetical scenario. It is insufficient, how can you not see that? Atleast I gave facts. But you can't respect that because it isn't what you wanted to hear, it was inconvinient to your argument.

[Yuujin]

It depends on many factors. A very innocent act can have sometimes drastic consequences, and a very malicious act can lead to positive consequences. Basing the law on what "might happen" is one of the worst things a government can do. This example was not a strawman, it was a real possibility. So my question to you is: where is that threshold of potential consequences that warrants governmental involvement? Should the government punish me for uploading a meatloaf recipe that offends Hinduists taking "sacred cows" overly seriously? Where is the line? Or is the line wherever the society and the government desires? If so, it has little to do with a free society.

I think you can base the law on 'intent'. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing so someone doing something stupid and getting a reaction they weren't expecting is one thing, but that's not what we're dealing with. The intention behind this act is pretty clear. You're really trying hard and pulling shit out of left field to make your point.

No, I feel that trying to do it by means such as "blasphemy laws" does exactly that: increases racial, religious and cultural tension.

What's your evidence? Because anyone with half a brain can deduce that taking away people's abilities to incite other people based on their religion would at the very least reduce retaliatory style attacks on those people/groups inciting people based on their religion.

[Moratori]

What's your evidence? Because anyone with half a brain can deduce that taking away people's abilities to incite other people based on their religion would at the very least reduce retaliatory style attacks on those people/groups inciting people based on their religion.

Hah, you wish. They can still say the inciting things and retaliation is not uncommon.

[zorkuus]

What's your evidence? Because anyone with half a brain can deduce that taking away people's abilities to incite other people based on their religion would at the very least reduce retaliatory style attacks on those people/groups inciting people based on their religion.

Evidence is third world countries with blashphemy laws. The majority religion becomes the bully, and as it happens religious violence is very common in those countries.