The decision follows a recent string of public desecrations of the Quran by a handful of anti-Islam activists, sparking angry demonstrations across Muslim countries.
It has nothing to do with free speech or rational expression of oneself
Being rational is not a requirement for free speech. There are clear rules about what is considered free speech. Burning books might be tasteless, but it should not be illegal, regardless of which book it is.
Why can´t people just show at least a little respect for other cultures?!
Respect needs to be mutual. These people who are offended by some burned books will happily disrespect other cultures or beliefs.
Keine Toleranz den Intoleranten. Man erreicht damit nen Scheißdreck. Sieht man ja in Deutschland mit der AfD. Dieser dumme Naziverein wurde die ganze Zeit toleriert und jetzt haben wir NSDAP2.0 vor der Tür.
Sorry for German. What I said is, no tolerance for the intolerant. This is a statement us Germans usually use in conjunction with nazis but I also have no tolerance for backward ass religions.
Nein, aber ein besseres Beispiel darstellen hilft bei den Dullies nicht. Damit erreicht man genau gar nichts. Jeder soll sein Recht ausüben dürfen. Dazu gehört nunmal auch das verbrennen eines Buches über ein fucking Fabelwesen. Wir können uns doch nicht durch son Haufen Idioten einschränken lassen. Und ich meine damit diese Vollidioten, die wegen sowas auf die Straße gehen und aggressiv werden. Nicht die normalen Moslems, die klar kommen.
Aber was ich nicht ganz verstehe, ist warum man das jetzt verbrennt. Es ist doch offensichtlich, um zu provozieren. Man weiß ja schon genau welche Reaktion es hervorruft. Warum macht man das dann? Will man Gewalt auf den Straßen? Klar ist das scheiße, dass einige so auf eine Bücherverbrennung reagieren, aber es ist nunmal so, warum muss man es dann mit Absicht heraufbeschwören? Was soll das bringen? Es ist ja so als wolle man die Gesellschaft weiter spalten und Gewalt.
Das ist ein bisschen so wie im Kindergarten, wenn man ein anderes Kind die ganze Zeit gezielt ärgert und dann irgendwann auf die Fresse bekommt und sich dann wundert. Kenne das zu gut (“Das ist ein freies Land, ich darf direkt durch deine Sandburg bauen auch wenn der Sandkasten noch frei ist” und dabei dumm Grinsen).
Kein Plan was die Motivation ist. Mir würde sowas im Leben nicht einfallen. Ich kann mir aber vorstellen, dass es Menschen gibt, die nicht wollen dass die Ideologie dieser Religion sich in den Alltag manifestiert. Die Koranverbrennung soll dann wohl Aufmerksamkeit erzeugen und das hässliche Gesicht dieser Religion aufdecken. Scheint gewissermaßen auch zu funktionieren.
Ich halte übrigens auch von anderen Religionen nichts. Der Islam ist allerdings leider sehr auffällig.
Es gibt genug Leute (hoffentlich die Mehrheit), die das zwar nicht gut finden, aber nicht aggressiv werden. Man soll die aggressiven halt nicht tolerieren.
Ich finde übrigens auch, dass man Bücher (egal welche) nicht verbrennen sollte. Und ich finde das Provozieren auch völlig unnütz. Aber es ist nunmal erlaubt. Es kann nicht sein, dass man Terror ankündigt, nur weil ein Haufen Papier, auf dem eine schlechte Fantasy Geschichte geschrieben wurde, verbrannt wird. Das kann einfach nicht angehen.
It’s kind of strange that some countries have laws and punishments dealing with libel, slander, and defamation of character (disrespect of individuals) but “malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence” (well said) makes some people throw their hands up and say “welp what can you do, it’s freedom”. The “Where do we start and where do we stop?” camp doesn’t seem to have enough mental tarmac to even take off in search of a solution.
Because libel and slander are targeted at individuals. Groups and worldviews do not enjoy the same protections as individuals by most law systems. That’s mostly a good thing.
I have no love for the right-wing nutjobs trying to incite intercultural violence but at the same time I don’t think what they’re doing can be made illegal in a liberal society.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Sounds reasonable to me.
The US first ammendment (“free speech”) protects citizens from reprecussions from the government if a citizen criticizes the government. That’s it. It doesn’t mean you can say whatever tf you want, as some people interpret it. In fact, in the US, some people who misinterperet the first ammendment will be summarily executed by someone who misunderstands the second ammendment!
No, burning some paper is far from the most extreme form of provocation.
If someone, or some group, wants to commit violence as a result of burning a single book, then they have demonstrated that they have no place in the modern world; which was likely the point of said burning.
But it’s just paper to me. They don’t get to enforce onto me what is and isn’t sacred. That’s the point of burning it. I can’t believe you don’t understand this trivial thing.
What if I want to prove to them that the laws they try to enforce on others don’t effect me? Burning some paper seems like the most harmless way to make that point.
To cause hate and violence by christian fundamentalists?
But that doesn’t happen in Western Europe. At least not since the Good Friday Agreement. Bible burnings and other sacrilegious/blasphemic stuff is done frequently here and occasionally you’ll read about some resentful remarks from church officials, but all in all that group reacts a lot calmer.
Black metal fanatics literally burned down medieval churches. Yet I’m not aware ideology motivated Christian attacks on metal fans.
I’m not saying burning books is a polite thing to do, but the ridiculous reaction to it is what worries me.
As you said: That’s history. I’m just describing the world in the 21st century. If I were talking about the 11th century I’d likely be saying similar stuff but with reversed roles.
Those are a couple opinions opinion pieces made by laypeople, not trustworthy sources.
Besides, it’s simply disgusting to compare the colonialism and the horrors that accompanied it with the economic issues of current international trade relations. You’re belittling victims of actual gencoides here. It’s reminds me a bit of the people who needed to talk about “tyranny” when we had rules against Covid.
But why??? I thought you love your holy dogma of free speech so much?
They have completely different messages.
Anti gay parade: Gay people shouldn’t be allowed. We tell you how you should behave.
Book burning: Book burnings must be allowed. Don’t tell us what not to do.
If anti gay parades were without consequence for gay people, or if book burnings would result in harm to muslims, you’d have a point. But only one group out of the two has demands for another, and it’s not the bunch with the lighters.
Publicly desecrating the most holy symbol of any world religion will always spark hate and probably violence and that is why these malicious people do it.
Let’s say I’m a freeist. We strongly believe people should be free of religious symbols. It is most sacred to us that especially public spaces are not tainted with religious symbols. The possession, distribution, usage and display of religious symbols is an outragous desecration of everything we hold dear and holy, and cannot be seen as anything but a direct, personal and utmost provocation to each and every freeist. This intolerance is unacceptable.
Now what, which religion gets precedence, and why? Whose fairy tale deserves to determine what people not following that religion are forbidden (by law, or by decency) to do in public spaces?
Do we really want a justice system of “whoever plays the imaginary victim first wins”?
I can come up with arbitrary religious rules all day, and demand everyone else (including non-followers) to follow my rules. Is that a sensible demand to follow?
Irrelevant objection. What does it matter how many people believed in something for how long? Who’s to say which imaginary belief system is to be taken seriously, and which is to be discarded?
You’re free to believe in whatever you want, but so am I. You’re free to submit to religious rules, in exactly the same way that I am free to not submit to them. Or have my own, different belief. Further, I’m not obliged to follow practices from other cultures in different countries.
Don’t be ignorant towards the power play you’re inviting if you accept such encroaching behaviour.
It’s a bad idea to tell a stranger that they smell like a turd burger but that doesn’t mean it justifies violence or threat of terrorism.
They’re burning quorans to try and prove a point. And they succeeded.
Doesn’t matter if you or I think it’s a good idea or not.The law does not ban the burning of a book as a form of protest.
The government can not tell you what you can and can’t protest. That would go against our freedom of speech.
The argument of, “I don’t like what they’re protesting” is not enough.
People were protesting the covid vaccine. I don’t agree with, I think they’re idiots. But I will still defend their right to do it. It has to go both ways.
deleted by creator
Being rational is not a requirement for free speech. There are clear rules about what is considered free speech. Burning books might be tasteless, but it should not be illegal, regardless of which book it is.
Respect needs to be mutual. These people who are offended by some burned books will happily disrespect other cultures or beliefs.
deleted by creator
Keine Toleranz den Intoleranten. Man erreicht damit nen Scheißdreck. Sieht man ja in Deutschland mit der AfD. Dieser dumme Naziverein wurde die ganze Zeit toleriert und jetzt haben wir NSDAP2.0 vor der Tür.
Sorry for German. What I said is, no tolerance for the intolerant. This is a statement us Germans usually use in conjunction with nazis but I also have no tolerance for backward ass religions.
deleted by creator
Nein, aber ein besseres Beispiel darstellen hilft bei den Dullies nicht. Damit erreicht man genau gar nichts. Jeder soll sein Recht ausüben dürfen. Dazu gehört nunmal auch das verbrennen eines Buches über ein fucking Fabelwesen. Wir können uns doch nicht durch son Haufen Idioten einschränken lassen. Und ich meine damit diese Vollidioten, die wegen sowas auf die Straße gehen und aggressiv werden. Nicht die normalen Moslems, die klar kommen.
Aber was ich nicht ganz verstehe, ist warum man das jetzt verbrennt. Es ist doch offensichtlich, um zu provozieren. Man weiß ja schon genau welche Reaktion es hervorruft. Warum macht man das dann? Will man Gewalt auf den Straßen? Klar ist das scheiße, dass einige so auf eine Bücherverbrennung reagieren, aber es ist nunmal so, warum muss man es dann mit Absicht heraufbeschwören? Was soll das bringen? Es ist ja so als wolle man die Gesellschaft weiter spalten und Gewalt. Das ist ein bisschen so wie im Kindergarten, wenn man ein anderes Kind die ganze Zeit gezielt ärgert und dann irgendwann auf die Fresse bekommt und sich dann wundert. Kenne das zu gut (“Das ist ein freies Land, ich darf direkt durch deine Sandburg bauen auch wenn der Sandkasten noch frei ist” und dabei dumm Grinsen).
Kein Plan was die Motivation ist. Mir würde sowas im Leben nicht einfallen. Ich kann mir aber vorstellen, dass es Menschen gibt, die nicht wollen dass die Ideologie dieser Religion sich in den Alltag manifestiert. Die Koranverbrennung soll dann wohl Aufmerksamkeit erzeugen und das hässliche Gesicht dieser Religion aufdecken. Scheint gewissermaßen auch zu funktionieren.
Ich halte übrigens auch von anderen Religionen nichts. Der Islam ist allerdings leider sehr auffällig.
deleted by creator
Es gibt genug Leute (hoffentlich die Mehrheit), die das zwar nicht gut finden, aber nicht aggressiv werden. Man soll die aggressiven halt nicht tolerieren.
Ich finde übrigens auch, dass man Bücher (egal welche) nicht verbrennen sollte. Und ich finde das Provozieren auch völlig unnütz. Aber es ist nunmal erlaubt. Es kann nicht sein, dass man Terror ankündigt, nur weil ein Haufen Papier, auf dem eine schlechte Fantasy Geschichte geschrieben wurde, verbrannt wird. Das kann einfach nicht angehen.
deleted by creator
Do you really want the state to recognize some things as sacred? Where do we start and where do we stop?
deleted by creator
Here in Russia we relatively recently had got a law for “protection of the rights of believers”. And boy, did it go wrong.
deleted by creator
Such a law would be from the same barrel. A tool to easy to abuse. Let speech be free. It’s violence what should be punished.
deleted by creator
The book burning was not malicious. It was a test to see if the other party is malicious.
deleted by creator
Easy to see through? What are you talking about?
It’s not aggressive.
It’s only desecration if you believe Islamic law.
deleted by creator
Not even close to malicious as it gets. That brain dead take is the point of burning it.
If you think burning paper is as malicious as it gets, where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?
deleted by creator
Is such an incitement not an offense in Sweden already? I know it is in France for example.
deleted by creator
It should be a popular weekend activity in every civilised country.
deleted by creator
It’s kind of strange that some countries have laws and punishments dealing with libel, slander, and defamation of character (disrespect of individuals) but “malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence” (well said) makes some people throw their hands up and say “welp what can you do, it’s freedom”. The “Where do we start and where do we stop?” camp doesn’t seem to have enough mental tarmac to even take off in search of a solution.
Because libel and slander are targeted at individuals. Groups and worldviews do not enjoy the same protections as individuals by most law systems. That’s mostly a good thing.
I have no love for the right-wing nutjobs trying to incite intercultural violence but at the same time I don’t think what they’re doing can be made illegal in a liberal society.
deleted by creator
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Sounds reasonable to me.
The US first ammendment (“free speech”) protects citizens from reprecussions from the government if a citizen criticizes the government. That’s it. It doesn’t mean you can say whatever tf you want, as some people interpret it. In fact, in the US, some people who misinterperet the first ammendment will be summarily executed by someone who misunderstands the second ammendment!
deleted by creator
No, burning some paper is far from the most extreme form of provocation.
If someone, or some group, wants to commit violence as a result of burning a single book, then they have demonstrated that they have no place in the modern world; which was likely the point of said burning.
deleted by creator
No. If you get provoked too easily, and respond violently, you are the asshole.
Terrorism as a response to burning some paper is a good example.
deleted by creator
But it’s just paper to me. They don’t get to enforce onto me what is and isn’t sacred. That’s the point of burning it. I can’t believe you don’t understand this trivial thing.
deleted by creator
In my religion, tobacco is sacred. Anyone who is smoking cigarettes are provoking violence.
Idiotic.
deleted by creator
What if I want to prove to them that the laws they try to enforce on others don’t effect me? Burning some paper seems like the most harmless way to make that point.
deleted by creator
Make up your mind. Live in the past with your old ideas, hate , make believe stories and book. Or join the free modern world
deleted by creator
Could have fooled me.
When are you converting?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
But that doesn’t happen in Western Europe. At least not since the Good Friday Agreement. Bible burnings and other sacrilegious/blasphemic stuff is done frequently here and occasionally you’ll read about some resentful remarks from church officials, but all in all that group reacts a lot calmer.
Black metal fanatics literally burned down medieval churches. Yet I’m not aware ideology motivated Christian attacks on metal fans.
I’m not saying burning books is a polite thing to do, but the ridiculous reaction to it is what worries me.
I love the smell of burning churches in the morning
deleted by creator
As you said: That’s history. I’m just describing the world in the 21st century. If I were talking about the 11th century I’d likely be saying similar stuff but with reversed roles.
deleted by creator
Those are a couple opinions opinion pieces made by laypeople, not trustworthy sources.
Besides, it’s simply disgusting to compare the colonialism and the horrors that accompanied it with the economic issues of current international trade relations. You’re belittling victims of actual gencoides here. It’s reminds me a bit of the people who needed to talk about “tyranny” when we had rules against Covid.
deleted by creator
They kinda moved on since then? Which is the whole point of this ordeal.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
They have completely different messages.
Anti gay parade: Gay people shouldn’t be allowed. We tell you how you should behave.
Book burning: Book burnings must be allowed. Don’t tell us what not to do.
If anti gay parades were without consequence for gay people, or if book burnings would result in harm to muslims, you’d have a point. But only one group out of the two has demands for another, and it’s not the bunch with the lighters.
deleted by creator
Religion has no place in a civilised society.
deleted by creator
You can practice religion at your home. Once you’re out in society, you shouldn’t have any religion.
deleted by creator
THE IRONY
Let’s say I’m a freeist. We strongly believe people should be free of religious symbols. It is most sacred to us that especially public spaces are not tainted with religious symbols. The possession, distribution, usage and display of religious symbols is an outragous desecration of everything we hold dear and holy, and cannot be seen as anything but a direct, personal and utmost provocation to each and every freeist. This intolerance is unacceptable.
Now what, which religion gets precedence, and why? Whose fairy tale deserves to determine what people not following that religion are forbidden (by law, or by decency) to do in public spaces?
Do we really want a justice system of “whoever plays the imaginary victim first wins”?
I can come up with arbitrary religious rules all day, and demand everyone else (including non-followers) to follow my rules. Is that a sensible demand to follow?
deleted by creator
Irrelevant objection. What does it matter how many people believed in something for how long? Who’s to say which imaginary belief system is to be taken seriously, and which is to be discarded?
You’re free to believe in whatever you want, but so am I. You’re free to submit to religious rules, in exactly the same way that I am free to not submit to them. Or have my own, different belief. Further, I’m not obliged to follow practices from other cultures in different countries.
Don’t be ignorant towards the power play you’re inviting if you accept such encroaching behaviour.
deleted by creator
Do you know why they’re burning a quoran and not statues of Buddha? Because only one of those two groups starts throwing tantrums like children.
Did Swedes take to the streets because they burnt churches in Pakistan? No… we didn’t even care. We moved on with our lives.
deleted by creator
It’s a bad idea to tell a stranger that they smell like a turd burger but that doesn’t mean it justifies violence or threat of terrorism.
They’re burning quorans to try and prove a point. And they succeeded.
Doesn’t matter if you or I think it’s a good idea or not.The law does not ban the burning of a book as a form of protest.
The government can not tell you what you can and can’t protest. That would go against our freedom of speech.
The argument of, “I don’t like what they’re protesting” is not enough.
People were protesting the covid vaccine. I don’t agree with, I think they’re idiots. But I will still defend their right to do it. It has to go both ways.
coming in here to bang the free speech drum is pretty tiresome. Free speech does not mean people have to put up with your bullshit
What does free speech means to you?
deleted by creator
Not directed at you, but rather the other replies to your comment
Easy there
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator