Sweden raised its terrorism alert level on Thursday one notch to the second-highest, following a recent string of public desecrations of the Qur'an in the Scandinavian country by a handful of anti-Islam activists, sparking angry demonstrations across Muslim countries.
Why would you want to burn their holy book?
I’m against burning books but if someone wants to, let them.
Removed by mod
There’s also a difference between burning one book and burning all examples of said book.
It’s also a question of not applying your religion to others. Your religion does not allow you to burn your own book, but you can’t impose that restriction on others, as long as it’s a book that they own and are not burning someone else’s book in the legal sense of ownership.
I support free speech but this guy clearly is using his speech to start violence and I don’t have to pretend to be too dumb to notice that.
Removed by mod
A cute sentiment but not one based in reality.
I’m not allowed to visit Auschwitz dressed in Nazi uniform. I will have violence used against me.
I can’t slowly drive around a small town in 'Bama with a gay pride flag and a I VOTED FOR HILARY bumper sticker. I will have violence used against me.
I can’t enjoy a Cider at the Cider House wearing my Make America Great Again hat. I will have violence used against me.
In each instance I’m not hurting anyone, I’m just making those around me uncomfortable and anxious with my (to them) questionable views. Yet everyone can clearly see I’m looking for trouble, that the ‘speech’ has the unsaid addition of ‘I want to hurt you when I’m powerful enough’.
It’s easier to police the one person doing the antagonizing than it is to police the millions of people from the demographic they’re targeting, it’s inevitable that a few loons will take matters into their own hands.
These are false comparisons. This is an approved demonstration against Islamic violence(and such). But I guess we all forgot about Charlie H and all the rest. The man did not walk into a mosque on a Tuesday and light a book on fire.
Yeah but if you insult the mob you can’t be all surprised if they try to kill you. Free speech protects you from the government. We live in a world were everyone doesn’t recognize the same rules law and order.
I look at this the same way as a white guy singing a bunch of rap songs using the n-word as emphatically as possible then posting it on youtube. Sure you have the right to say it but that’s not going to stop you from getting your ass beat
Yes, I can be surprised. There’s no free speech if people can’t argue against regimes, wrongdoings, women being treated unequal, slavery, etc. That is the problem exactly. Also the same false comparison
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few goes against the principles of justice and fairness. Attributing the actions of extremists to all Muslims is like blaming all Christians for the actions of a few extremists within that group. Extremism exists in all religions and ideologies.
No, this is a systemical issue with Islamic countries
Attributing a complex issue to an entire group of countries oversimplifies the situation. Just as with any region, Muslim-majority countries are diverse, each with its unique political, cultural, and historical context.
Blaming all Muslim countries for a problem oversimplifies the factors contributing to the situation. It’s important to address specific issues within individual countries rather than making blanket generalizations about an entire religion or group of nations.
So you’re using examples where Free Speech has failed as an argument against Free Speech? Because you SHOULD be allowed to do the things named in your examples. That’s the ideal, were not there yet but that’s not a justification to stop the journey.
There you go again with weak arguments that don’t compare to this.
Let’s try a different track: I’m asking you to to go to all of those places and do all of those actions. It’ll be more productive than either (good-faith) getting the conversation distracted responding to explain why those aren’t good points or (bad-faith) derailing things just for the fun of being contrarian.
How doesn’t it compare?
This is an individual who hates Muslims, doesn’t want them in his country. He thinks they are dangerous, so he will prove they are dangerous by antagonizing them in the hope that a few hot heads will take the bait. Then he can say ‘look see, all Muslims are violent and we must remove them from our country’.
Just like the guy in the MAGA hat can then say ‘Look at how violent the Portlanders are’, just like the guy with the Hilary bumper sticker car can then say 'Look at how violent these rural bumpkins are. It’s active provocation, not a protest.
Oh yes he is an asshole. As much as I despise religion I would never lower myself to the level of defacing a book. He is also an asshole with rights, rights being threatened by much worse assholes.
Burning books isn’t promoting free speech. It’s literally the opposite. It’s sending the message that we don’t accept your ideas. That’s why the Nazis did it.
Removed by mod
Sure, you’re allowed to do it because you have free speech. But don’t say that you’re promoting the freedom of speech because you’re doing it. Book burning is an act that stifles the ideas of whoever wrote that book.
More on topic, the two groups in question are both extremist groups that are opposed to the existence of the other. This isn’t about speech, this is about inciting violence.
Against violence committed to those not following Islam
Moving those goal posts pretty quickly…
The Koran really doesn’t have any ideas that need help. Humans have historically been pretty good at turning little girls into chattle and torturing people for gold. Are you really worried that there could be a day where those ideas are stifled?
In this context, I was mainly referring to book burning in general; not specifically the Koran. In my mind, they are done only as a tool for hatred. But, fair point, I haven’t read it and if that’s what it depicts then I don’t think I’m missing out on anything.
There’s a difference between burning one instance of one book as a protest and blacklisting hundreds of books and erasing all mentions of them and forcing everyone to not read them. One is declaring your dislike for something without affecting anyone, the other is erasing history. What you just did is a false equivalence.
No, I mean what is the MOTIVE for the people doing the book burning? What do they hope to achieve in burning it?
Books are for reading, not burning. But anyone should be allowed to burn any book they want to burn. It’s nothing but ink on paper.
Why would anyone want a book about pedophilia and war?