• drolex@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      But then you could always pretend to be offended by something to get it banned. I understand that by your definition it would only include things done to spite other people but the line is thin. And it would create a dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.

      I might become offended by people wearing a tie. If it becomes well-known, should we ban ties?

      I agree that in an ideal world, people shouldn’t be assholes and burn Qur’ans just to antagonise people. But it should also be clear to the offended people, that this actually harms no one. It’s like burning a dictionary. It’s idiotic but harmless. If you expect to live in an open society, you have to realise that the book of your religion is just an object.

        • taladar@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.

          That is a ridiculous comparison. The copy of the book they are burning represents no real unfulfilled need for the believer like the food does for the starving child.

          • malamignasanmig@group.lt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            though i disagree with their sentiment, i sort get their example. it is not about practical need, but more of the object’s perceived value. the qran is valuable to its believer as much as food is to the starving. that was not a ridiculous comparison.

              • malamignasanmig@group.lt
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                and that is where conflict comes from. some value an imaginary god while others do not. it is idiotic to you, but not to them. again, i was not defending the idea, just the other commenter’s example.

            • taladar@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are good reasons not to go by perceived anything when it comes to offense though. Offending people is very much not something that can be avoided for everyone simultaneously, unlike needs and desires in the real world like food, water,… which are much more predictable and much less incompatible.

    • McJonalds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If i went into the street and condemned people for whatever choices they make, without harassing them, that would be legal. You’re not harming anyone by burning a book and you wouldn’t hurt anyone either by just pissing them off. The problem is a very vocal part of the world have been brainwashed to incite violence when this specific area of their feelings get hurt.

      It’s only made a gray area because you can’t tell them that they can in fact just learn to ignore it and practice their religion in peace and expect it to work. Their beliefs are not built upon letting others express their views freely if they react with violence when someone burns their printed holy word. Their actions would be justified if there was only one copy or a building was burnt down, but it’s a worthless material thing, and the disrespect it signifies will not go away just because you disallow people to express it.

      Sorry, long rant to say I actually agree that this law goes too far.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you went to the streets with posters or speeches that talk about how you believe the teachings or religious organizations to be wrong that is perfectly legal.

        If you cannot think of civilized ways to express critique and opposition, than it is your problem and not that of the people that rightfully fear the burning of symbols to escalate into violanece against the people, like it did many times in history.

        If you think burning religious books in public should be legal you also think that burning a Torah in a former concentration camp, or in front of a synagouge should be legal. If these ideas make you uncomfy, then you should ask yourself, why you want muslims to be treated differently from other religions.

        • McJonalds@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your last point is wrong and I don’t think you should assume those are my views. Behavior in concentration camps should obviously be policed, because it’s significant and not recreatable and should therefore be preserved as a place for the people it is significant to. A privately owned printed book is not, so you should be able to attempt to piss other people off by burning it, if that is your perogative. If we’re getting specific, I don’t think you should be allowed to start a fire anywhere near buildings you don’t own, unless it’s to light a cigarette or w\e

          Other than that, I agree you should find a civilized way to express your beliefs, but we shouldn’t, for good reasons, police the way people express themselves. A law like this sets a precedent for religious organizations; that they can have their way if they (re)act violently. It will lead to more violence down the road so we need a better solution.

            • McJonalds@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              We do not agree on what constitutes harm. I believe you should be free to try to upset others by expressing your views any way you want as long as it doesn’t harm them. Getting upset is not getting harmed.

                • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I believe you should be free to do whatever you like, so long as it does not impact others

                  I am deeply offended by that statement. It has profoundly impacted my emotional wellbeing. Please be consequent with your own words and delete your comment.

              • taladar@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I would say targetting individuals when trying to upset them should be policed, however this is not about individuals but a large group.

                If you, say, bankrupted someone’s company so they had to sell all their possessions and then went up to them and burned the Quran they got from their now dead father as a present as a child or that had been in their family for generations right in front of them, that would be something that should be illegal as targetted harassment.

                However here we are talking about criticism of a religion by burning a symbol of the religion, not one particular person’s possessions.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        you don’t see the irony in saying that you’re not hurting anyone by burning things in public? Is arson okay because it was an accident?

        • McJonalds@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          intent to piss off is not intent to harm. you are not being harmed by being pissed off. it is not harmful. in a civilized society, claiming harm from a book burning is called being a little piss baby. they should grow up

    • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re putting on a public display purely to incite and antagonise people by destroying things they hold dear, then you’re not merely exercising your freedoms but actively seeking to harm others.

      If I put on a public display to antagonise religious people, and they, based on their religion find harmfulx shoud that be banned?