Hundreds of intellectuals and artists are concerned about its implications for freedom of expression, while police, lawyers, and prosecutors consider it too imprecise.
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?
If I put on a public display to antagonise religious people, and they, based on their religion find harmfulx shoud that be banned?
Removed by mod
I’m not just talking about a book burning.
If the some religious organisation claimed an act (any act) caused harm or distress to them, should it be banned?
Removed by mod
Like questioning their belief, or promoting other beliefs, or even worse, promoting non-belief?
Removed by mod
According to them, promoting non-belief causes harm and distress to them. So should it be banned?
Removed by mod
Again, malicious intent and causing distress according to whom?
Plenty of acceptable acts are labeled as done with malicious intern to cause distress according to religious organizations.
Do you think for example we should ban this as it was done deliberate intent to upset the protestors?
Removed by mod