The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country's effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.
I get this argument, I really do, but it’s very much the same thing as “free speech absolutism” that the right uses to justify doing whatever they want.
Yes free speech is important, but certain things should not be protected.
Yes doing what you want with your property is important, but some things should not be protected.
If you’re using either right to call for violence, escalate violence or intentionally goad people into violence, you should not be protected imo.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification, that’s not a persuasive argument to me.
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is appeasement and it won’t stop just by creating one law.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification
I would think the argument speaks for itself, but i forget what kind of people im arguing with so ill give you the full justification.
Violence is bad
:. advocating for violence is bad
and inciting violence is bad
:. speech that intentionally does either should not be protected.
is that better?
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet?
Is there any reason to other than to offend muslims? Does that offence have any value to anyone? If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended and gay people dont exist and hold hands for the sole purpose of offending muslims.
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
speech that intentionally does either should not be protected
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
Who gets to decide that? You? You’re advocating for going down a very dangerous path here. Any wannabe authoritarian starts by silencing dissent because protests “have no value”, “there’s no good reason”, or “the majority are against it”.
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
No, you’re just not thinking of the implications of this law, you’re pro-appeasement.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
This would be protected under free speech. Speech doesn’t only include things spoken when we use these terms. I don’t know if you’re being purposefully obtuse or actually ignorant of this information, but I’m providing it either way so there isn’t an excuse.
Most of the time speech is protected, which includes many things like protests and things like that, not just speech. Sometimes it is not. For example, it’s questionable that the speech Trump gave before the January 6th riots are considered protected speech or are not protected because they were calls to violent action.
Who gets to decide that? You?
What don’t you get about this. The court gets to decide, and their decision is based on how the law is written. We’re not just saying random people getting offended get to decide. None of this is a weird process that hasn’t been done before.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Not totally, no. There are plenty of things you can’t do with your property. For the US: If you live near other people’s property, you can burn your house down. If there’s a residence you can’t legally fire a firearm within a certain distance of it (though this often isn’t obeyed, especially in rural areas where literally no one else is around). You can put up a cross and burn it because it’d be hate speach (most likely at least, but it’d be up to the court to decide. If you’re not from the US, this is what the KKK did.) There are tons of rules you have to follow that restrict what you can do with your property.
I’m unfamiliar with Danish law so I was trying not to get into the specifics. Can you cite the relevant legislation?
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
It absolutely does if you consider my entirely reasonable point that passing this law will not be the end of the matter. There will always be further demands. To not consider this is naive.
As to your last point. There are laws in place to protect other people’s property which prohibit what you can do with yours. That’s obvious.
Maybe I don’t burn the book. Maybe I rip pages out of it or otherwise deface it. Should those actions also be illegal?
I get this argument, I really do, but it’s very much the same thing as “free speech absolutism” that the right uses to justify doing whatever they want.
Yes free speech is important, but certain things should not be protected.
Yes doing what you want with your property is important, but some things should not be protected.
If you’re using either right to call for violence, escalate violence or intentionally goad people into violence, you should not be protected imo.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification, that’s not a persuasive argument to me.
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is appeasement and it won’t stop just by creating one law.
I would think the argument speaks for itself, but i forget what kind of people im arguing with so ill give you the full justification.
Violence is bad :. advocating for violence is bad and inciting violence is bad :. speech that intentionally does either should not be protected.
is that better?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
Is there any reason to other than to offend muslims? Does that offence have any value to anyone? If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended and gay people dont exist and hold hands for the sole purpose of offending muslims.
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
Burning a book you bought isn’t violence.
Same.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
Who gets to decide that? You? You’re advocating for going down a very dangerous path here. Any wannabe authoritarian starts by silencing dissent because protests “have no value”, “there’s no good reason”, or “the majority are against it”.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
No, you’re just not thinking of the implications of this law, you’re pro-appeasement.
This would be protected under free speech. Speech doesn’t only include things spoken when we use these terms. I don’t know if you’re being purposefully obtuse or actually ignorant of this information, but I’m providing it either way so there isn’t an excuse.
Most of the time speech is protected, which includes many things like protests and things like that, not just speech. Sometimes it is not. For example, it’s questionable that the speech Trump gave before the January 6th riots are considered protected speech or are not protected because they were calls to violent action.
What don’t you get about this. The court gets to decide, and their decision is based on how the law is written. We’re not just saying random people getting offended get to decide. None of this is a weird process that hasn’t been done before.
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
Not totally, no. There are plenty of things you can’t do with your property. For the US: If you live near other people’s property, you can burn your house down. If there’s a residence you can’t legally fire a firearm within a certain distance of it (though this often isn’t obeyed, especially in rural areas where literally no one else is around). You can put up a cross and burn it because it’d be hate speach (most likely at least, but it’d be up to the court to decide. If you’re not from the US, this is what the KKK did.) There are tons of rules you have to follow that restrict what you can do with your property.
I’m unfamiliar with Danish law so I was trying not to get into the specifics. Can you cite the relevant legislation?
It absolutely does if you consider my entirely reasonable point that passing this law will not be the end of the matter. There will always be further demands. To not consider this is naive.
As to your last point. There are laws in place to protect other people’s property which prohibit what you can do with yours. That’s obvious.
Maybe I don’t burn the book. Maybe I rip pages out of it or otherwise deface it. Should those actions also be illegal?