The public act is exactly what should stay legal. This is not a debate about fire hazards and matters of insurance after all, it is about the right of expression, and that is a debate about behavior in public.
So, you’re going to decide that no one can feel degraded by having their religious scripture burned, just because you can’t comprehend the feelings others.
They have the right to feel like however they like. You for example are free to feel sad, angry, happy, horny, offended, relieved, or anxious about this comment of mine. But none of those are what I intent to incite. So you feeling one way about my comment shouldn’t be the only consideration when it comes to questioning if my comment should be legal. It shouldn’t be disregarded altogether either - but the right of expression is an incredibly important legal asset, and such a trade off shouldn’t be made lightly.
A book burning with calls to violence against humans - that, definitely, should be (and is) illegal. A book burning as an expression of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” - that is not a call to violence, that is a valid expression of your democratic rights. Intent matters.
We should not give in to extremeists demands under threat of violence
What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit. You are constrained by the laws governing your country. And believe me. There are laws against certain types of expression.
Burning forgein flags is a form of expression. You are not allowed to do that in public. But I don’t see you going on about how it’s infringing on your freedom.
You quote half of what I said to then reply that “but in effect we are”.
Had you quoted the entire thing, the answer and retort is already there. If you don’t sleep at least 5 hours in the next 5 days I will spit at your house and piss on your cat.
Are you giving in on my demand by sleeping at night? Or is it because of other, unrelated reasons?
Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.
How many times have you gone out and burned books in public? Do you typically attend book burnings? Is that some holiday you have that you need to preserve. You go out and burn a Bible every other week?
Or is this a thing that no one does. Except those who wish to provoke and insult? Can you mention any book burnings in recent times in Denmark that was not about provoking and insulting?
What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit.
I agree. You’re mistaken if you think this is what I ask for. I’m saying the consideration of weighting individual freedoms against each other mustn’t be taken lightly and in this specific case the freedom of expression should win.
Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.
My actual argument is this: When it comes to book burnings, since there’s no harm done to anyone and no call to harming anyone either, the freedom of expression should be given priority over religious sensitivities. This would be different if there was something harmful being done or incited, but the only things that really are in danger here are books and the only people taking offense with that are people who think specific objects should be treated as more than a book by everyone in- and outside of their religion.
How many times have you gone out and burned books in public?
Never, but that would be an extraordinarily bad argument for or against any kind of freedom.
The public act is exactly what should stay legal. This is not a debate about fire hazards and matters of insurance after all, it is about the right of expression, and that is a debate about behavior in public.
They have the right to feel like however they like. You for example are free to feel sad, angry, happy, horny, offended, relieved, or anxious about this comment of mine. But none of those are what I intent to incite. So you feeling one way about my comment shouldn’t be the only consideration when it comes to questioning if my comment should be legal. It shouldn’t be disregarded altogether either - but the right of expression is an incredibly important legal asset, and such a trade off shouldn’t be made lightly.
A book burning with calls to violence against humans - that, definitely, should be (and is) illegal. A book burning as an expression of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” - that is not a call to violence, that is a valid expression of your democratic rights. Intent matters.
But in effect, if this law gets ratified, we are.
What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit. You are constrained by the laws governing your country. And believe me. There are laws against certain types of expression.
Burning forgein flags is a form of expression. You are not allowed to do that in public. But I don’t see you going on about how it’s infringing on your freedom.
You quote half of what I said to then reply that “but in effect we are”.
Had you quoted the entire thing, the answer and retort is already there. If you don’t sleep at least 5 hours in the next 5 days I will spit at your house and piss on your cat.
Are you giving in on my demand by sleeping at night? Or is it because of other, unrelated reasons?
Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.
How many times have you gone out and burned books in public? Do you typically attend book burnings? Is that some holiday you have that you need to preserve. You go out and burn a Bible every other week?
Or is this a thing that no one does. Except those who wish to provoke and insult? Can you mention any book burnings in recent times in Denmark that was not about provoking and insulting?
I agree. You’re mistaken if you think this is what I ask for. I’m saying the consideration of weighting individual freedoms against each other mustn’t be taken lightly and in this specific case the freedom of expression should win.
My actual argument is this: When it comes to book burnings, since there’s no harm done to anyone and no call to harming anyone either, the freedom of expression should be given priority over religious sensitivities. This would be different if there was something harmful being done or incited, but the only things that really are in danger here are books and the only people taking offense with that are people who think specific objects should be treated as more than a book by everyone in- and outside of their religion.
Never, but that would be an extraordinarily bad argument for or against any kind of freedom.