The significant difference is that public nakedness (which isn’t specifically illegal in most European countries) and shitting on the curb have concrete consequences for others. The laws are there to protect others from unwanted sexual attention (exhibitionism) and literal disease (shit on the street).
The limit for the freedoms of one person should be the safety and freedom of others. Burning books does not infringe on other’s safety or freedom.
Finally: it’s stupidly easy to circumvent this. The same provocative assholes that are burning Qurans now, will just shift to other forms of desecration or other ways of offending Muslims. If the goal is to prevent protests that provoke authoritarian or extremistic regimes, you’re just going to have to make that the law, because laws like this will just make people protest in another, equally provoking way.
There is a thing called “incitement against ethic group”
Grabing a microphone and preaching in public that Muslims are subhuman camel-piss drinkers. Would not be legal, despite it not infringing on someones immediate safety or freedom. It’s incitement against ethnic groups.
As opposed to preaching that “Islam is a bad religion that promotes gender inequality”, which is fair criticism.
One is incitement, the other criticism.
The framework is already there. The proposition would probably put that the burning of religious scripture in public falls under that category. (I don’t actually know if that is the case, but it’s a fair assumption)
Obviously you can desecrate and provoke in other ways. And I’m sure people will find other ways. And there will be new debates and court cases to decide if it’s incitement against ethnic groups or not.
I’m personally not 100% sure where I stand if it should be legally OK to burn books in public or not. There are many things we are allowed to do in private, that we are not allowed to do in public. Maybe book burnings outside of embassies is one of those things. Just like we don’t burn flags outside of embassies.
Incitement is illegal, yes, because it indirectly infringes on others safety and freedom. By encouraging violence against a group of people, that group is put in danger.
Luckily, there is a justice system that can apply nuance to each case, so that people can be convicted of inciting violence even though the do not explicitly threaten anyone. A “thinly veiled threat” or implications can be enough.
My opinion is that we have robust laws in place to prevent threats, incitement of violence, etc. adding blasphemy laws restricts freedom of expression without adding any protection of value.
The significant difference is that public nakedness (which isn’t specifically illegal in most European countries) and shitting on the curb have concrete consequences for others. The laws are there to protect others from unwanted sexual attention (exhibitionism) and literal disease (shit on the street).
The limit for the freedoms of one person should be the safety and freedom of others. Burning books does not infringe on other’s safety or freedom.
Finally: it’s stupidly easy to circumvent this. The same provocative assholes that are burning Qurans now, will just shift to other forms of desecration or other ways of offending Muslims. If the goal is to prevent protests that provoke authoritarian or extremistic regimes, you’re just going to have to make that the law, because laws like this will just make people protest in another, equally provoking way.
There is a thing called “incitement against ethic group”
Grabing a microphone and preaching in public that Muslims are subhuman camel-piss drinkers. Would not be legal, despite it not infringing on someones immediate safety or freedom. It’s incitement against ethnic groups.
As opposed to preaching that “Islam is a bad religion that promotes gender inequality”, which is fair criticism.
One is incitement, the other criticism.
The framework is already there. The proposition would probably put that the burning of religious scripture in public falls under that category. (I don’t actually know if that is the case, but it’s a fair assumption)
Obviously you can desecrate and provoke in other ways. And I’m sure people will find other ways. And there will be new debates and court cases to decide if it’s incitement against ethnic groups or not.
I’m personally not 100% sure where I stand if it should be legally OK to burn books in public or not. There are many things we are allowed to do in private, that we are not allowed to do in public. Maybe book burnings outside of embassies is one of those things. Just like we don’t burn flags outside of embassies.
Incitement is illegal, yes, because it indirectly infringes on others safety and freedom. By encouraging violence against a group of people, that group is put in danger.
Luckily, there is a justice system that can apply nuance to each case, so that people can be convicted of inciting violence even though the do not explicitly threaten anyone. A “thinly veiled threat” or implications can be enough.
My opinion is that we have robust laws in place to prevent threats, incitement of violence, etc. adding blasphemy laws restricts freedom of expression without adding any protection of value.
They’re not adding blasphemy laws. How are you not keeping up?