Blasphemy in Denmark

[PhantomWolf]

You are confusing several issues here:

1) Free speech and common sense. It is certainly not a crime (in countries where there is in fact free speech) to say "I believe Islam is not a true religion", anywhere you will. It is, however, both insensitive, impolite, provocative, and rather stupid to do so in a Mosque. If somebody gives you a beating for it, he is the criminal, you, however, are the fool. (BTW, in many places, I really think you would just be politely, but determinedly accompanied to the exit.)

Highlighted part is not quite true. Free speech is only guaranteed by the Government. Businesses and private establishments are free to quash your free speech all they like.

2) Raising a false alarm. Shouting "Fire!" when there is no fire has nothing to do with free speech. It is disturbing public order and putting people at risk.

I'd still say that shouting that Islam is a false religion in a Mosque is certainly putting yourself at risk and disturbing public order.

And in the Buzz Aldrin/Bart Sibrel case, it was not a question of free speech. Bart Sibrel could, and AFAIK still does, claim Apollo hoax all he wanted, but in the incident in question, he was harassing Aldrin, following him around, shouting insults, and asking him to swear on a bible. Harassment is not free speech. Strictly speaking that did not entitle Aldrin to hit him, but that is another matter. As it were, Aldrin was not booked for assault and Sibrel was not booked for harassment. Seams rather reasonable to me.

I'd also suggest that a lot of the things that are done to incite people fall under the category of harassment as well.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Can you prove that the Quran / Torah does not contain the literal word of God? That you do not believe it is not proof. In general science works by disproving a hypothesis.

No, science does not work that way. It works by proving a hypothesis.

But it is irrelevant. "Moby Dick" contains the literal word of Herman Melville. That does not make the book anything but paper and ink.

Even if you accept that that a holy book contains the literal word of a god, it is (perhaps even more so) just humble paper and ink.

A book is just an information medium. What if I read the Quran online? Is my screen now a holy object?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Highlighted part is not quite true. Free speech is only guaranteed by the Government. Businesses and private establishments are free to quash your free speech all they like.

No, not all they like. They can show you the door. Your company can fire you. Your family can disown you. But you can go on in a public place.

I'd still say that shouting that Islam is a false religion in a Mosque is certainly putting yourself at risk and disturbing public order.

I'd also suggest that a lot of the things that are done to incite people fall under the category of harassment as well.

Both true, but not free speech issues. Stupidity is legal, but risky.

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you were being serious and someone did goad you on then yes, they would be as guilty as you are for the actions that follow.

No. No. No. Not at all. Not even a little. Not on any level or in anyway.

If I beat my wife because someone has a different opinion on which the superior snack cracker on what planet or plane of reality are they to blame in any way?

That is insane.

BTW because it seems that this might have gone over people's heads. No one is saying that those that react badly to be taunted should not face the consequences of their actions as well. It is possible to charge both sets of bad actors, though I would note that in many jurisdictions provocation can be used as mitigation at sentencing, and depending on the targeted group inciting could be considered a hate crime which would also be considered at sentencing.

Nothing is going over anyone's head. We just recognize this game for what it is, an attempt to backhandedly put the onus of people's reactions on other people.

We are all way too adult to play some childish "I'm totally not saying it's your fault wink, wink, nudge, nudge" version of the "Look at what you made me do" defense.

If simply state the opinion that someone else's belief structure isn't true, including any and all legal means of free and non-violent expression, and they react to it to an unreasonable or violent degree zero of the blame transfers to me.

These various condescending "You brought it on yourself" euphemism are flat out wrong.

 

[erlando]

Yes and many places about the world inciting violence, even against yourself is a crime too.

That's why I've talked all the time of legal actions. If I perform a legal action and someone harms me for that, none of the blame is on me.

And yes, that includes going into a mosque and shouting "Your god plays with pig's poo". That would be stupid, yes in the same way that taunting a group of Hells Angels would be stupid. But any illegal actions taken against me because of it would not in any way be on me.

A provokation may be taken into account as a mitigating factor during sentencing, yes. But it would not shift the blame.

 

[erlando]

Highlighted part is not quite true. Free speech is only guaranteed by the Government. Businesses and private establishments are free to quash your free speech all they like.



I'd still say that shouting that Islam is a false religion in a Mosque is certainly putting yourself at risk and disturbing public order.

Is a mosque a private establishment or a public place? Make up your mind.

 

[dann]

No, science does not work that way. It works by proving a hypothesis.

But it is irrelevant. "Moby Dick" contains the literal word of Herman Melville. That does not make the book anything but paper and ink.

And in the case of my Kindle edition not even that …. It doesn't even burn well.

Even if you accept that that a holy book contains the literal word of a god, it is (perhaps even more so) just humble paper and ink.

A book is just an information medium. What if I read the Quran online? Is my screen now a holy object?

Be very careful now! Don't let anybody see you press the delete key!

 

[McHrozni]

A book is just an information medium. What if I read the Quran online? Is my screen now a holy object?

It depends on who you ask, but yes, it can be interpreted in that way. In light of that, going offline could be interpreted as apostasy.

Religions produce weird results.

McHrozni

 

[MRC_Hans]

And in the case of my Kindle edition not even that …. It doesn't even burn well.


Be very careful now! Don't let anybody see you press the delete key!

AH, now I know why the Diskworld dwarves will never use internet.

Hans

 

[I Am The Scum]

In the cases I'm talking the things being said and done are being said and done specially to create a violent reaction. They are done knowing that will be the result of the actions. They are done so that when that violent reaction occurs they can pull out the victim card and then further the hate against the targeted group because of how evil they are because "they attacked me and I was just using my freedom of expression." It's a gaming of the system to spread hate against people that the speaker dislikes.

Do you seriously believe that the people drawing Mohammad deeply yearn to find themselves the victims of violent crimes?

I have drawn pictures of Mohammad before. I neither desired nor anticipated that anyone would attack me.

 

[dudalb]

Right, concern about free speech is just a cover story for bigots. Probably also true about those who support lgbtq rights, or oppose creationism, right?

Bitter fact is there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who would love to limit free speech.
As far as I am concerned, Free Speech is one issue on which I am not willing to compromise. This is why, of all of Trump's actions, it is his war with the press, and his threats against them, that scare me the most.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you seriously believe that the people drawing Mohammad deeply yearn to find themselves the victims of violent crimes?

I have drawn pictures of Mohammad before. I neither desired nor anticipated that anyone would attack me.

Perhaps time to rehash the background for the Mohammad cartoons:

A Danish author wanted to make a book about the prophet Muhammad's childhood and youth, aimed at young readers. The intention was to make it neutral and as objective as possible. It was to be illustrated, but when the author contacted artists, he could not find any who dared to draw the prophet.

So seeing this threat to free expression, Jyllands Posten decided to ask various artists to make a drawing of the prophet Muhammad. A number responded and did so, most of the drawings quite neutral and non-committed. A few could be seen as critical.

After publishing them, very little happened in the beginning, but after some time, a small group of Imams (three, I think) from Denmark made a tour of the Islamic world and did their best to rile up emotions, including showing, among a portfolio of the actual drawings, a couple of others that were highly provocative, but which were never widely published in Denmark.

After that, the balloon went up.

Our prime minister at the time refusing to even meet with a group of Islamic representatives did not help anything.

Hans

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you seriously believe that the people drawing Mohammad deeply yearn to find themselves the victims of violent crimes?

I have drawn pictures of Mohammad before. I neither desired nor anticipated that anyone would attack me.

If you didn't do it with a desire or anticipation that someone would act violent because of your act, then you didn't do it with knowledge and intent to incite violence, and thus what you did is totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

This seems to be a recurring theme. People keep saying, but if what I do is legal...

That's not the area I am looking at, I'm looking at actions and words that can be deemed "fighting words" which even SCotUS considers to not be covered by the 1st Amendment, and of course outside of the US, most Free Speech laws have greater limitations on them than the US allows. Considering that the OP action was not in the US and not under US Law, continuing to refer back to that as the standard is kind of silly.

However, it is still noted that the US does have limitations for instance when Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 123 S. Ct.1536. 155 L. Ed.2d 535 (2003) was brought before SCotUS the result was that

that the First Amendment would protect some types of cross burnings, such as one held at a political rally. However, when the cross burning was targeted at individuals for the purposes of criminal intimidation, freedom of speech would not protect the cross burners.

so even in the US there are limits to what form of harassment and antagonistic behavior is allowable. In the US it's the targeting of individuals and families directly. In much of the rest of the world it is the targeting of a protected group based on things such as religion, sexuality, gender, gender identity, race.

So in the end the whole, "but if I say if legally" is a red herring, it's when it's said in a way that target individuals or groups specifically with an intent to incite them into violence then in most of the world that is illegal, and even in the US could end up being covered by the laws covering threats and fighting words.

If you want to make an argument that you should be allowed to incite others into violent behaviour, then go for it, but understand that such things would also cover KKK leaders inciting their followers to go out and attack Blacks and Jews and be immune from any consequences of that speech.

 

[I Am The Scum]

If you didn't do it with a desire or anticipation that someone would act violent because of your act, then you didn't do it with knowledge and intent to incite violence, and thus what you did is totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

This seems to be a recurring theme. People keep saying, but if what I do is legal...

First of all, nothing I said had anything to do with the law.

Back on topic: Let's just take the quran-burner in the OP as an example. Do you really think he deeply desires to be on the receiving end of violence?

 

[PhantomWolf]

First of all, nothing I said had anything to do with the law.

Back on topic: Let's just take the quran-burner in the OP as an example. Do you really think he deeply desires to be on the receiving end of violence?

No, I think he hopes that other people will be, which is worse. I believe his intent was to get Muslims to riot and hurt people so that he could then make claims about how terrible and evil they are.

ETA: Having a fatwa put out on him would also likely accomplish his goal.

 

[erlando]

No, I think he hopes that other people will be, which is worse. I believe his intent was to get Muslims to riot and hurt people so that he could then make claims about how terrible and evil they are.

I don't think so at all. I think his goal was to show his absolute disdain for Islam as a religion.

Is it a stupid way to do that? Absolutely. Is it provoking to (especially certain) muslims? Judging by other incidents, most certainly. Is the purpose to incite violence? Most probably not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you didn't do it with a desire or anticipation that someone would act violent because of your act, then you didn't do it with knowledge and intent to incite violence, and thus what you did is totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

The issue you are operating under the idea that the side oppressing their opinion has the onus to magically know how the rest of their humanity is going to react to their statements and regardless the end result you're advocating a social and even legal system where unreasonable people can hold other people responsible for their actions.

You are creating a world in which only "safe" opinions are allowed to be expressed. Can't say X if might lead to somebody somewhere being violent. People will use that concept against others to stifle free speech. You're making it so the mere suggestion of violence in reaction to free speech puts the onus back on the people expressing their opinions.

You keep bringing up extreme examples like straight up direct personal attacks while ignoring the broad scope of violent reactions to reasonable, non-directed expressions.

No one deserves to die because they drew a cartoon. No one deserves to have a literal Holy War launched on them because they wrote a work of fiction.

Again you are functionally arguing for the "Look at what you made me do" defense. It's my wife's fault she has a black eye because she burnt the roast.

 

[Arcade22]

It really is just "Look at what you made me do" by proxy.

Yeah and i don't think it's acceptable for people to intentionally and publicly try to rouse anger in other people. In fact it's a crime in Sweden to do so, the offence is called "Förargelseväckande beteende" and could be translated as "disorderly conduct", although a more literal translation would be something like "anger causing behavior".

"Whoever is noisy in a public place or otherwise make publicly behaves in a way likely to cause offense to the public, shall be sentenced for disorderly conduct to a fine."

It's one thing to burn a Koran in private but when done in public i'd argue that it might as well constitute incitement of hatred as it publicly reinforces contempt and hatred of Muslims and i don't like it when people spread hatred, contempt, discord, fear and anxiety in the society i happen to live.

 

[erlando]

Yeah and i don't think it's acceptable for people to intentionally and publicly try to rouse anger in other people. In fact it's a crime in Sweden to do so, the offence is called "Förargelseväckande beteende" and could be translated as "disorderly conduct", although a more literal translation would be something like "anger causing behavior".

"Whoever is noisy in a public place or otherwise make publicly behaves in a way likely to cause offense to the public, shall be sentenced for disorderly conduct to a fine."

It's one thing to burn a Koran in private but when done in public i'd argue that it might as well constitute incitement of hatred as it publicly reinforces contempt and hatred of Muslims and i don't like it when people spread hatred, contempt, discord, fear and anxiety in the society i happen to live.

What is the threshold? How many people needs to be angered? Who decides what constitutes "disorderly conduct"? Does intent matter or is it "disorderly conduct" if it just angers people?

This seems like a slippery slope covered in copious amount of lube.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's one thing to burn a Koran in private but when done in public i'd argue that it might as well constitute incitement of hatred as it publicly reinforces contempt and hatred of Muslims and i don't like it when people spread hatred, contempt, discord, fear and anxiety in the society i happen to live.

And that's fine and dandy if you're part of the group that's big, powerful, and influential enough and/or prone to using or threatening violence. You can just bully anyone into shutting up via "Careful now... don't want to anger me and make me cause a disturbance of the peace."

Again I'm not seeing anything beyond "Look at what you made me do."