• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Blasphemy in Denmark

dann said:
I wouldn't let my criticism of Trump (or his supporters) depend on the legality of expressing it. But I might consider how to express it anonymously if it were suddenly made illegal …
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question. My legally protected right to criticize politicians cannot be taken away because some people react violently to such criticism. Agreed?
 
dann said:
So why do the Quran burners (or flag burners) seem to be able to distinguish between Qurans (or flags) and other books (or pieces of cloth)?
Click to expand...

Read the cover, look at the pattern. Easy.
The point is that objectively there is no difference.

However, the goal of those acts is not to elicit an objective reaction.

Hans
 
This is straight up looney. We can't go "You're free to say something but if someone up and decides to beat you to a pulp it's your own fault."
 
JoeBentley said:
This is straight up looney. We can't go "You're free to say something but if someone up and decides to beat you to a pulp it's your own fault."
Click to expand...

Of course not. But "if you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, he might beat you up, or worse" is unfortunately a fact of life that we are wise to recon with.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Of course not. But "if you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, he might beat you up, or worse" is unfortunately a fact of life that we are wise to recon with.

Hans
Click to expand...

That's not quite the same thing. Blasphemy is not saying the wrong thing to the wrong person as by definition there is no person who could be the direct subject of your insult. Instead it's simply saying something that someone else finds offensive.

If A stands in front of B and calls his mother a whore then a punch in the face would not be unexpected, and arguably warranted, but if B hears from C that A called someone else's mother a whore and travels 300 miles to punch him in the face the mitigating factors in the first scenario no longer play a part.
 
baron said:
That's not quite the same thing. Blasphemy is not saying the wrong thing to the wrong person as by definition there is no person who could be the direct subject of your insult. Instead it's simply saying something that someone else finds offensive.
Click to expand...

No, blasphemy is about a a person. Granted, it is about their belief, but it is still the person. There IS nothing else.

If A stands in front of B and calls his mother a whore then a punch in the face would not be unexpected, and arguably warranted, but if B hears from C that A called someone else's mother a whore and travels 300 miles to punch him in the face the mitigating factors in the first scenario no longer play a part.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is really irrelevant. Face to face rage is surely more easily understandable, but it is all about thinking you have the right to punish someone for expressing their opinion.

Hans
 
The end result of this is that anyone has to do is claim (or honestly say) that some opinion, belief, or topic is so close to them that they can't separate their sense of self from that opinion so any attack on said opinion is an attack on them and then get enough people to buy on to the idea that an extreme, even violent reaction is a reasonable response to that.

It really is just "Look at what you made me do" by proxy.
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, blasphemy is about a a person. Granted, it is about their belief, but it is still the person. There IS nothing else.
Click to expand...

You can say that about anything. There's a difference between directly insulting a person and insulting their beliefs. That, ostensibly at least, is why I'm so prone to getting yellow cards on this site. Facetiousness aside, this is a basic premise recognised in law.

MRC_Hans said:
I'm sorry, but that is really irrelevant. Face to face rage is surely more easily understandable, but it is all about thinking you have the right to punish someone for expressing their opinion.
Click to expand...

You can take the parallel between insults and opinion too far. The problem as regards the discussion is that opinion is taken as insult for the sole reason that religion (or, more accurately, a certain religion) is deemed a special case. If someone burns a Koran then it's an insult, not an expression, but if someone burns 'On the Origin of Species', that's an expression, not an insult.
 
baron said:
If someone burns a Koran then it's an insult, not an expression, but if someone burns 'On the Origin of Species', that's an expression, not an insult.
Click to expand...

And at what point exactly did we all agree to this?
 
baron said:
*snip* If someone burns a Koran then it's an insult, not an expression, but if someone burns 'On the Origin of Species', that's an expression, not an insult.
Click to expand...

On that I would agree.

Hans
 
PhantomWolf said:
So you're saying that the DA was wrong when he refused to charge Buzz with assault and threatened to charge Sibrel with Disorderly Conduct?
Click to expand...

I'm saying your wrong. It's not "on me" if someone gets so offended by what I say they attack me. That's not "on me" at all.
 
This is not social progress.

Its very backwards.

Shame on them.

There is no right to "not be offended".
 
Hercules56 said:
Should it therefore be a crime to say "I believe Islam is not a true religion"?
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances. If you're talking with people and say it in conversation, then no, if you go into a crowded Mosque and scream it, then I'd say you're walking pretty close to the "Shouting fire in a crowded threatre" area of right to free speech ends here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom