Blasphemy in Denmark

[baron]

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.

So how would that work out with, say, secular scientists? I want to prove how terrible secular scientists are so I make a video of me burning a scientific text book. OK, no reaction, so I burn a whole pile of them. Nope, still nothing. I draw an insulting cartoon of Einstein, followed by another of Darwin having sex with a monkey. I point out that scientists are all going to Hell, and they probably beat their kids too, and wait for a reaction. Argh, the silence! I don't know what I'm doing wrong, nobody has even said anything yet. Do these people really not care about science? Last resort, I stand outside a science establishment with the most vile placards I can think of and directly insult everybody who enters or leaves. Eventually, after some disapproving glances and a half-hearted 'please go away', I'm escorted from the location by a police officer who, with pitying condescension, warns me about my conduct and sends me on my way.

So I don't get it. I can't seem to prove that secular scientists are terrible people.

Now how does that work with Muslims again?

 

[cullennz]

Taking the whole incident a tad seriously

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

 

[Planigale]

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

You are wrong. In science one disproves hypotheses. I have a hypothesis say that light is the fastest thing in the universe, I come up with a mathematical theory to describe how things at near light speed would behave that differs from the currently existing theory. From this theory I make certain predictions about say the movement of mercury, or the timing of clocks in orbit. If my predictions are wrong when the experiment is performed the theory has been disproved. One never proves a theory it remains extant until disproven / superseded.

The unscientific thing about religions is they make no sort of testable predictions. So they are not a scientific theory.

I give you that my "prove the Quran wrong" is provocative and non scientific but not for the reason you give.

FWIW there is a whole literature on 'Islamic Science' where people seek to show how if you interpret certain mystical phrases of the Quran it can be seen to have predicted e.g. relativity etc. Thus showing that the Quran is scientifically proven. Unfortunately you have to make the predictions, then do the experiment; not do the experiment, then claim this was predicted by the book.

 

[dudalb]

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.

I am not willing to compromise free speech in pursuit of some nebulous "good for society" goal.
When they take away your freedom, they always have wonderful souding reasons for doing so.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Not at all, you're arguing that if I stab someone I could claim that I shouldn't have the onus on me to magically know that it would kill the person I stabbed so it's not my fault that they died.

If you have intent to cause violence, then you know how they will react, or at least are hopefully of it because that is the objective, just as if you intend to kill someone by stabbing them you know that by stabbing them there is a good chance that they'll die.

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.

Again no. It's not if it could possibly, somehow, maybe, lead to violence, but if the speaker intends it to lead to violence. If they are trying to incite violence.

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.

Because what I'm talking about are those "straight up direct personal attacks" and not the "reasonable, non-directed expressions". I keep pointing that out and people keep ignoring it.

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.

No one has claimed that they do.

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.

Again incorrect, and even if that was the case, it doesn't make them innocent just because they were provoked, no one is claiming that.

People here seem to be of the belief that there must always be a good actor and a bad actor and if the speaker is deemed to be the bad actor then the listener must then be considered the good actor. They can't seem to get their heads about the idea that BOTH can be bad actors and that both should be able to be held responsible and liable for their actions.

 

[baron]

They can't seem to get their heads about the idea that BOTH can be bad actors and that both should be able to be held responsible and liable for their actions.

That's probably because they value free speech and democratic freedoms. What terrible people they must be.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's probably because they value free speech and democratic freedoms. What terrible people they must be.

Except that no Government in the World allows unrestricted Free Speech.

 

[fuelair]

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.

You do, I hope, know that the concept of "fighting words" is still an excuse in a lot of courts in a lot of places including much of the U.S.!!!! Not by law, but by custom.

 

[Planigale]

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.

In the UK such behaviour would be criminal - behaviour likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Being provocative / insulting is not regarded as free speech. I suspect even in the US it is not. I suspect if you follow a cop around shouting out insults then you are likely to find yourself arrested.

 

[erlando]

You do, I hope, know that the concept of "fighting words" is still an excuse in a lot of courts in a lot of places including much of the U.S.!!!! Not by law, but by custom.

I'm not an american. Generally in Denmark we place the blame on the aggressors not capable of controlling their rage.

 

[erlando]

In the UK such behaviour would be criminal - behaviour likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Being provocative / insulting is not regarded as free speech. I suspect even in the US it is not. I suspect if you follow a cop around shouting out insults then you are likely to find yourself arrested.

A cop is a special case. He/she has greater protection by law from insults when on duty.

Again, I'm talking legal actions.

And to reiterate; I'm not an american. I'm from Denmark. This thread is about Denmark.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not at all, you're arguing that if I stab someone I could claim that I shouldn't have the onus on me to magically know that it would kill the person I stabbed so it's not my fault that they died.

Seriously do you not see the difference between Bob stabbing someone and them dying and Bob burning a book and Ted started a riot over it?

If you have intent to cause violence, then you know how they will react, or at least are hopefully of it because that is the objective, just as if you intend to kill someone by stabbing them you know that by stabbing them there is a good chance that they'll die.

If what I'm doing is peaceful and legal why is someone else's reaction to it be a factor in "my" intention?

And again this equation you won't get over between a direct result of an action you do and some entirely different person reacting to something you do is wrong.

Again no. It's not if it could possibly, somehow, maybe, lead to violence, but if the speaker intends it to lead to violence. If they are trying to incite violence.

And this is no functionally different. It's still "It's your fault if other people react to you." "Look at you what you made me do" by proxy.

Because what I'm talking about are those "straight up direct personal attacks" and not the "reasonable, non-directed expressions". I keep pointing that out and people keep ignoring it.

That's hard to believe when you keep painting other people's reactions as a direct results you should somehow be held accountable for.

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.

Why? Why does that not met your definition of intending to antagonize people? You keep referring to some distinction you've never made.

Why? Why did Charlie Hebbo's Muhammad cartoons and Salmin Rushie's the Satanic Verses not fall under your "You should have seen this coming" clause your entire argument hinges in?

Here's a question. Which side gets to decide if the speaker "intended to inspire violence?"

 

[PhantomWolf]

Seriously do you not see the difference between Bob stabbing someone and them dying and Bob burning a book and Ted started a riot over it?

It has nothing to do with stabbing someone or burning a book, it has to do with the intent of the action, be it stabbing someone or burning a book.

If what I'm doing is peaceful and legal why is someone else's reaction to it be a factor in "my" intention?

It doesn't why would it?

And again this equation you won't get over between a direct result of an action you do and some entirely different person reacting to something you do is wrong.

It's an equation that you and others invented, not one of my creation. To me it doesn't actually matter if other people react or not, if you intended them to then that is enough, even if you failed to achieve it.

And this is no functionally different. It's still "It's your fault if other people react to you." "Look at you what you made me do" by proxy.

No, because you are making the invalid assumption that the others reaction is important, it's not, it's the intent of the person agitating that matters not if they get a reaction.

That's hard to believe when you keep painting other people's reactions as a direct results you should somehow be held accountable for.

It's hard to believe cause that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that both parties are accountable for their actions.

Why? Why does that not met your definition of intending to antagonize people? You keep referring to some distinction you've never made.

Why? Why did Charlie Hebbo's Muhammad cartoons and Salmin Rushie's the Satanic Verses not fall under your "You should have seen this coming" clause your entire argument hinges in?

Did any of these people intend for violence to occur?

Here's a question. Which side gets to decide if the speaker "intended to inspire violence?"

The Prosecutor, the same way they determine intent in murder or hate crime cases.

 

[Darat]

A cop is a special case. He/she has greater protection by law from insults when on duty.

.. Snip.. .

Really? I find that astonishing.

 

[baron]

It has nothing to do with stabbing someone or burning a book, it has to do with the intent of the action, be it stabbing someone or burning a book.

How could that possibly be true? Ten people might perform the same action with ten different intents. Do you think that Salman Rushdie sat down one day and said, "Right, I really want to provoke Muslims into violence so what's the easiest way to do this? Insult the prophet? Nah. Burn a Koran? Nah. I know! I'll dedicate ten years of my life to writing a hugely long and complex novel that includes a tiny number of implicitly insulting paragraphs! That should do the trick." Ridiculous.

 

[PhantomWolf]

How could that possibly be true? Ten people might perform the same action with ten different intents. Do you think that Salman Rushdie sat down one day and said, "Right, I really want to provoke Muslims into violence so what's the easiest way to do this? Insult the prophet? Nah. Burn a Koran? Nah. I know! I'll dedicate ten years of my life to writing a hugely long and complex novel that includes a tiny number of implicitly insulting paragraphs! That should do the trick." Ridiculous.

Because to commit a criminal act you need to have criminal intent, though in some cases willful disregard will also do, though generally not Speech issues, that requires intent.

And no I don't think that Rushdie did that so he had no intent.

However if a person has a webpage devoted to violent Muslim reactions, and declares that he's going to show them, and then publicly burns a Quarn and deliberately posts it knowing that it will be picked up and get broadcast in Muslim countries and parts of his own country in the hope that they will react violently, then that is intent.

It's like the difference between running over a guy lying on the road in the fog and killing him, and running down a bunch of school kids on a crossing because they vexed you. The results are similar, but the first won't get you in legal trouble if you were driving safely, the second certainly will.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It has nothing to do with stabbing someone or burning a book, it has to do with the intent of the action, be it stabbing someone or burning a book.

No it has everything do with it because one of them isn't my action. Me stabbing someone is my action, somebody else doing something is their action.

Stabbing someone is against the law. Burning a book is not. Burning a book shouldn't magically turn into "against the law" because a completely different person sees me burning the book and decides to go do something illegal.

 

[baron]

Because to commit a criminal act you need to have criminal intent, though in some cases willful disregard will also do, though generally not Speech issues, that requires intent.

And no I don't think that Rushdie did that so he had no intent.

However if a person has a webpage devoted to violent Muslim reactions, and declares that he's going to show them, and then publicly burns a Quarn and deliberately posts it knowing that it will be picked up and get broadcast in Muslim countries and parts of his own country in the hope that they will react violently, then that is intent.

Which brings me back to the point I raised before. To rephrase; would proponents of the scientific method be justified, excused or otherwise mitigated in rioting or attempting to kill someone who has a website dedicated to anti-scientific rhetoric, who is well known for science denial and mocking scientists?

It's like the difference between running over a guy lying on the road in the fog and killing him, and running down a bunch of school kids on a crossing because they vexed you. The results are similar, but the first won't get you in legal trouble if you were driving safely, the second certainly will.

That's the most bizarre analogy I've read on this site.

 

[JoeMorgue]

However if a person has a webpage devoted to violent Muslim reactions, and declares that he's going to show them, and then publicly burns a Quarn and deliberately posts it knowing that it will be picked up and get broadcast in Muslim countries and parts of his own country in the hope that they will react violently, then that is intent.

And this hypothetical person would still be 100% morally inculpable in my book.

It's like the difference between running over a guy lying on the road in the fog and killing him, and running down a bunch of school kids on a crossing because they vexed you. The results are similar, but the first won't get you in legal trouble if you were driving safely, the second certainly will.

It's not even close to the same thing.

You're hung up on the classic "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" benchmark and you're applying it in places where it doesn't make sense and worse setting a precedent that allows other people to site it in places where it doesn't make sense, again making the "Look at what you made me do" culture more prevalent.

The reason you can't shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is because getting out of the way of a fire is a logical action and a reasonable person (and I mean that in the legal sense) should be expected to know what results would come of this action. You should fire in a theater, everyone's going to try to get out of it.

You're trying to turn it into "You can't say anything if you know the outcome is going to be violent (the difference between inciting violence and saying something you know will cause violence is meaningless) and you share the blame." and that's not the same thing.

Let's say you walk into a theater and before the show starts someone stands up and yells "I'm gonna punch the guy sitting in front of me if anyone in here laughs during this movie." Now you've already stated that anyone who laughs, since this guy clearly stated he was going to do it, would share in the blame in the earlier "Triscuit" analogy (BTW I call dibs on Triscuit Analogy as a band name...). They would not. Because punching someone because someone laughed is not a reasonable act.

Killing people because someone drew a cartoon is not a reasonable act. So the people who drew the cartoon don't share the blame regardless of any other factor. It's not the same as... a Grandwizard of the KKK telling his members to go out and lynch black people. One is a direct order the other is a reaction to a stimulus.

You're not creating an environment free of incitement to violence, you're creating an environment where threats of violence stifle free speech, where the violent among us can hold our free speech hostage.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Stabbing someone is against the law. Burning a book is not. Burning a book shouldn't magically turn into "against the law" because a completely different person sees me burning the book and decides to go do something illegal.

Listen very carefully, because I'm sick of repeating myself and you clearly refusing to get it.

It has zero to do with if "a completely different person sees me burning the book and decides to go do something illegal." This is a total strawman that you and others keep dragging out as if it's relevant, it isn't, it's rubbish you dreamed up and keep trying to stick on me despite me repeatedly saying it's nonsense. Do you get this? It has nothing, zero, nada, zilcht to do with if others react to your action or not, it is and only is what you intended to cause by your actions. See this, it's judged on your intent, and your actions, no one else's, so please drop the strawman, the poor guy has no stuffing left in him with the continual beating you are giving him.

And many things can go from legal to illegal based on intent. If I'm throwing a baseball about, that is not a crime. If I accidentally hit someone while doing so, that is also not a crime. If I intended to hit the person and deliberately threw it at them, that is a crime, mainly assault if it misses, Assault and Battery is I hit, possibly Assault with a Deadly Weapon. If I picked out the person I hit because they were of a group that was based on a protected attribute, it might even raise to being a hate crime solely because of my intent. Just because something isn't a crime if there is no intent for it to do harm, doesn't mean it isn't a crime when there is that intent.