What is your opinion?

[The Sum of Awe]

Hmm...
I can understand where you are coming from if it is not a book available in digital form and no one is publishing it anymore. But this is not the case with the Quran.

There are plenty of Quran's in the world and it's unlikely they could be erased from existence because of a few angry people. But allowing one to be burnt is a slippery slope. Why can't they destroy a Quran in other ways if they are so angry at it? Stomp on it. Tear at its pages. Deface it. These get the freedom of expression across but require more energy. Burning is much too easy. A single person could burn hundreds of books in a single setting if they wanted to.

 

[Heyo]

I think it is. Mounting a publicity stunt intended to annoy, and by implication disparage, a section of the community, is the same sort of thing, viz. irresponsible and likely - probably intended, even - to provoke unrest. It's a wind-up: in internet terms, trolling.

You are, again, attributing motivation which you can't back up. The most you can accuse the perpetrator of is neglect, knowing that such stunts have lead to riots in the past. But he didn't even incite violence, he didn't say "go out and attack embassies".
The violence, and motivation to violence, is still with those who react.

And for another possible motivation for the act, suppose he is opposed to Muslim immigration. His symbolic act is a strong message to all Muslims who despise religious freedom not to come to his country.

 

[Koldo]

The original saying was, of course, a metaphor for the limits to free speech. It was not literally about fires in theatres.

In both cases the intent of the perpetrator is to provoke a riot.

Is it? I don't think that is necessarily the case.

 

[Koldo]

There are plenty of Quran's in the world and it's unlikely they could be erased from existence because of a few angry people. But allowing one to be burnt is a slippery slope. Why can't they destroy a Quran in other ways if they are so angry at it? Stomp on it. Tear at its pages. Deface it. These get the freedom of expression across but require more energy. Burning is much too easy. A single person could burn hundreds of books in a single setting if they wanted to.

The problem being... ?
It is one thing to destroy millions of copies, yet another to erase all of the copies.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The problem being... ?
It is one thing to destroy millions of copies, yet another to erase all of the copies.

If book burning is allowed, how could we prevent all of a book's copies from being erased?

 

[Rival]

If book burning is allowed, how could we prevent all of a book's copies from being erased?

This didn't even work in the Middle Ages, let alone in the Digital Age. Books are incredibly hard to wipe out.

 

[Koldo]

If book burning is allowed, how could we prevent all of a book's copies from being erased?

Those that are interested in those books can buy or make a copy for themselves or even create a digital version. Or the State can keep a copy.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This didn't even work in the Middle Ages, let alone in the Digital Age. Books are incredibly hard to wipe out.

How can you say it has never worked? With a very long history of book burning across centuries and various cultures. Digital means nothing, everything is impermanent and we have no idea how long the digital age will last. As far as we have observed, physical books have lasted longer than digital books.

Those that are interested in those books can buy or make a copy for themselves or even create a digital version. Or the State can keep a copy.

As I said above, we have no idea how much we can rely on digital record keeping. It’s an entirely new thing.

None of the ways of keeping a copy aside or anything like that seems like a safe reliable bet. And what is it worth, to allow people to burn books? It seems like a reasonable limit on freedom of expression, because as I said earlier, it limits others freedom of expression.

 

[fantome profane]

This didn't even work in the Middle Ages, let alone in the Digital Age. Books are incredibly hard to wipe out.

It did work in the Middle Ages. There are lots of books that existed in the past that we don‘t have today.

I am not suggesting it is easy or even possible to erase a book today. The invention of the printing press made it much harder, and computers and digital technology makes it practically impossible. But it did happen in the past.

 

[fantome profane]

If book burning is allowed, how could we prevent all of a book's copies from being erased?

We are talking about burning a book you legally own. If I burn my copy of the Quran (I never would) that has no effect on your copy.

 

[Koldo]

None of the ways of keeping a copy aside or anything like that seems like a safe reliable bet. And what is it worth, to allow people to burn books? It seems like a reasonable limit on freedom of expression, because as I said earlier, it limits others freedom of expression.

But if your freedom of expression became someone else's property (such as in a book), how can it reasonable to demand someone keep it intact? If I own a book, should I not be allowed to rip apart some of its' pages?

Let me give you an example on how absurd this is: Imagine I were to download someone's speech in the internet in the form of a video or a text file. By your reasoning, should I then be not be allowed to delete this video or text? Must I keep it in my device forever?

 

[Nimos]

Just for clarification, the ban against burning the Quran is only in regards to burning it in front of embassies, people would still be allowed to burn it anywhere else. So I honestly don't think that the Islamic countries that are upset about this are really going to be satisfied even if the Danish Government "banish" it.

It is a political show going on here, nothing more really, but still, it ****** off a lot of people that do not think any rules should apply when it comes to freedom of speech.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We are talking about burning a book you legally own. If I burn my copy of the Quran (I never would) that has no effect on your copy.

But if your freedom of expression became someone else's property (such as in a book), how can it reasonable to demand someone keep it intact? If I own a book, should I not be allowed to rip apart some of its' pages?

Let me give you an example on how absurd this is: Imagine I were to download someone's speech in the internet in the form of a video or a text file. By your reasoning, should I then be not be allowed to delete this video or text? Must I keep it in my device forever?

Fair points. I suppose if it's only copies you have legally bought and own then that is acceptable.

 

[Koldo]

Fair points. I suppose if it's only copies you have legally bought and own then that is acceptable.

That still poses a problem. If I legally buy an ebook, do I have to keep it in my device forever?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That still poses a problem. If I legally buy an ebook, do I have to keep it in my device forever?

Of course not.

 

[Koldo]

Of course not.

Meaning I can delete them, right? Destroy the copy in my device. So, why can't I burn a physical book?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Meaning I can delete them, right? Destroy the copy in my device. So, why can't I burn a physical book?

I suppose an argument could be that digital copies are essentially infinite, while physical copies are limited.

 

[danieldemol]

Agreed, but that does not answer my question: What is it that I am “free to express” by doing that? What is being expressed?

It is your dislike of the ideas presented in the book, so for example if a person dislikes being called the worst of beasts for being a non-believer they should be free to protest such by setting fire to a book.

I personally wouldn't burn a Quran because I know some completely innocent non-muslim third party would be harmed in retaliation, but it is interesting that some of those who opposed to the burning of the book in retaliation overlook the fact that the book itself could easily be interpreted as being provocative in my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

If their purposeful actions lead to the death of others, then they should be tried for manslaughter.

My two thoughts on this are
A) it is the purposeful actions of those committing the actual killing that lead to the death of others, you are shifting blame away from where it squarely belongs

B) If we are going to look at the end result as being the fault of the provocators then we should at least be honest enough to admit that it is a chain of provocation and charge the root cause of the provocation - the authors and promulgators of the book itself. Since this is impractical i suggest we look to charge the actual killers with killing rather than arbitrarily picking on easy links in the chain of provocation.

 

[Father Heathen]

But if, by performing any act, your intention is to harm someone, even if it’s emotional harm, then that motive should make it illegal.

What would be the proportionate legal punishment for calling someone a poop head?

And if a death results, then the instigator (or instigators) should bear the consequences.

So if you ate a cheeseburger, and in response a Hindu extremist started setting fire to buildings, what consequences should you bear for that?