What is your opinion?

[Father Heathen]

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

That's the same logic as "homosexuality is bad because If everyone were gay humans would go extinct."

 

[Koldo]

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

Therefore... ?
If what must be preserved is free speech, what difference does it make if you are destroying digital or physical media?

 

[Koldo]

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 pisses off a lot of people that do not think any rules should apply when it comes to freedom of speech.

What is the message they are trying to get across though by burning the Quran?

 

[danieldemol]

If any books are allowed to be burned it would be hard to put limits on it. If a book was hated enough by a certain group or movement it could be burned from existence. And then so could any book

Not if you are only restricted to burning books you personally own which would be a small fraction of all available copies in my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

What is the message they are trying to get across though by burning the Quran?

That they dislike the ideas presented in the book is one possible message in my view.

 

[Koldo]

That they dislike the ideas presented in the book is one possible message in my view.

This is the exact thing I would like to know.
Are they merely stating they abhor the message in the book? If so, I see nothing wrong with burning the book.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not if you are only restricted to burning books you personally own which would be a small fraction of all available copies in my opinion.

I will agree to this.

 

[Heyo]

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

I'd be careful to not make it an absolute to put all the blame on the perpetrator.
If you pay me to kill someone, you will be also charged.
If Trump incites a mob to attack congress, he is going to be charged - well that just happened and I hope the judge will not be of the opinion that all the blame lies on the perpetrators.

 

[Heyo]

What is the message they are trying to get across though by burning the Quran?

Your guess is as good as mine.
Mine is: "This is a country with rights and laws. The Qur'an has no legal power here. If you can't accept that, please stay away."

 

[RestlessSoul]

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”​

― Heinrich Heine

 

[Heyo]

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”​

― Heinrich Heine

While true, one symbolic burning of a Qur'an is different from systemic banning of books. That quote is more relevant to some US schools districts emptying their libraries than the case in question.

 

[RestlessSoul]

While true, one symbolic burning of a Qur'an is different from systemic banning of books. That quote is more relevant to some US schools districts emptying their libraries than the case in question.

I think the quote is appropriate wherever books are burned. Whether it's Moslems burning copies of a Salman Rushdie novel, or neo-Nazis burning The Quran, the optics are identical; these people are quite literally fanning the flames of hatred and division. Not to mention promoting ignorance; I have too much respect for the written word, and too deep a love for books, not to feel it viscerally when I see them burn.

 

[danieldemol]

I'd be careful to not make it an absolute to put all the blame on the perpetrator.
If you pay me to kill someone, you will be also charged.

Correct, *if* these people intend people to be killed and that is the aim of their book burning then they should be charged

If Trump incites a mob to attack congress, he is going to be charged - well that just happened and I hope the judge will not be of the opinion that all the blame lies on the perpetrators.

See point B) about it being a chain of provocation for why this is not comparable to the Trump case in my opinion.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

Lol.
3 lashes with a wet noodle?

I didn’t mean hurting a person’s feelings was necessarily punishable. But then “give an inch, they’ll take a mile.”

Inflicting long-term emotional damage through an action with intent to harm is what I had in mind.

Calling someone “Poop head” isn’t ‘performing an act’, it’s talking.
Now, hitting them on the head with poop is a little different.

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

If I did it purposely to ‘rile them up’, knowing they’re watching me, then yes, I would bear some responsibility.
I didn’t say all.


Motive is important.

You don’t agree?

Besides, I don’t care for cheeseburgers.
If you’d said “Porterhouse”, I might go with that.

 

[Heyo]

Correct, *if* these people intend people to be killed and that is the aim of their book burning then they should be charged

See point B) about it being a chain of provocation for why this is not comparable to the Trump case in my opinion.

I agree and I detailed why in previous posts. I just wanted to make clear that this is not a precedent to say that instigators aren't responsible.

 

[Heyo]

I think the quote is appropriate wherever books are burned. Whether it's Moslems burning copies of a Salman Rushdie novel, or neo-Nazis burning The Quran, the optics are identical; these people are quite literally fanning the flames of hatred and division. Not to mention promoting ignorance; I have too much respect for the written word, and too deep a love for books, not to feel it viscerally when I see them burn.

I hear you. What I'm defending here is not the act but the laws and courts that don't punish it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

“manuscripts don't burn" - "(рукописи не горят)”
― Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A) it is the purposeful actions of those committing the actual killing that lead to the death of others…

No doubt

…you are shifting blame away from where it squarely belongs

I’m not “shifting” anything, the perpetrators are guilty…I’m adding blame to those who wanted to provoke.

Without the provocation, there would have been no resulting crime.
But both are guilty… the provocateurs to a lesser degree, though.

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…

Yes you said it, it’s impractical.

 

[Nimos]

What is the message they are trying to get across though by burning the Quran?

Im not 100% sure, but as far as I know they feel that Danish/Swedish/Western culture and values are under attack by Islam or something, or they are just straight-up racists that use culture and the Quran as an excuse to **** off Muslims.

 

[1213]

Not sure I understand what you are saying? Do you ask why those that burn the Quran aren't punished for it because they are just a few people?

Sorry, it was not very well formed. But, no, I ask, why the whole country is blamed for actions of a few people?

The main problem with this to me is, it is used to make for example Sweden less free country.