*in the west. Plenty of muslim majority countries have always been willing punish people for such acts.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-parliament-approves-bill-stop-koran-burnings-2023-12-07/



Should criticism of some religions not be allowed? What about free speech? Hot takes anyone?

Burning Quran is not expression of free speech, but edgy deliberate incitement of hatred to attract attention and has nothing to do with anti-blasphemy laws.

Denmark is and will continue for the foreseeable future be secular where people are allowed practice whatever religion as long as they obey local laws.

No problem. Instead of burning, I will just defecate on the book.

Stupid lawmakers passing a stupid law. You can ban the burning of Koran, but it won't make people hate Islam any less.

Then you need to prove that burning Koran is incitement of hatred.



Except Nobody said Muslims can't practice their religion. People are just saying they disapprove of Islam, which they should be free to express. But people like you extend freedom to the former but not the latter.

Would you say burning and smearing of eg American Flag be classified as incitement of hatred? In my opinion both burning of books and burning of flags are incitement that serve the same goals.

QUOTE=JessiWan,14 Dec 2023 17:07]

Except Nobody said Muslims can't practice their religion. People are just saying they disapprove of Islam, which they should be free to express. But people like you extend freedom to the former but not the latter.[/QUOTE]

True, nobody said they can’t practice. People are free to disapprove or hate Islam without trying to incite hatred.

In the European view - deliberate public desecration of religious items be those Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or whatever classifies as incitement to my knowledge. Eg I live in The Netherlands which has an ongoing issue with Islam and Muslims with Wilders and his PVV winning on the anti-Islam platform.

I say this post of yours is inciting hatred against me. Prove me wrong.

Which part?

When you broadly define speech as "inciting hatred" you end up in a spot where anything controversial can effectively be banned. We see this today in the US under the nebulous categories of "misinformation", "disinformation", and "cognitive security".

This post was edited by bogie160 on Dec 14 2023 11:18am

My point is that "incitement of hatred" is subjectively determined. It's so broad in its definition and application, you can use it to ban any speech or expression that you don't like, to the point where it's meaningless as an offense. It's basically just a weapon to be used by the government against anybody who says things it doesn't like.

Bogie put it in a very eloquent way.

I agree. I will need to rephrase my initial argument and come back to you.