• Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you came for the comments, turn back now 😂

    Europeans believe in freedom, as in freedom from harassment and hate speech, for everyone, for the good of everyone

    Americans believe they personally should have freedom to do or say anything, even if it’s hateful and incites violence, as long as they personally are “free”, even if it is bad for society as a whole

    These are incompatible views and no good can come of this thread

    • Gamey@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am a European and I do believe in the real freedom (the one that ends where someone elses starts) but I don’t see how this applies whatsoever here, plasphemy laws in 2023 is nuts and shouldn’t be a thing!

        • maporita@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          “inciting a riot” means, at the very least, telling people to go and riot. Burning a book is not, by any stretch of the definition “inciting a riot” (even though it may result in some people rioting).

          • Lord_Logjam@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The only reason anyone would publicly burn any religious book in public would be to create a reaction. I don’t necessarily agree with banning it but no one does it just for a laugh.

          • Aosih@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you acknowledge that doing it may cause a riot, how does that not fit into a loose definition of “inciting a riot”? I’m trying to think of a more innocent act that might start a riot that would obviously not be “inciting a riot”, and I’m struggling to come up with a counterexample.

            • maporita@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It might fit a loose definition but it doesn’t fit the legal definition (speaking about the US here). These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

              “First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence”.
              .

    • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This European belive in freedom from religion. Where children dont have their genitals mutilated just because their parents are in a cult.

    • SlikPikker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Remember when extremists murdered someone in Denmark, during a peaceful political meeting?

      On the recording, you can hear the very last thing the speaker said. She said:

      “How come, when we talk about Islam, it’s that we have freedom to criticize - but. Why is it that with Islam, there is a but?”

      And then the shooting starts.