5 ms·

Burning something is not speech. It is an expression, yes, but a destructive and demeaning one. It's time to move on from thinking that burning things needs g

Burning something is not speech. It is an expression, yes, but a destructive and demeaning one. It's time to move on from thinking that burning things needs government protection. We've run the experiment and no public good has resulted. If you don't like the book, then use your words.

eesmith 3y ago
"Speech" is not limited to vocal communication, which is why a book is a form of protected speech, and flipping someone off is a form of protected speech, and yes, burning a flag or a book may also be a form of protected speech. Your blanket statement "Burning something is destructive and demeaning [expression]" is clearly wrong. Consider Zozobra ("Old Man Gloom"), an effigy burned during the annual Fiestas de Santa Fe in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Quoting the Wikipedia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zozobra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zozobra : > As its name suggests, it embodies gloom and anxiety; by burning it, people destroy the worries and troubles of the previous year in the flames. Anyone with an excess of gloom is encouraged to write down the nature of their gloom on a slip of paper and leave it in the "gloom box" found in City of Santa Fe Visitors' Centers in the weeks leading up to the burn. Participants can also add documents on the day of the burning, up until 8 pm MT, at a "gloom tent" in the venue where they can add to the marionette's stuffing. Legal papers, divorce documents, mortgage pay-offs, parking tickets and even a wedding dress –– all have found their way into Zozobra to go up in smoke. At the festival, glooms from the gloom box are placed at Zozobra's feet to be burned alongside it. Burning in this case is destructive, yes, and a form of emotional relief. There's also police present, to ensure the burning goes well, and people leave in high spirits. That burning has been around for over 50 years, with a lot of public good. Or, consider this example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning#Sikh_book_burning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning#Sikh_book_burning : > Sikh religion, any copies of their sacred book, Guru Granth Sahib, which are too badly damaged to be used, and any printer's waste which bears any of its text, are cremated. This ritual is called an Agan Bhet, and it is similar to the ritual which is performed when a deceased Sikh is cremated Do you really want to argue that's demeaning, and that no public good has come from it? As I pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31185643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31185643 , book burnings are pretty common in the US. I quoted one source that during the 1980s and 1990s, "church youth groups coordinated book burnings and music bonfires to purge their world of evil art." https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-cancel-culture-now-its-coming-for-them/ https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-c... This was constitutionally protected free speech in service of their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. And you want to make it so the police couldn't protect them when exercising their rights?
mrkeen 3y ago
> It's time to move on from thinking that burning things needs government protection The free speechers are asking for the opposite: this is a situation in which the government should not intervene.
- jostiniane 3y ago
  > government should not intervene when the government shouldn't intervene? when there's hate speech against Muslims or when the Muslims retaliate?
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    I think the answer is more or less there in your question: Speech? Do it freely. Retaliation? Go to jail. Of course there are huge caveats to these. For instance, doxing is speech which I don't think should be protected ("Joe was was a member of the Nazi party and he lives at this address"). There's no debate or formulation of ideas in it. But if you said "All former Nazi party members should be deported". It's hateful but I think it should be protected: it's political, it's abstract, it can be debated.
    - jostiniane 3y ago
      So it started by bunch of losers seeking fame in insulting others. I understand the stupidity in today's internet is out of proportions, but Muslims themselves burn Quoran to dispose of it. The sole intention of the losers here is to insult a large group of people. The retaliation is coming in several forms including the call to bankrupt such miningless countries and that's a good thing. The exact reason why Denmark and Sweden are banning acts of hate speech against Muslims. Now you are writing that (selective) hate speech should be free and protected and all retaliations should be banned.. which is funny because it's not how the world works and you don't get to dictate the rules.

eesmith 3y ago

"Speech" is not limited to vocal communication, which is why a book is a form of protected speech, and flipping someone off is a form of protected speech, and yes, burning a flag or a book may also be a form of protected speech. Your blanket statement "Burning something is destructive and demeaning [expression]" is clearly wrong. Consider Zozobra ("Old Man Gloom"), an effigy burned during the annual Fiestas de Santa Fe in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Quoting the Wikipedia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zozobra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zozobra : > As its name suggests, it embodies gloom and anxiety; by burning it, people destroy the worries and troubles of the previous year in the flames. Anyone with an excess of gloom is encouraged to write down the nature of their gloom on a slip of paper and leave it in the "gloom box" found in City of Santa Fe Visitors' Centers in the weeks leading up to the burn. Participants can also add documents on the day of the burning, up until 8 pm MT, at a "gloom tent" in the venue where they can add to the marionette's stuffing. Legal papers, divorce documents, mortgage pay-offs, parking tickets and even a wedding dress –– all have found their way into Zozobra to go up in smoke. At the festival, glooms from the gloom box are placed at Zozobra's feet to be burned alongside it. Burning in this case is destructive, yes, and a form of emotional relief. There's also police present, to ensure the burning goes well, and people leave in high spirits. That burning has been around for over 50 years, with a lot of public good. Or, consider this example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning#Sikh_book_burning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning#Sikh_book_burning : > Sikh religion, any copies of their sacred book, Guru Granth Sahib, which are too badly damaged to be used, and any printer's waste which bears any of its text, are cremated. This ritual is called an Agan Bhet, and it is similar to the ritual which is performed when a deceased Sikh is cremated Do you really want to argue that's demeaning, and that no public good has come from it? As I pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31185643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31185643 , book burnings are pretty common in the US. I quoted one source that during the 1980s and 1990s, "church youth groups coordinated book burnings and music bonfires to purge their world of evil art." https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-cancel-culture-now-its-coming-for-them/ https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-c... This was constitutionally protected free speech in service of their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. And you want to make it so the police couldn't protect them when exercising their rights?

mrkeen 3y ago

> It's time to move on from thinking that burning things needs government protection The free speechers are asking for the opposite: this is a situation in which the government should not intervene.

jostiniane 3y ago
> government should not intervene when the government shouldn't intervene? when there's hate speech against Muslims or when the Muslims retaliate?
- mrkeen 3y ago
  I think the answer is more or less there in your question: Speech? Do it freely. Retaliation? Go to jail. Of course there are huge caveats to these. For instance, doxing is speech which I don't think should be protected ("Joe was was a member of the Nazi party and he lives at this address"). There's no debate or formulation of ideas in it. But if you said "All former Nazi party members should be deported". It's hateful but I think it should be protected: it's political, it's abstract, it can be debated.
  - jostiniane 3y ago
    So it started by bunch of losers seeking fame in insulting others. I understand the stupidity in today's internet is out of proportions, but Muslims themselves burn Quoran to dispose of it. The sole intention of the losers here is to insult a large group of people. The retaliation is coming in several forms including the call to bankrupt such miningless countries and that's a good thing. The exact reason why Denmark and Sweden are banning acts of hate speech against Muslims. Now you are writing that (selective) hate speech should be free and protected and all retaliations should be banned.. which is funny because it's not how the world works and you don't get to dictate the rules.