3 ms·

To me the implication is that Denmark's politicians think they can make this all go away, rather than escalate it. It's harder to stand by principles and slowly

To me the implication is that Denmark's politicians think they can make this all go away, rather than escalate it. It's harder to stand by principles and slowly make headway in addressing people trying to undermine or attack those principles than it is to just give in. It requires being able to enunciate just why those principles matter, even when they're inconvenient. In practice Denmark could launch public campaigns aimed both at explaining what's been going on, and how ultimately it has nothing to do with Denmark.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> It requires being able to enunciate just why those principles matter, even when they're inconvenient. Nobody serious really think these principles are some kind of holy Grail that should be defended at all cost without any critical judgment. There are many democracies in Europe that restrict some kinds of speeches in one way or another, and even though the US apply them much more strictly than most countries, even there freedom of speech is restricted by laws (try sending death threats and defend yourself with “free speech ” argument).
- EA-3167 3y ago
  We're a long way from "all costs" here, and a long way from the sort of reasonable restrictions on speech in the furtherance of a crime that's the norm. We're talking about responding to threats of violence from the likes of Al Qaeda (https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge-attacks-on-sweden-and-denmark https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge-...) with capitulation. Not because the act in question is harming anyone, not because it's common or remotely illegal otherwise. It's just appeasement and it won't be enough.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > We're talking about responding to threats of violence from the likes of Al Qaeda (https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge- https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge-...) with capitulation. Not because the act in question is harming anyone, not because it's common or remotely illegal otherwise. > It's just appeasement and it won't be enough. No. We're talking about disarming seditious groups that want to leverage Islamic terrorism as part of their accession to power. It has nothing to do with appeasement (let's continue to assassinate Islamist leadership all day), it's about neutralizing another (arguably bigger) threat.
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      Alright, and when the seditious groups don't burn or destroy the Quran, now they wrap it in a Pride flag... what then? Will that be outlawed? And then the next iteration, and the next, because it's not exactly hard to figure out ways to piss off literal terrorist groups. Will it be illegal to draw a picture of Mohammad? How far do you go before you realize it never ends?
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        Attempting to trigger terror attacks on purpose should be prosecuted, that's it. The same way the driver carrying terrorists can be prosecuted without forbidding anybody else to drive. For now the legislators targeted one specific way, but if they diversify their methods the law will adapt and generalize. There's just nothing to win in appeasing fascists who complain about their freedom of speech, we already know where it leads to https://i.redd.it/3b470c0htra61.jpg https://i.redd.it/3b470c0htra61.jpg
        EA-3167 3y ago
        > Attempting to trigger terror attacks on purpose should be prosecuted, that's it. The same way the driver carrying terrorists can be prosecuted without forbidding anybody else to drive. Was Charlie Hebdo "attempting to trigger terror attacks"? Was Kurt Westergaard trying to incite his own death? How about Salman Rushdie? If you're just going to say "doing something which pisses off terrorists is illegal" then I hope you're prepared to convert, because that's what it would take. > For now the legislators targeted one specific way, but if they diversify their methods the law will adapt and generalize. That's the problem right there, it's a genuinely short walk to anti-blasphemy laws.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        [flagged]

littlestymaar 3y ago

> It requires being able to enunciate just why those principles matter, even when they're inconvenient. Nobody serious really think these principles are some kind of holy Grail that should be defended at all cost without any critical judgment. There are many democracies in Europe that restrict some kinds of speeches in one way or another, and even though the US apply them much more strictly than most countries, even there freedom of speech is restricted by laws (try sending death threats and defend yourself with “free speech ” argument).

EA-3167 3y ago
We're a long way from "all costs" here, and a long way from the sort of reasonable restrictions on speech in the furtherance of a crime that's the norm. We're talking about responding to threats of violence from the likes of Al Qaeda (https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge-attacks-on-sweden-and-denmark https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge-...) with capitulation. Not because the act in question is harming anyone, not because it's common or remotely illegal otherwise. It's just appeasement and it won't be enough.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > We're talking about responding to threats of violence from the likes of Al Qaeda (https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge- https://www.thelocal.se/20230815/al-qaida-calls-for-revenge-...) with capitulation. Not because the act in question is harming anyone, not because it's common or remotely illegal otherwise. > It's just appeasement and it won't be enough. No. We're talking about disarming seditious groups that want to leverage Islamic terrorism as part of their accession to power. It has nothing to do with appeasement (let's continue to assassinate Islamist leadership all day), it's about neutralizing another (arguably bigger) threat.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    Alright, and when the seditious groups don't burn or destroy the Quran, now they wrap it in a Pride flag... what then? Will that be outlawed? And then the next iteration, and the next, because it's not exactly hard to figure out ways to piss off literal terrorist groups. Will it be illegal to draw a picture of Mohammad? How far do you go before you realize it never ends?
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      Attempting to trigger terror attacks on purpose should be prosecuted, that's it. The same way the driver carrying terrorists can be prosecuted without forbidding anybody else to drive. For now the legislators targeted one specific way, but if they diversify their methods the law will adapt and generalize. There's just nothing to win in appeasing fascists who complain about their freedom of speech, we already know where it leads to https://i.redd.it/3b470c0htra61.jpg https://i.redd.it/3b470c0htra61.jpg
      - EA-3167 3y ago
        > Attempting to trigger terror attacks on purpose should be prosecuted, that's it. The same way the driver carrying terrorists can be prosecuted without forbidding anybody else to drive. Was Charlie Hebdo "attempting to trigger terror attacks"? Was Kurt Westergaard trying to incite his own death? How about Salman Rushdie? If you're just going to say "doing something which pisses off terrorists is illegal" then I hope you're prepared to convert, because that's what it would take. > For now the legislators targeted one specific way, but if they diversify their methods the law will adapt and generalize. That's the problem right there, it's a genuinely short walk to anti-blasphemy laws.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        [flagged]