7 ms·

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 t

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

> 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]