A school is not a public place, and so that isn't an equivalent example. If the sidewalk in front of the Masjid is a public area, you should legally be able to throw a bacon-and-Koran barbecue during Eid. There is no world where you can punish people for doing that and not end up on a slippery slope that jeopardizes freedom of expression.

I understand what you're saying, but to actually act on that and try to put it into law would be foolish.

[–] BaconIsAVeg@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If the sidewalk in front of the Masjid is a public area, you should legally be able to throw a bacon-and-Koran barbecue during Eid.

I kind of disagree. If you want to have a backyard bbq and burn Korans during Eid, go for it. But if you're doing it on the sidewalk outside a mosque, your sole intent is to incite the people inside. It's no longer about your 'personal freedoms'.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I kind of agree, but I think it would need to be more than just burning a Qu'ran, you'd also need some inflammatory speech, like "death to Muslims" or something that would be intended to move them to violence.

Regardless, I do think there are circumstances where burning a holy book could be included as evidence in a hate crime case.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats a realistic interpretation of what those bbqers intent would be, but I dont think you can realistically make that illegal as the sidewalk is a public area. (I am assuming these bbqers are not breaking any other laws at all.)

[–] BaconIsAVeg@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would it being a public area prohibit making it illegal? There are tons of things that are illegal on a public sidewalk. Urination, intoxication, etc.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Because assuming theyre not breaking any other laws, I dont think you can differentiate the public place outside of a masjid from any other public place. Urination and intoxication are illegal in all public places.

[–] sarjalim@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We already have that law, so the only thing up for debate is interpretation? Which legal experts are busy with debating now in public discourse in Swedish media, with no clear consensus except that it should be tried in court. I understand what you mean by slippery slope, but if everything is a slippery slope we would never be able to legislate anything. And let me remind you, both Sweden and the US have already imposed certain limits to the right to free speech. Defamation, for example, is not protected speech.

I disagree that a public school isn't a public place, but you're technically right. It doesn't really matter in the eyes of the Swedish law though, arguably it would be worse legally if the student had carved the swastika on a public playground outside, rather then in a semi-public spot in a school.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My mistake, I thought he was proposing a change / new law. I personally just disagree with that law then, I don't think that creeds should be protected from hateful messages. Unless the messages amount to harassment or breaking another existing, more general law, I don't necessarily see the issue it's solving.

[–] sarjalim@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

No problem. It's good to have well reasoned, civilized debates- we don't have to agree at the end!