http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0910/In-South-Africa-judge-outlaws-burning-Bibles-Qu
rans-other-holy-books

It's a good decision. Unfortunately, the religious people are so retarded that they would kill one another over shit like that, so banning it outright seems like a good way of harm reduction.

>>2265270
>I need the government to keep me safe!

No free speech in South Africa then. What a shithole.

>>2265270
They'll just kill people for not own a bible or whatever

you expected anything else? niggers are completely incapable of understanding abstract concepts like freedom of speech or a market of ideas.

>>2265279

Agreed. But freedom and blacks are opposing forces. You cant "free"children from simple stupid rules for their own sake. Same with blacks. Like here in the US, where they were freed a century and a half ago, and are now worse for trying to treat them like people.

You cant free something if it wont leave.

See, in Africa we have muslims that are Free to Not Burn the Quoran!

All hail Allah!

Fair 'enuff

>>2265279
Where does it say that you are not allowed to express your opinions?

>A Muslim group successfully petitioned to stop a Bible bonfire

So... basically tolerance and reason won and you guys are pissed?

Stay classy, /new/

>>2269539
>>basically tolerance and reason won and you guys are pissed?

The right to free speech is the right to offend, because everything you say is going to offend someone. The 'tolerance' you are supporting here is anti-freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

If you love "tolerance" that much maybe you should move to China. They are very "strict" with people who express "intolerance" to the status quo."

>>2269578

I understand that in the US we may have a more expansive definition of "speech" than other countries - but I can certainly see burning a book as being regulated differently from denouncing a book. One is an action, the other is actual speech.

That being said, my real takeaway from this article is that the constant characterization of all muslims as radicals on here is bullshit. There are just as many Muslims who don't want to see bibles burned as Christians who don't want Qu'rans burned. That gives me hope, whether or not you agree with South Africa's laws.

>>2269578
The right to offend is not at all lessened if you are dis-allowed to destroy objects in the proces. It sounds like you have problems expressing yourself, so you resort to destroying things to get your point across.

>>2269578
>>2269578
>>2269578
>>2269578

I too enjoy making wild generalization and sucking dicks all day! We should hang out and label everything as black and white.

>>2269621
>>2269642

What you are saying is that if I buy a book with my money I can't do what I like with my property just because you really like the book. You are anti-free speech.

Using the same argument if you were a huge fan of Harry Potter, so much that it was sacred to you, you would want my burning a Harry Potter book to be against the law. Same argument for say that autobiography of George Bush. Everything is sacred to someone, everything is offensive to someone. Where does your argument end? Satire? Editorials? Art? Maybe people shouldn't be able to write anything critical of Islam at all since some people might get offended.

Fortunately free speech will win out against Nazis like you two, at least in America anyway.

>>2269686

I like you.

>>2269686
>resorts to calling anyone you don't agree with nazi
>implying it doesn't say more about you as a person and not the 'target'
>justwentfullretard.jpg

sage for thread turned retard

>>2269718
>>Just got owned
>>Has no retort to being (accurately) called a Nazi
>>Rage-Sage

>>2269686

I posted this >>2269621 I'm not advocating that we ban book-burning in America, but considering the difference between speech and destroying property, I don't feel offended that it's banned somewhere else.

But the real importance of this article is how muslims were against bible-burning. That shows that muslims are not the crazy fanatics they're constantly portrayed as on /new/.

>>2269744

Actually, the exact fact they they would legally prohibit someone from destroying their OWN property shows that they ARE "the crazy fanatics they're constantly portrayed as on /new/"

Lulz why are Murkins that easily trolled?

>>2269760

Oh please. So all muslims are terrorists because they'll take away your right to burn a holy book, even if it's not their own, for the sake of peace between everyone?

If that's all we really have to fear from Muslims, then I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.

>insult cop
>get shot in face

there's no freedom of speech in america.

>>2269773

The very notion that you believe a book can be "holy" is what blinds you to the fact that the stance you are taking in inherently anti-freedom of speech. Again, everything is "holy" to someone.

>>2265210

Well, shit nigga

>>2269792

Whatever. Let me amend my statement:

Oh please. So all muslims are terrorists because they'll take away your right to burn a book, even if it's not one they really care about, for the sake of peace between everyone?

If that's all we really have to fear from Muslims, then I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.

What else you got?

>>2269773

The Freedom of Speech is one of the most beautiful and sacred rights we have.

Taking away rights is pretty severe- scary even.
Scaring others to conform to or to protest an idea = Terrorism, no? So yes, they are terrorist in my eyes.

And for everyone else in this thread, Freedom of Speech is widened to symbolic speech too- which is why flag burning is constitutionally protected because speech is simply communicating an idea. Flag Burning communicates an idea.

>>2269791

Uhm, no dude.

Anecdote: Called a State Policeman a Security officer after catching me jumping a fence to my dormitory. He was offended, gave me some shit- like any self-respecting human being would when being offended, but my face wasn't shot.

Not surprised.

After all, this is coming only just after Jacob Zuma got upset about how white and hostile the media was, demanding more "transformation" and "respect".

>>2269813

>Scaring others to conform

Um, they didn't "scare" anyone, they petitioned their legal system in an orderly way. If anyone, the judge is your "terrorist" here. But again, this is a ridiculous definition of "terrorism."

Not to mention, for the millionth time, I support the right to free symbolic speech - but this isn't in America, so I don't really if South Africa decides that symbolic speech should be limited in certain cases - much as I understand why Nazi symbolism has been banned in Germany.

Muslims = tolerant of other religions. This article is proof, whether or not you agree with the judge's decision. Deal with it.

>>2269805

If the price of "peace between everyone" is restriction of freedom of speech then the price is much to high.

Not to mention it would never, ever, end with that. It never does. Twenty years later this is the argument you would be making. "I know we are not all muslim, but covering a womans hair is absolutely sacred to them and essential to their faith. Is it so much to ask for all women to cover their hair, for the sake of peace between everyone? It's really not that much to ask."

Once you compromise our essential freedoms you put everything on the table.

>>Muslims = tolerant of other religions. This article is proof

Muslims = intolerant of freedom of speech. This article is proof. Not that should be news to anyone unless slept through the last 30 years; Salman Rusdie, Mohammad cartoons, south park, etc, etc.

>>2269916

Um, they were seeking an injunction TO PREVENT THE BURNING OF BIBLES. Not Korans. By your logic in 20 years they'll be petitioning the government to keep anyone from drawing a cross upside down.

Also: let's not forget that this is in South Africa. No one's compromising American freedoms here. Is limiting free speech good? No. Is the fact that Muslims stood against something that would offend Christians good? Yer damn skippy.

>>2270008
Your pro-Christian bias is distorting your perception of what is really at stake here, but that's how people always end up on the slippery slope; because something important to *them* is being protected.

It starts that way, it never ends that way.

>>2270025

What's important to *me* here is peace. They are acting to promote peace, even if we believe their methods are misguided.

>>2270052
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Sound familiar?

>>2270083

Seriously, how many fucking times do I need to agree with you that book-burning should be protected speech before you'll stop posting this bullshit? All I'm saying is that there's a positive takeaway from this article too, one that you refuse to acknowledge. I'm sorry you're too much of a child to take a nuanced position like that. This is my last post in this thread.

>>2270121
ANTI-SEMITE!