Hacker News Reader

Comment by rich_sasha | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why people are so protective of the "right" to burn Quran or to publish rude cartoons of prophet Mohammed.

Free speech is important and we should protect the right to criticize things and to debate, but burning books is not that. It's childish, offensive and seriously carries no informational content other than "fuck you".

Especially in an age it's almost rude to not put your pronouns in email signature. It's important to be nice and considerate to trans people, but OK to shit on 1.8bn people?

I have nothing in common with Muslims / Arabs otherwise.

View on HN

Say what? I know zero, none, no people who put their pronouns in their signature. Given that I work with college students, I'm not exactly sheltered. You live in a weird, woke bubble.

Which is probably why you don't see the need to allow disrespecting symbols. That is a classic means of protest, whether it's a flag, a picture, a book, or something else. It is meant to get attention, and yet harms no one.

Ha, you know so much about me.

But disrespecting peoples closely held beliefs is just unnecessary. Reasonable people can disagree, about anything really, and anything can be said, politely. Portraying prophet Mohammed as a terrorist, or burning books, is just hate speech. The latter is literally what the Nazis did.

Criticize whoever you want, with respect. Not this nonsense.

> disrespecting peoples closely held beliefs is just unnecessary.

How dare you call them 'beliefs'? Are you implying that they're not facts? You're telling every Muslim on the planet that they're subscribing to fairy tales.

Hyperbole aside, I don't want my tax money going towards paying police to break up 'unnecessary' demonstrations.

> I know zero, none, no people who put their pronouns in their signature. Given that I work with college students, I'm not exactly sheltered. You live in a weird, woke bubble.

Roughly 50% of the tech folks I interact with (at minor companies like Salesforce and Amazon) list them.

But tell me more about my “weird” “woke” (as if you can define the word) bubble. Because of course it’s not that you live in a bubble. You’re the main character. Or whatever.

I’m so tired of this pervasive, self-important bullshit. Grow up.

Because this is water on a mill of far right parties. They just need to point out to this law and tell to people that the left is protecting Muslim terrorists. Easy rise up of preferences

I don't think Muslim symbols need more protection than other cultures'. Just extend anti-hate speech laws to cover this.

And yes I know this is about specific Danish laws, still I don't see what is so noble in burning Quran that deserves legal protection.

It feels like the dynamic in the US is a lot different. Probably because an obvious majority of people get offended when you bag on minority religious groups. And especially true in urban areas where you are likely to find them. Not to mention most American's have a deep seated sentimental attachment to immigrants.

Side comment. Most of the far right crap you see on the internet in the US doesn't smell homegrown if you get my drift.

> carries no informational content other than "fuck you".

If that's your argument, you should know that saying "fuck you" in the US is, broadly speaking, a protected free speech right. Including for childish, offensive and information-free reasons. This means there is plenty of case history to test your analogy.

It is a protected free speech right, for example, to say "fuck you" to the cops - https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdbqz/saying-fuck-the-polic... .

It is a protected free speech right to post a sign in your yard saying "Fuck Biden and fuck you for voting for him", even if that's childish, offensive, carries no informational content, and shits on 81 million people. https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/jud... (sign at https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/styles/860x484/p... )

You can read more about how "fuck" fits into the US concept of free speech at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California with Cohen v. California (wearing a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" in a courthouse was free speech) and its followup cases. In particular note how Blackmun, in dissent, said wearing the jacket 'was not speech but conduct (an "absurd and immature antic")'.

So if that's your argument, you've already lost ... in the US.

Denmark, of course, is another country.

> it's almost rude to not put your pronouns in email signature

Wow! I don't know what sort of people you associate with, but almost none of my email signatures have that. I just checked - four distinct people over the last year, all from a librarian list I'm on.

Well... And that holy enshrined right to say "fuck you" is a hill worth dying on?

The pronouns thing was a hyperbola.

Yes, it should be! You are free to get upset by what I say, but at no point should the government be intervening on your behalf to punish me, unless it turns to harassment.

Well, that's one way to look at the world. Absolutist free speech.

But from a pragmatic point of view, free speech is a tool. It is useful protecting it up to the point it is, well, useful, but not beyond.

It is important that everyone can get their point across. But in any way? Surely not. If a billionaire decides to blast his podcast from every street corner, you'd be right to be annoyed. Putting it online suffices, and going beyond is harassment.

Further, even if you are happy with an absolutist free speech agenda, it doesn't mean everyone is, and I can't see why your approach should be imposed on others.

See, that's the problem with your overuse of hyperbole - you end up making this a thread about "freeze peach", rather than the real issue.

People can't tell if you mean literally die fighting for their use to say "fuck you", or if you mean figuratively people shouldn't take the topic to court to defend their free speech right to say "fuck you."

catboybotnet clearly wasn't making arguing for absolutist free speech - see the "unless it turns to harassment" exception. I'm sure catboybotnet also supports time-place-manner free speech exceptions, but didn't think include all the exceptions.

Here's the point. Saying 'fuck you' is already, broadly speaking, covered under free speech protection in the US. Since you think burning the Koran is equivalent to saying "fuck you", then burning the Koran is covered under free speech rights.

If you think "Free speech is important" but you don't recognize that saying "fuck you" is free speech, then there's a fundamental difference between your concept of free speech and the one I'm familiar with - the one in US law.

You need to explain why people should care about your non-standard definition.

Your excessive use of hyperbole is annoying and detrimental to your argument.

1) not "holy enshrined right", and I never claimed that. I wrote "broadly speaking" for a reason. There are the usual time-place-manner restrictions, minors may have limits that adults do not, etc.

2) not literally "a hill worth dying on", because we're only talking jail terms at worst.

3) For the people who have pushed this up to the state and national supreme courts, yes, it was worth it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com