|
|
|
|
|
by cato_the_elder
1515 days ago
|
|
> Literally no one in the article is making that argument. I meant that as sarcasm (note the headline), but IMO, the article is clearly more sympathetic towards people who "set vehicles ablaze" than the guy who seems to have at worst burnt a book as an effigy. > They want it to be made illegal so the police can stop people from burning the Koran and other religious texts. I don't think that's a good idea at all. That's essentially just a form of a blasphemy law. |
|
] If you have an image in your head of a notorious assassin or terrorist, Gavrilo Princip is probably the last person on your mind. ... you'd be hard pressed to believe this poseur had any chance of setting the world's economic and political center on fire. - https://mida.org.il/2014/06/28/shots-started-first-world-war...
That doesn't mean Princip literally set the world on fire, nor is it sympathetic towards Princip nor Serbian nationalism.
> That's essentially just a form of a blasphemy law.
I concur. But it's not an effective counter-argument since those who want such a law will make exactly the same argument. "This is just a form of blasphemy law like Finland and Germany already have." (I don't know the specifics of those two countries, only that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law describes them as having blasphemy laws.)