Timeline for Do any democracies with strong freedom of expression have laws against religious desecration?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2023 at 22:48 | vote | accept | Italian Philosopher | ||
| Jul 17, 2023 at 15:50 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @ilkkachu I think one basic difference is that insulting people ("white people are stupid" etc.) is already forbidden. Insulting religion is not necessary an insult against groups of people; it is directed against an abstract creed. Urinating on the Bible does not directly insult Christians. But because the creed is something dear and personal and often something people are passionate about it seemed worthy of a protection which other abstract concepts do not need (urinating on your physics book or your Birkin bag is clearly different). | |
| Jul 17, 2023 at 15:41 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @SimonRichter What makes you think it is a "derived right"? It has a central position in Art. 5 and is one of the "Grundrechte" ("basic rights"). It is probably also wrong to construct a contradiction or dissent between the European enlightenment and the American "style" (principles leading to its political system, its constitution, its foundational political principles and its concept of humanity). All to the contrary: The American "system" is heavily inspired by and stands on the values of the enlightenment. | |
| Jul 17, 2023 at 14:06 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @Peter-ReinstateMonica What I don't like about this law is that "in a way that will disturb public peace" heavily depends on how sensitive the religion members are. If they're sensitive enough, anything could be considered an insult towards their scripture or prophets. | |
| Jul 16, 2023 at 15:08 | comment | added | Dakeyras | It's worth adding that Germany in particular has been very heavily shaped by interreligious warfare in the last few centuries (see e.g. the 30 Years' War) so the cultural context is very different to that of the US. | |
| Jul 16, 2023 at 7:59 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @Peter-ReinstateMonica Your own religion is still also the religion of others unless you are the sole practitioner of said religion. | |
| Jul 16, 2023 at 6:32 | comment | added | Simon Richter | Keep in mind that in the German constitution, freedom of speech is a derived right. People have the right to inform themselves, and for that to happen, the dissemination of information must not be hindered -- but not all speech is useful information, and some speech is aimed at disturbing communication. The American style "rhetorics is protected speech" runs counter to the Enlightenment values behind the German constitution. | |
| Jul 15, 2023 at 18:55 | comment | added | ilkkachu | Even though some limitations on what one can say and do are reasonable and even necessary, there is the question of if religion is something that requires a specific law to protect it. As in compared to just having a more generalized law against inciting hatred against a group, one that would also protect against hatred based on skin color or origin, not just hatred based on religion. | |
| Jul 15, 2023 at 12:28 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | Being German, I may be partial, but I like that law: It's basically a code of conduct against trolls. Of course one can criticize the Quran but there is no reason to urinate on it other than trolling. By the way, I don't like the anti Nazi symbol laws. I understand where they come from (there was a strong underground Nazi network after the war, and obviously the Americans who heavily influenced the legal shape of West Germany were concerned about them and the general population as well), but in the end I'm a big fan of the competition of ideas and hence free speech (sans trolling). | |
| Jul 15, 2023 at 12:21 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | I just read the interesting reasoning about $166 StGB in the 1960s (dserver.bundestag.de/btd/05/040/0504094.pdf, pp 29 and 30). Originally, of course, similar laws protected specifically the Christian faith and churches. The new law focused instead on sustaining the public peace and was faith agnostic: Atheists would be equally protected, and an individual creed enjoyed the same protection as official denominations. The target of the law are insults and hate speech which violate the commandment of tolerance towards others necessary for living peacefully together. | |
| Jul 15, 2023 at 11:35 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | Interestingly, the law stipulates "... of others which seems to imply that you can always rant against your own religion ;-). Not sure whether that is intended and has been court-tested... | |
| Jul 15, 2023 at 2:44 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 21:14 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 20:11 | history | edited | quarague | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
put in the original text of §166 StGB and a rough translation
|
| Jul 14, 2023 at 16:56 | history | answered | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |