Yeah… not sure you quite understand that goes against free speech by removing their right to speak about it if a permit is required but the government isn’t granting it… much less that a permit be required for “free speech.”
No permit is required to exercise your free speech. Lots of countries want you to get a permit if you’re planning a demonstration so they know what’s going on and can plan for the effects, block traffic etc.
The people burning Qurans aren’t just whipping out a copy and a bic, they’re planning weeks in advance to do it in majority Muslim areas or famously in front of the embassy of turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation.
The process of applying for the permit actually helps them in this case because the state stations a bunch of cops to keep them from getting killed for pulling a die hard 2.
Rejecting the permit doesn’t curtail their speech rights in the slightest. They can still whip out a Quran and spark it up. There’s just no longer any guarantee the cops will get there in time.
That’s why groups like this just don’t do impromptu demonstrations anymore. They found out that their right to speech ends where the fists of those they offend begin.
I am seeing you make a distinction but I am not seeing you list a difference. There is no point to protesting anything if you don’t have people see it.
Permitless speech is still possible, the speaker just won’t have the backing of the state in making it.
If the state denied a permit for this kind of demonstration the speaker could still up and decide to burn a Quran or make any other speech they see fit, they just wouldn’t have police protection and crowd control.
Given how unpopular this sentiment is in general and the various speakers’ choices of venue (Muslim neighborhoods, mosques, embassies of Muslim nations), I doubt they’d continue burning Qurans.
That’s why I phrased my initial response the way I did. The Swedish state should stop condoning that kind of speech if it doesn’t want it’s enemies to be able to accuse it of condoning that kind of speech.
Stop issuing permits, stop protecting hate speech.
I didn’t suggest they ban it. The easiest way for the state to not condone hate speech is to not issue a permit to make it.
Yeah… not sure you quite understand that goes against free speech by removing their right to speak about it if a permit is required but the government isn’t granting it… much less that a permit be required for “free speech.”
No permit is required to exercise your free speech. Lots of countries want you to get a permit if you’re planning a demonstration so they know what’s going on and can plan for the effects, block traffic etc.
The people burning Qurans aren’t just whipping out a copy and a bic, they’re planning weeks in advance to do it in majority Muslim areas or famously in front of the embassy of turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation.
The process of applying for the permit actually helps them in this case because the state stations a bunch of cops to keep them from getting killed for pulling a die hard 2.
Rejecting the permit doesn’t curtail their speech rights in the slightest. They can still whip out a Quran and spark it up. There’s just no longer any guarantee the cops will get there in time.
That’s why groups like this just don’t do impromptu demonstrations anymore. They found out that their right to speech ends where the fists of those they offend begin.
I am seeing you make a distinction but I am not seeing you list a difference. There is no point to protesting anything if you don’t have people see it.
Permitless speech is still possible, the speaker just won’t have the backing of the state in making it.
If the state denied a permit for this kind of demonstration the speaker could still up and decide to burn a Quran or make any other speech they see fit, they just wouldn’t have police protection and crowd control.
Given how unpopular this sentiment is in general and the various speakers’ choices of venue (Muslim neighborhoods, mosques, embassies of Muslim nations), I doubt they’d continue burning Qurans.
That’s why I phrased my initial response the way I did. The Swedish state should stop condoning that kind of speech if it doesn’t want it’s enemies to be able to accuse it of condoning that kind of speech.
Stop issuing permits, stop protecting hate speech.