Hundreds of intellectuals and artists are concerned about its implications for freedom of expression, while police, lawyers, and prosecutors consider it too imprecise.
“inciting a riot” means, at the very least, telling people to go and riot. Burning a book is not, by any stretch of the definition “inciting a riot” (even though it may result in some people rioting).
The only reason anyone would publicly burn any religious book in public would be to create a reaction. I don’t necessarily agree with banning it but no one does it just for a laugh.
If you acknowledge that doing it may cause a riot, how does that not fit into a loose definition of “inciting a riot”? I’m trying to think of a more innocent act that might start a riot that would obviously not be “inciting a riot”, and I’m struggling to come up with a counterexample.
It might fit a loose definition but it doesn’t fit the legal definition (speaking about the US here). These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)
“First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence”.
.
“inciting a riot” means, at the very least, telling people to go and riot. Burning a book is not, by any stretch of the definition “inciting a riot” (even though it may result in some people rioting).
The only reason anyone would publicly burn any religious book in public would be to create a reaction. I don’t necessarily agree with banning it but no one does it just for a laugh.
There are many reasons to burn a book. One is to display criticism.
And I would argue it is not an effective way to critique religion.
I’d argue the opposite. People really came out of the woodwork to show everyone just how unhinged and violent their illness makes them.
If you acknowledge that doing it may cause a riot, how does that not fit into a loose definition of “inciting a riot”? I’m trying to think of a more innocent act that might start a riot that would obviously not be “inciting a riot”, and I’m struggling to come up with a counterexample.
It might fit a loose definition but it doesn’t fit the legal definition (speaking about the US here). These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)
“First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence”.
.