On the burning of books ... - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 16 2010 at 09:52

If as private citizens, me and my buddies invite the good pastor to a poker game involving plenty of whisky the night before the big event and he's passed out through the day in question, I think no foul or crime has been committed.

Does that earn a shoe-eating?

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Paravion

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470

Posted: September 16 2010 at 09:54

ProgFreak wrote:

@Paravion: I still think that you want to have it both ways. You're essentially asking "couldn't we have this particular book burning stopped regardless of the law". If a person buys a book and then announces to burn it in public, this is a form of expression. If you decide to step in and say "you can't do that" despite the constitution giving him the right to do so, you are in violation of the constitution.

I'd rather step in and say "would you please not do that, I know you have the right, but I consider it a bad idea because [arguments]." And hope for the best.

Negobas solution is even better though. Smile

Edited by Paravion - September 16 2010 at 09:57

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: September 16 2010 at 12:29

Time for Pat to prepare to digest them old sneakers... Tongue

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: September 16 2010 at 13:12

^ Nike a la carte in a flambé sauce

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: September 16 2010 at 13:27

^Maybe he's a Converse bearer...

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: September 16 2010 at 14:01

^ The big platform types with no sole

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 16 2010 at 20:23

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

@Paravion: I still think that you want to have it both ways. You're essentially asking "couldn't we have this particular book burning stopped regardless of the law". If a person buys a book and then announces to burn it in public, this is a form of expression. If you decide to step in and say "you can't do that" despite the constitution giving him the right to do so, you are in violation of the constitution.

Not necesarilly Mike, in some states ithe public burning of books can be considered a cri,e:

Sec. 42.02. RIOT. (a) For the purpose of this section, "riot" means the assemblage of seven or more persons resulting in conduct which:

(1) creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons; .

As far as i know, an open fire is a risk against life and properties..

And Mike, in Germany according to the Strafgesetzbuch section 130 you wouild be sent to prison if you burn a Qur'an:

Section 130 Agitation of the People

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whoever:

1. with respect to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by its folk customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group:

(...)

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

Good for German legislators, you can't even talk about the Moslems or Jews or Christians or whoever in offensive terms.

Been checking several criminal codes, and seems that in most of the world this kind of conduct can be considered criminal.

Iván

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: September 16 2010 at 21:01

ExittheLemming wrote:

^ The big platform types with no sole

I can't take this many puns. Shocked

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: September 16 2010 at 21:26

I only burn Facebooks. Tongue

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 17 2010 at 01:36

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Not necesarilly Mike, in some states ithe public burning of books can be considered a cri,e:

Sec. 42.02. RIOT. (a) For the purpose of this section, "riot" means the assemblage of seven or more persons resulting in conduct which:

(1) creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons; .

As far as i know, an open fire is a risk against life and properties..

You're either a very lousy lawyer - or you think I'm incredibly stupid. Either way, you're pathetic. Explain to me again how this applies to someone burning their own Qur'an - and no, not every time someone is burning something it automatically constitutes a fire hazard.

Iván wrote:

And Mike, in Germany according to the Strafgesetzbuch section 130 you wouild be sent to prison if you burn a Qur'an:

Section 130 Agitation of the People

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whoever:

(...)

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

Good for German legislators, you can't even talk about the Moslems or Jews or Christians or whoever in offensive terms.

Been checking several criminal codes, and seems that in most of the world this kind of conduct can be considered criminal.

Iván

Wrong again. 130 (and also 166) explicitly forbid that you publish books or pamphlets that incite intolerance or violence. The only part of 130 that could be construed to have anything to do with book burning:

"die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, daß er Teile der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,"

it only talks about people who insult, ridicule or slander parts of the population - for example, this might apply to someone publicly saying that "Jews are greedy" or "Arabs are filthy". Burning a book does not constitute an insult, and you will not find any case where German law has applied this paragraph in the way you suggest.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 17 2010 at 01:40

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 17 2010 at 02:14

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

You're either a very lousy lawyer - or you think I'm incredibly stupid. Either way, you're pathetic. Explain to me again how this applies to someone burning their own Qur'an - and no, not every time someone is burning something it automatically constitutes a fire hazard.

Are you also a lawyer?

The book burn of last year was stopped because another lousy lawyer invoked an environmental law.

And yes, in court I can prove that an open fire with a group of crazy and angry fanatics is a risk to life and property, specially when this guys have made inflammatory comments:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Wrong again. 130 (and also 166) explicitly forbid that you publish books or pamphlets that incite intolerance or violence. The only part of 130 that could be construed to have anything to do with book burning:

"die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, daß er Teile der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,"

it only talks about people who insult, ridicule or slander parts of the population - for example, this might apply to someone publicly saying that "Jews are greedy" or "Arabs are filthy". Burning a book does not constitute an insult, and you will not find any case where German law has applied this paragraph in the way you suggest.

The law is 99% interpretation, the text doesn't limits the AGITATION OF THE PUBLIC insult or slander.

Section 130 Agitation of the People

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

This part of the article doesn't mention written word or just insult or slander at all, it only talks in a generic way: Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace.

In other words IN ANY MANNER CAPABLE OF DISTURBING THE PEACE

Burning a holy text can be understood as hatred against a religious group, and joining peope for a bonfire is a manner capable of disturbing peace.,

The second párt of the section:

2) Whoever:

1. disseminates, publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes accessible a writing (Section 11 subsection (3)) which is capable of serving as instructions for an unlawful act named in Section 126 subsection (1); or

2. gives instructions for an unlawful act named in Section 126 subsection (1), publicly or in a meeting, in order to encourage or awaken the readiness of others to commit such an act,

Mentions writtings but sends to section 126 (which sends to section 125) but neither limits the it to written word because section 125 rtalks about carrying arms, etc.

Writting in German doesn't make you understand the law.

So please, don't try to teach me laws Mike.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 17 2010 at 10:09

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 17 2010 at 03:19

I rest my case - there's no need to repeat myself. Smile

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 17 2010 at 08:50

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I rest my case - there's no need to repeat myself. Smile

Great escape Mike.

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 17 2010 at 08:58

^ I've made my case - it's not an escape at all. You've presented some stupid non-sequitors, drew some wrong conclusions and made a fool of yourself - what's there left for me to add? Wink

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 17 2010 at 09:12

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ I've made my case - it's not an escape at all. You've presented some stupid non-sequitors, drew some wrong conclusions and made a fool of yourself - what's there left for me to add? Wink

Fool of me?

You say it with your vast knowledge of laws?

We all in PA know you see yourself as the god of Atheism, but your absolute incapacity of analizing a law that is transparent and clear for anybody who knows how to read is amazing.

You say that the phrase

Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace: (Literal copy of the section 130)

NEVER limits imits itself to slander and direct offence.even more when the same section says

incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

Have you read the declarations of this people?

Just in case, the Constitution of Germany declares that Freedom of expression can be limited even by general German laws:

Article 5 (Freedom of expression).
(1) Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the provisions of law for the protection of youth and by the right to inviolability of personal honor.
(3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution.

Please illuminate us with your legal wisdom, because you never said your legal arguments to make that limitation

And you dare to insult and call me lousy lawyer and a fool.?

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 17 2010 at 15:24

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 17 2010 at 10:38

You won't accept my arguments, so why are you keeping this up? Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right ... let the others be the judge of that.

And for the record: I said that you're either a lousy lawyer or you think that I'm incredibly stupid, and if I think that you're arguments are foolish then it is my right to say that.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 17 2010 at 10:42

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 17 2010 at 10:52

I did some more research - you took the effort to write in Detail about German legislation, so I tried to reciprocate.

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/pretzien_aid_125492.html

These people were burning stuff (including a book) and were indicted ... but not because they burned a book, but because of "Verherrlichung des Nationalsozialismus und Leugnung des Holocausts" (Glorification of National Socialism and Holocaust Denial). If 130/166 could have been applicable, they would have certainly added the book burning to the list of charges.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 17 2010 at 11:12

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 17 2010 at 11:26

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

You won't accept my arguments, so why are you keeping this up? Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right ... let the others be the judge of that.

And for the record: I said that you're either a lousy lawyer or you think that I'm incredibly stupid, and if I think that you're arguments are foolish then it is my right to say that.

Neither of both, I won't be talking with a stupid.

But your interpretation has no legal logic ot value to be sincere, a restrictive law must be specific, you can't say.

Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace

And say it only works in the case of slander, the word in a manner leaves the door open to any manner capable disturbing the public peace.

BTW: Defamation, Malicious Gossip and even Insult are in other section.and have no direct relation with disturbing the public peace (Unless a defamation or an insult cause a riot).

Chapter Fourteen Insult

Section 185 Insult

Insult shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine and, if the insult is committed by means of violence, with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

Section 186 Malicious Gossip

Whoever asserts or disseminates a fact in relation to another, which is capable of maligning him or disparaging him in the public opinion, shall, if this fact is not demonstrably true, be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine and, if the act was committed publicly or through the dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

Section 187 Defamation

Whoever, against his better judgment, asserts or disseminates an untrue fact in relation to another, which maligns him or disparages him in the public opinion or is capable of endangering his credit, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine, and, if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

In this case I can say with absolute confoidence and seccurity that you are wrong, because I not only studied laws as my main career, but also worked in Civil and Constitutional cases for 22 years.

Can't you accept you are not an expert in everything?

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 17 2010 at 11:43

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I did some more research - you took the effort to write in Detail about German legislation, so I tried to reciprocate.

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/pretzien_aid_125492.html

These people were burning stuff (including a book) and were indicted ... but not because they burned a book, but because of "Verherrlichung des Nationalsozialismus und Leugnung des Holocausts" (Glorification of National Socialism and Holocaust Denial). If 130/166 could have been applicable, they would have certainly added the book burning to the list of charges.

Mike, don't try to be a lawyer, you don't have the knowledge or developed the ability

There's not a crime defined as "Burning books", so it's impossible to see somebody being judged because burbning books, that is absurd.

Burning book is a behaviour that can be typified into other crimes or misdemeanours like altering the public peace, but it is a minor felony that could get at the most 3 years of prison, but most likely a fine,

No lawyer or DA would be so stupid to add a minor charge when Glorification of National Socialism and Holocaust Denial has attached a maximum of 5 years of Prison and would only distract the juries from the main issue.

Plus the burning of books was done for the purpose of Glorification of National Socialism and Holocaust Denial, so it would be almost impossible to prove it was done as an independent act or crime, but by the contrary is a consequence of the principal crime.

Plus I don't read German, only finished 1st year of Deutsch and for all purpose I'm almost a illiterate in your language, so the newspaper can say anything unreliable or even not mentioned the whole legal dossier.

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 17 2010 at 11:55

Just in case, Glorification of National Socialism is not a crime per se in this case t's just a worst form of agitation of people:

Section 130 Agitation of the People

(...)

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

As a fact, the accusation of this guys must have been done for Agitation of People in the form of Glorification of National Socialism, and being that both (burning books in public) are a same crime, the DA had to choose the worst one, but you need two components for his crime:

1.- Alter public order

2.- Glorify National Socialism or deny holocaust.

Leave law interpretation to the lawyers and legislators.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 17 2010 at 12:07