A school is not a public place, and so that isn't an equivalent example. If the sidewalk in front of the Masjid is a public area, you should legally be able to throw a bacon-and-Koran barbecue during Eid. There is no world where you can punish people for doing that and not end up on a slippery slope that jeopardizes freedom of expression.

I understand what you're saying, but to actually act on that and try to put it into law would be foolish.

[–] sarjalim@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

We already have that law, so the only thing up for debate is interpretation? Which legal experts are busy with debating now in public discourse in Swedish media, with no clear consensus except that it should be tried in court. I understand what you mean by slippery slope, but if everything is a slippery slope we would never be able to legislate anything. And let me remind you, both Sweden and the US have already imposed certain limits to the right to free speech. Defamation, for example, is not protected speech.

I disagree that a public school isn't a public place, but you're technically right. It doesn't really matter in the eyes of the Swedish law though, arguably it would be worse legally if the student had carved the swastika on a public playground outside, rather then in a semi-public spot in a school.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My mistake, I thought he was proposing a change / new law. I personally just disagree with that law then, I don't think that creeds should be protected from hateful messages. Unless the messages amount to harassment or breaking another existing, more general law, I don't necessarily see the issue it's solving.

[–] sarjalim@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

No problem. It's good to have well reasoned, civilized debates- we don't have to agree at the end!

load more comments (4 replies)