A question about incitement to murder

[alcaeus]

In the UK we have a law which reads:

". . . whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to [imprisonment for life] . . ." (Section 4, Offences against the Person Act 1861)

My question is then, why do religious texts appear exempt from this law? There are numerous verses in Abrahamic scriptures that call for the murder of disbelievers. They are not merely describing a murder, but specifically telling the reader to murder. If someone were to hand these holy books out on the street, (and encourage people to follow the word) why would they avoid arrest? (This is a genuine question; I'm not trying to rabble-rouse!)

 

[Inferno]

It's a book, it's a story. You can't imprison a book. Who would you imprison in its stead?
Would you ban the book? Then you also have to ban every other book that mentions anything close to "Kill them", because that too can be seen as incitement.
Just one example: You'd have to ban the novel (yes, they've written one after the movie) "Se7en". After all, there's a guy killing people for their seven sins, something I'm sure many people would think is a good thing.

So where does it stop?

Much easier is the following: You don't ban books and you don't ban people from reading them. (Including "Mein Kampf", which is banned in Austria. What a stupid rule.) You only ban/imprison people who are actively promoting murder.

 

[alcaeus]

Of course, I'm with you on not banning books. But, the law says nothing about the format of the incitement. Handing out pieces of paper in the street with "Kill the Jews now!" written on it would almost certainly see you arrested. Why does adding a dust jacket change this?

 

[Rakomu]

Should incitement to murder be covered by freedom of speech?

The late contrarian Christopher Hitchens remarked that all speech, including incitement to murder, should be protected by freedom of expression. To what extent do you agree with this?

Personally, it makes me feel slightly uneasy. I'd be interested to see if I am in a minority or not.

 

[Inferno]

Of course, I'm with you on not banning books. But, the law says nothing about the format of the incitement. Handing out pieces of paper in the street with "Kill the Jews now!" written on it would almost certainly see you arrested. Why does adding a dust jacket change this?

Who can be held responsible for a book? Think about it. Who could you incarcerate? Mohammed? Jesus?
Also, think about the second thing I said: How does it differ from other books? Who's going to jail for those?

It's simply not feasible. Law isn't only about what is right, it's also about what we can realistically do.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: Should incitement to murder be covered by freedom of spe

The late contrarian Christopher Hitchens remarked that all speech, including incitement to murder, should be protected by freedom of expression. To what extent do you agree with this?

Personally, it makes me feel slightly uneasy. I'd be interested to see if I am in a minority or not.

Rakomu,

I've merged your topic with this one as it already contains responses and covers the same ground

 

[malicious_bloke]

Of course, I'm with you on not banning books. But, the law says nothing about the format of the incitement. Handing out pieces of paper in the street with "Kill the Jews now!" written on it would almost certainly see you arrested. Why does adding a dust jacket change this?

Who can be held responsible for a book? Think about it. Who could you incarcerate? Mohammed? Jesus?
Also, think about the second thing I said: How does it differ from other books? Who's going to jail for those?

Not to say that I agree with the concept of banning books or 'owt but the idea that old religous works leave you with no current person to hold responsible is a bit silly. Unknown authors and protagonists of doubted providence are meaningless when you can simply crack down on the distributors instead.

But like I said, banning literature is a bad sign for any nation IMO. If someone is spreading odious nonsense, shine the light of public scrutiny on it and it will be exposed for the wankery that it is. Banning things just feeds the persecution complex of those who want to believe it.

 

[PAB]

It will not result simply in the banning of the Bible, Torah or Koran but in the banning of the religions.

And its a dangerous road to cross,

Below is Nick Griffin Leader of the Fascist BNP party- he seems to identify within Islam incitement to murder. Good Muslims are those who follow the hate and need for jihad etc. Therefore no more mosques allowed, anyone preaching hate kick them out if they are foreign - if they're a national exile them or hang them. And he labels it under treason which could feasibly hold since the 1848 amendment in the UK law.


Personally i think it would be not only dangerous but wrong to ban religious texts. Instead their should be encouragement and support for those who don't isolate the genocide and murder from religious texts. After all as people have already highlighted it is a story, and its one people pick and choose what to take from it. If they are picking violence, murder, etc. then simply banning the book won't solve the deeper reason for that turn to violence.