Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fifty wrote:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

And I don't think this would stop me stating my opinion that faith is a character flaw and shows weakness, and that organised religion is an overall negative influence.

(Having said that, everyone has character flaws, and I forgive most of them, including religiosity, and many organised religious groups do fine work.)

And it wouldn't stop me from telling you you're full of gak.

Fifty wrote:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

And I don't think this would stop me stating my opinion that faith is a character flaw and shows weakness, and that organised religion is an overall negative influence.

(Having said that, everyone has character flaws, and I forgive most of them, including religiosity, and many organised religious groups do fine work.)

No, I guess that law would not stop you from stating that, though I think you're wrong and it isn't very nice.

I've been mistreated by religious groups and individuals, but I know that is a minority, and I fail to see that being a "character flaw" or weakness.

Grignard wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

The ironic thing is that is exactly what many religious conservatives say in the US ( I can understand libertarian conservatives saying it, but I believe the religious right ought to be very careful with that, for just this reason).

Who is going to define verbal abuse then? I can consider that your criticism of my painted models is verbal abuse, but you know as well as I do it is not. I think the law can reasonably differentiate between contreversial statements and words meant solely to hurt. In short, yes, perhaps the government should define what is offensive, because who else will?

EDIT: By offensive in the last sentence of my statement, I believe something that is an assault on another person, not just "potentially offensive"

I see what you're saying but once the government becomes involved and they define blatant verbal abuse it becomes a law. When some says something that someone else is hurt by then it becomes a crime. This sets the stage for all sorts of frivolous law suits and trouble that could be avoided. This law and other laws like it are unnecessary because a "reasonable person" would not take offense at an expression of someone else's beliefs. A reasonable person would also know to not directly assault someone's beliefs or opinions. But maybe you're right since there is a considerable lack of reasonable people these days.

Grignard wrote:No, I guess that law would not stop you from stating that, though I think you're wrong and it isn't very nice.

I've been mistreated by religious groups and individuals, but I know that is a minority, and I fail to see that being a "character flaw" or weakness.

Which is why I don't say either of those two beliefs unless other people bring up the topic of religion. Having now started though, it is worth outlining my reasons for what I say and adding some clarity, lest I be accused of something nastier than intended.

Point 1) "Personal Faith is a character flaw"

I apply this to the extreme "leave it in God's hands" or "I'll suffer now and get my reward in heaven" faith, not your garden variety faith that is quite common.

This is based on the idea that being too dependent on someone(s) else is a flaw. Extreme faith is a crutch for those who cannot face the world without that crutch. I refer to the sort of people who believe that when bad things happen it is God's will and you should not try to prevent it and, for example, refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children. The sort of people who blame the murders they commit on God and call it Sharia law.

I also believe that being completely independent of other people is as grevious a flaw as being completely dependent on others. Thus, a little bit of faith in God might be a good sign that you can also have faith in other people. It then comes down to education, upbrining and peers, I believe.

Point 2) I work as a teacher in a Catholic school, despite being a very firm atheist. I am not against religius groups, as such. Organised religion, once you remove the faith element, is a tool. This tool is generally used for uniting people. The problem with organised religion is that it generally asks people it unites to accept the answers they are given rather than ask questions. This leads to many problems, in my opinion. Because of this, the good things that come from religious groups are still quite likely to come from secular groups with similar objectives. The bad things that come from religious groups are unlikely to be successfully replicated by secular groups.

Of course, those things are just my opinions.

It'd be interesting to see what other laws are on the books in our countries banning speaking out against one thing or the other and how they've been applied.
I think it'd surprise a lot of people and give us all pause to wonder about what's going on in our governments and what's next.

Depending on jurisdiction there are laws against speech concerning race, religion, national original, sexual preference, even weight.

I just googled speach laws and came up with this link.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/it_cant_happen_3.html

Does anyone from Canada know what the full story is here and enlighten the rest of us?

UK:

It is illegal to use threatening language or to incite violence. (I expect this is also true in the USA.)

It is illegal to incite racism or religious hatred.

It is illegal to condone or glorify terrorism. This is a fairly recent law (2008) and there has been almost no action in court about it.

While the UK does not have a specific Freedom of Speech, freedom of speech is a tradition here. The UK is also subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, which allow for freedom of speech.

Therefore any prosecutions under the various anti-speech laws could be defended under Human Rights legislation (perhaps not successfully.)

It seems like a slope to me, because whoever is in power can say what constitutes hatred. Am I being too paranoid on this, or has anyone here seen such laws taken to an extreme?

I think you'll find all sorts of laws get taken to extremes depending on the era and the country.

For example, a variety of laws were used by the USA to squash the Communist Party during the 1950s.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea to have no laws at all.

Corum wrote:Personally (and I feel dirty saying it,) Im in Gwar's camp on this.

I live in the American Deep South, and Atheism is equated down here with schizophrenia or modest retardation. Reactions range from patronizing sympathy to outright outrage at the denial that Jesus died for our sins and he literally came back to life and leapt into heaven.

I like the Bible, it is a good read. I also believe, like Carl Sagan, that there is a unifying force in the universe, but we haven't the means to qualify, quantify or explain it yet. This really doesn't make me an Atheist, but close enough that I keep my opinions to myself at work.

The points is, even here there is a double standard: complain about the evil humanist worldwide conspiracy and you are eccentric. Point out that there is a double standard, and the Christians leap onto the cross to martyr themselves.

If I have a pretend friend who keeps me out of trouble and his name is Percy - Im a lunatic; if his name is Jesus, Im a pious christian.

P.S. Gwar don't get excited, some of your rulings are still harebrained.

You're agnostic by your description. It's a view that's been gaining support.

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


Or as I like to put it, you believe in a higher power and that we'll never be able to understand/know that power.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think you'll find all sorts of laws get taken to extremes depending on the era and the country.

For example, a variety of laws were used by the USA to squash the Communist Party during the 1950s.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea to have no laws at all.

True enough, but what worries me in this is what people would allow to be put into law and enforced. With most people's awareness level of current events, it seems a lot could slide by them.

Relapse wrote:I just googled speach laws and came up with this link.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/it_cant_happen_3.html

Does anyone from Canada know what the full story is here and enlighten the rest of us?

Classical Values wrote:"You know you've lost your freedom when you cannot call a censor a censor."

Tracking down the original court decision for that hearing, it would seem that's not much of an exaggeration.

It looks to me like the court did find that calling someone an enemy of Free Speech was illegal because the persecution of the speakers was done in a legal manner. It's unnerving. I'm glad I don't live in Canada. (Well, their drinks are way too small also. The "large" is like an American small, it's absurd!)

I keep seeing people refer back to the "reasonable person" part of the law... and I can't help but think: this will be decided in a court, where reasonable people are as rare as the mislabeled "common sense". To quote a little cartoon bat, "this can only end in tears".

Somebody needs to go there and open up a satanic church. Test how far their so-called protection of religion goes.

Satanic churches are friendly places.

warpcrafter wrote:Somebody needs to go there and open up a satanic church. Test how far their so-called protection of religion goes.

If the "satanic church" is recognized as a religion by law, then the law would apply. Otherwise, no, this law won't apply. Doesn't mean there may not be something else that applies.

Relapse wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think you'll find all sorts of laws get taken to extremes depending on the era and the country.

For example, a variety of laws were used by the USA to squash the Communist Party during the 1950s.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea to have no laws at all.

True enough, but what worries me in this is what people would allow to be put into law and enforced. With most people's awareness level of current events, it seems a lot could slide by them.

"People get pretty much the kind of government they deserve."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord_sutekh wrote:I keep seeing people refer back to the "reasonable person" part of the law... and I can't help but think: this will be decided in a court, where reasonable people are as rare as the mislabeled "common sense". To quote a little cartoon bat, "this can only end in tears".

You had better give up now, if you don't have faith in the ability of people like Irish, Americans or British to use common sense and reason when deciding cases.

Speaking of which:

Two jailed for online racism after US turned down asylum bid

* Track this topic
* Print story
* Post comment

Freedom of speech claim denied

By John Oates • Get more from this author

Posted in Policing, 10th July 2009 15:48 GMT

£50 cash back & £50 off selected Toshiba laptops

Two British men who tried to claim political asylum in the US were jailed today for using the internet to incite racial hatred.

Simon Sheppard, 51 of Selby, North Yorkshire got four years and 10 months while Stephen Whittle, 42 of Preston got two years and four months. They were found guilty of 11 charges but the jury could not come to a verdict on seven others.

The two were originally arrested in 2006 but fled to the US. They arrived at LA airport and asked an official for political asylum believing they would get protection under US freedom of speech laws.

Instead they spent almost a year in Santa Ana City Jail in Orange County, AP reports. An immigration judge threw out their asylum application and recommended they be deported back to the UK.

Welcoming today's decision Adil Khan, Head of Diversity at Humberside Police said: “I welcome the decision by the jury to find Sheppard and Whittle guilty of a number of charges...Inciting racial hatred is a crime and one which seems to occur too regularly. This kind of material will not be tolerated as this lengthy investigation shows.

“These men were arrested in April 2006 by Humberside Police with the assistance of North Yorkshire Police and Lancashire Police and were charged with offences dating between 2004 and 2006."

The charge related to anti-semitic and racist material on a website the two controlled, which still appears to be available. The site published a Robert Crumb cartoon titled "When the goddamn jews take over America" alongside other less savoury material. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/10/jail_us_asylum/

This gets more worriesom to me the more I look into this.

If only people from every relegion and creed could just believe what they want, keep themselves to themselves and allow others the same peace, we wouldn't need such laws/possible laws.

Is it some quirk of human nature that we must force our relegious views upon others? I have no problem with anyone's belief until they start criticising my own or someone elses. I wonder if, one day in the near future, we could gather the heads of all relegions together on common ground, including athiests, and solemnly hand them small white cards with "STFU" stamped thereupon.

I may get enough peace and quiet then to finish stockpiling for the end of society.

Keyasa wrote:Is it some quirk of human nature that we must force our relegious views upon others?

Yes. It's the same reason that people form social groups in high school and make fun of anyone who's not like them. Even those "counter-culture" kids who claim that they're not defining themselves by conventional social norms and ridicule how everyone else is so conformist.

Tends to follow this sort of formula

if (your beliefs != my beliefs) then (me > you) and/or (me == right && you == wrong); If (you == wrong) then you need to be told why you're wrong.

Not to mention "forcible sharing" is written into a number of them, under the guise of "bringing more people to the Truth".

Jin wrote:
if (your beliefs != my beliefs) then (me > you) and/or (me == right && you == wrong); If (you == wrong) then you need to be told why you're wrong.

and then I press CTRL + C... I WIN!

djphranq wrote:

Jin wrote:
if (your beliefs != my beliefs) then (me > you) and/or (me == right && you == wrong); If (you == wrong) then you need to be told why you're wrong.

and then I press CTRL + C... I WIN!

30 goto 10

[quote=KilkrazySpeaking of which:

Two jailed for online racism after US turned down asylum bid

* Track this topic
* Print story
* Post comment

Freedom of speech claim denied

By John Oates • Get more from this author

Posted in Policing, 10th July 2009 15:48 GMT

£50 cash back & £50 off selected Toshiba laptops

Two British men who tried to claim political asylum in the US were jailed today for using the internet to incite racial hatred.

Simon Sheppard, 51 of Selby, North Yorkshire got four years and 10 months while Stephen Whittle, 42 of Preston got two years and four months. They were found guilty of 11 charges but the jury could not come to a verdict on seven others.

The two were originally arrested in 2006 but fled to the US. They arrived at LA airport and asked an official for political asylum believing they would get protection under US freedom of speech laws.

Instead they spent almost a year in Santa Ana City Jail in Orange County, AP reports. An immigration judge threw out their asylum application and recommended they be deported back to the UK.

Welcoming today's decision Adil Khan, Head of Diversity at Humberside Police said: “I welcome the decision by the jury to find Sheppard and Whittle guilty of a number of charges...Inciting racial hatred is a crime and one which seems to occur too regularly. This kind of material will not be tolerated as this lengthy investigation shows.

“These men were arrested in April 2006 by Humberside Police with the assistance of North Yorkshire Police and Lancashire Police and were charged with offences dating between 2004 and 2006."

The charge related to anti-semitic and racist material on a website the two controlled, which still appears to be available. The site published a Robert Crumb cartoon titled "When the goddamn jews take over America" alongside other less savoury material. ®

Sorry, ive been following this post half-assedly, and im unfamiliar with British law.

Am I to understand it is illegal to do or say something in the UK that might be considered discrimnation based on ethnicity?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/10/jail_us_asylum/

Firstly it is illegal for companies or government agencies to discriminate for or against someone on their ‘race’. If a case arises, the speech of staff can be taken as evidence. This means for example, if I was interviewing some potential recruits and made some remark about we want or don’t want a black guy, my company and I would probably be in very deep crap.

Secondly, it is illegal to directly harrass people on racial grounds:

▪ " Harassment
▪      3A.  - (1) A person subjects another to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in section 1(1B) where, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, he engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of - 
▪
▪ (a) violating that other person's dignity, or
▪
▪ (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him.
▪
▪     (2) Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of that other person, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.".

This means if I go down the pub and criticise the Irish barmaid for having a stupid accent, I am in the crap again.

Lastly, it is illegal to incite racial hatred, which means making public statements that are discriminatory and prejudicial. So I had better not make a website claiming that gypsies are taking British workers’ jobs.

What is it about this piece of legislature that people find so outrageous?

Honestly, it seems to protect ALL views, not just christians, and it is only for those cases where people are just being downright insulting. If you kindly express your views, and in a logical or friendly fashion you're not gonna get trouble with the law.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Honestly, it seems to protect ALL views, not just christians,

It doesn't protect my views, which may be insulting to Religious People, but they are my views. I notice how insulting Atheism isn't Illegal.

It doesn't protect any views. It imposes itself on views that are unpopular.

If I say [people of certain religion] suck, it does nothing to force them from having that viewpoint, or from expressing their views in any manner they please. They should ignore me, if I'm offensive and unhelpful. However, expressing my viewpoint would make me subject to harm under this law.


(I like your troll avatar better, I think, Gwar. In my mind, you will always be a troll. )

Oh, he changed back!
And he also became MORE immature! (down from 10 to 7)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the legislature mentions a Gordia Schiara or something, what are they? Polizie?

This legislation protects ALL sects if you look at it. I suppose that if a christian started publicly shouting that atheists are child molester, then he would be getting into trouble and any books he had about it would be confiscated.

I repeat, it is only suppresing the most OUTRAGEOUS, INSULTING views.