Blasphemy Laws - Victim-less Crimes.

[boyntonstu]

Blasphemy Laws - Victim-less Crime


http://tinyurl.com/7tv6buq

Breach of rule 4 removed. Again. Considering you've already been suspended 6 times in less than 1000 posts, you really might want to stop ignoring moderator warnings.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[zooterkin]

Write on Facebook (or James Randi) that "God does not exist." go directly to jail do not pass Go.

How do you get there from what you quoted?

 

[MG1962]

LOL

 

[Complexity]

Nothing is sacred.

 

[MG1962]

Nothing is sacred.

Which is pretty much what the court said in the only case in the 150 year history of the law

 

[Agatha]

Did you miss the bit where the law under discussion is applicable to Ireland only?

Most people here are not resident in Ireland, Facebook's servers aren't in Ireland, the JREFF isn't hosted in Ireland. What we write here or on facebook doesn't fall under Ireland's jurisdiction.

 

[Brainache]

This bit:

'The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law' .

Makes me wonder if a clever Lawyer has ever tried to get the Bible banned under this legislation.

There is a fair bit of stuff in the bible that some people might consider "indecent", possibly "Seditious" as well...

 

[Multivac]

Nothing is sacred.

According to Monty Python, every sperm is sacred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

 

[arthwollipot]

Blasphemy laws are morally repugnant, but the lack of them does not give us license to be egregiously offensive.

 

[JJM 777]

There is political sense in legally limiting people´s right to publicly say things that are known to offend many others. Not sure where the limit should go, but no limit at all doesn´t sound optimal (doesn´t lead to maximal happiness and friendly tranquility of population). A problem in "blasphemy" laws is giving more protection to a specific hand-picked opinion group than to others.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

There is political sense in legally limiting people´s right to publicly say things that are known to offend many others.

Politically? Sure. You want to suck up to a group of voters you try to make them happy. That doesn't make it right though.

Not sure where the limit should go, but no limit at all doesn´t sound optimal (doesn´t lead to maximal happiness and friendly tranquility of population).

Actually that's exactly what happens.
The only way to have true freedom is to accept the freedom of speech.
If you don't like something, don't watch it.

A problem in "blasphemy" laws is giving more protection to a specific hand-picked opinion group than to others.

It's not a "problem" it's the entire point.
Some christians will tell you that they find the pride parade offesnive while gays will tell you the whole homophobia thing in the bible is offensive.
How do you pick sides? You can't have it both ways.

Either everything is okay or nothing is okay.
Call me crazy, I'd go with the first on that.

 

[tsig]

Blasphemy laws are morally repugnant, but the lack of them does not give us license to be egregiously offensive.

Saying "I don't believe in god" is egregiously offensive to most religious types so I guess atheists should sit down and shut up then,

 

[arthwollipot]

Saying "I don't believe in god" is egregiously offensive to most religious types so I guess atheists should sit down and shut up then,

"Most" religious types? I don't think so. Anyway, this was so far from what I was suggesting that it's not even worth replying.

 

[Complexity]

Blasphemy laws are morally repugnant, but the lack of them does not give us license to be egregiously offensive.

Actually, that is precisely what we should be.

Their beliefs offend the hell out of me, and injure and threaten much that I love. They should not be allowed to be complacently smug and comfortable in their hateful, wilfull ignorance.

 

[Complexity]

"Most" religious types? I don't think so. Anyway, this was so far from what I was suggesting that it's not even worth replying.

Good.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, if you think that being egregiously offensive is a positive character trait, okay. Don't expect to make friends or influence people.

 

[Complexity]

Well, if you think that being egregiously offensive is a positive character trait, okay. Don't expect to make friends or influence people.

The people I wish to offend are not potential friends.

As to influencing people, that is not something I desire.

 

[arthwollipot]

As to influencing people, that is not something I desire.

Then why do you say anything at all?

 

[Complexity]

Then why do you say anything at all?

For my own pleasure, of course.

 

[MG1962]

For my own pleasure, of course.

In some circles to much self pleasuring is considered a negative