Freedom of speech and religion

I choose freedom of speech 100%. You cannot enforce 'respect' on people. The consequence on free speech will always be, as has often been said, pornography and disgraceful tabloids...

What if people get offended by the image of a man cruelly tortured, nailed to a cross, and demmand the removal of all crucifixes?

 

Well, looks who's back. Long time no see Friedrich. I do believe there is a big difference between an icon which depicts the symbol of one's religion and someone outside of that religion defaming a photo of the that religion's earthly representative.

There has been numerous crossings of the line between 'freedom of speech' and persecutions (attacks against beliefs). For example, the taking away of the display of the ten commandments. Just because it is on display in a government building does not mean that the government is forcing us to believe or follow those commandments. Because of non-christians (or whomever) were 'offended' they had to be taken down. Because of the diversity of this nation's population and the difficulty in appeasing everybody, why not just IGNORE it. Let's say I'm offended by all of the adult bookstores or strip joints that have sprout out in my city. They go against my morals. Yet they are not taken away or forced to close. I accept them for what they are and the audience they cater to. So be it. I CHOOSE not to frequent such places.

Freedom of speech has been used outside of its original intent just like the freedom of religion and the freedom to bear arms have been. I blame the ACLU and all of the lawyers who are out just for a buck.

When addressing a potential attack against freedom of speech, I believe the only requirement that should be looked at is whether it is forcing someone else to change or is it merely someone expressing their feelings against what they perceive to be a wrong.

For example, the photo of the Pope as listed in the article. What message is the creator sending in exhibiting his freedom of speech? Is it a direct attack that would constitute a hate crime? I say yes. So is it a true expression of freedom of speech or a crime? I don't see anything else in that photo other than an attack. Should it be taken down. Yes.

Now, lets look at another example. The ephigy (sp?) of Palin being hung in the owner's front yard. That was allowed yet what message is that sending???? Other than he wants her strung up. Now if it was Obama's likeness, would that have been allowed? Heck no.

I choose freedom of speech but because of today's yahoos, there has to be some kind of policing unfortunately. I say keep it simple. Freedom of speech against a government's policy, even a religion's policy or a person's personality etc.... but as long as it is not an attack of sorts. complicated yes...but this is what happens when the ACLU and the lawyers convolute the law.. Sorry for the long speech

 

Glad to see you, Ike! Hope everything's well.

 

I disagree.

Publishing a picture of a public figure purporting to show him doing something that he is not supposed to do, is not a hate crime (look up the definition of a "hate crime"). It is not an "attack", no matter how you define the word.

It may offend some people's sensibilities, but so what? Practically anything anybody does or says these days is going to offend somebody. If the state can ban pictures offending people's religious sensibilities, why not for offending their political sensibilities? It would be no different if someone drew a cartoon of BO that people objected to and the state banned it for that reason. This is not as far-fetched as some might suppose

During the election, there were some effigies of BO hung in my state. The police investigated them as hate crimes, although no arrests were ever made. However, when effigies of Sarah Palin were hung, no investigations were made; apparently it is a crime to hang the effigy of a black male political candidate, but not that of a white female political candidate.

The right of free speech must be jealously guarded. That some, or even many, take offense at any form of expression is not enough to outweigh the harm that follows from quashing free speech. Only speech that creates a clear and present danger to the immediate physical safety of life or property can justify restricting expression. Did the doctored picture of the Pope create any immediate physical danger to the Pontiff or any one else? Nope. So it cannot legitimately be suppressed.

 

There is a fine line.

 

Yeah, but as in your military like ours swearing on the bible can mean a whole different thing.

Lou, I read and saw an item on this in UK a few days or weeks ago, I cant remember when as I just like rest of UK went past it.

I could be wrong, but I dont think it was banned, I think the company withdrew the add and apologised...I dont know who they apologised to though.

I think they got what they wanted. The publicity. Probably chalked that one up as a success.

 

Anyway, the adman has been suitable chastised I believe.

 

And in that vein, the former military wing would like to apologise if we have offended any religions or beliefs, and will withdraw our adverts tout de suite if required to do so. No offence offered to anyone or anything.

I do though realise I cant talk for the former American military. I believe some are more heathen than us.

 

Otto it is indeed stupid, but so to is the ad mentioned in the original article. It was barely mentioned in the UK news, and then only in passing by some who pointed out that the idea was in fact only for momentary publicity which it served its own makers purposes well I would suggest.

3 things my mum told me never to get involved in, politics, religion and war. Well I failed.

But so to did my nation. If we didnt pick up on this but it appears on ww2 forums. I'm amazed.

 

Sorry Otto........I only used that to illustrate the Irony of perception in that: What is meaningful or Humorous to one person can be offensive and tasteless to another.

Before I get fragged, there is nothing humorous about lynchings or burning heads of State in efigy.

A few years ago during the Halloween celebration there was a young man doing the "Pub Crawl" while dressed as the Pope. Some others thought he was dressed as a Klansman and beat the living snot out of the kid.

 

Well, I am a religious believer... and I should be offended by the way a great man like John Paul II is depicted, but I am not. I don't get offended by bad jokes and poor taste. I simply ignore it.

And not even in art...

Many people were offended by this chocolate sculpture of Christ, which I happen to find very appealing, despite the material...

I could get offended by the photographer Jam Montoya's (warning: don't open the link if you got offended by the YMCA picture) obscene depiction of religious figures, but I do understand them... I won't condemn him for making a point, no matter how biased, fame-seeking, blasphemous it might be.

 

I think Friedrich some do it for the attention in this modern world of ours. I may be conspiratoral in my thinking, but the original article in the US paper is an example of much more of what we see. This incident hardly got any notice over here. It seems to have got more noticed in USA, difference in cultures comes to mind. But I think its being used by the reporter as reporters do to suit his own agenda. Not much of one in this case but its one of many.

 

Ah but there is the crook in the neck. The freedom of speech is being used for personal gain rather than its original intent and therefore runs the risk of being removed because some bonehead wanted to be funny.

I see all of our freedoms in danger not from the government removing them but the government being forced to remove them because of their misuse.

I've served in the military as has my father and as is my son. The price for our freedoms has been paid by just a small percentage of the population. I just despise seeing those freedoms taken for granted, abused and misused. So if I come across a little strong it is only because I stand in awe thinking how I may have wasted all of my sacrifices for the sake of today's society. The only thing that keeps me sane is my faith and the beliefs of that faith. If it weren't for that, I would have been another blotch in the police blotter.

 

Thats a big debate over here at moment Pzjgr, the recent act of parliament on the religious and racial hatred act 2006 in British law. Its original wording was challenged by of all folk the comedy establishment if they have one...and govt agreed with them that the wording was too harsh. Many amendments were written in and crossed out, before its enactment.
If it had sailed through then it would not have represented what even the govt thought they wanted. Comedy, irony, sarcasm may have become a criminal offence in the land of sarcasm. We could well have seen many a comedian banged up for performing his or her usual act. An act of parliament that was originally re written to take out the few as you say who use and abuse the right of free speech.

A hammer to hit a pin.

Thankfully wiser heads prevailed..well Joe Public prevailed and the politicians saw their jobs dissapearing before their eyes...You can tax us to the hilt, take away our freedoms, bring back national service, but you cant touch our comedians....

As a barrack room lawyer, I happen to have a copy...just for interest and how it would relate to Lou's reporter on the inquirer.

In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred. "Racial hatred" is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting. [35]