Blasphemy

[exchemist]

We should be allowed to insult homosexuals and the religious. Or anyone, aside from threats of violence.

That is not my point. There is a claim being made that a specific piece of English law has been broken by someone. I am contesting that it has been.

However, that aside, the usual argument is that one needs to be free to disparage a belief system, just as one can criticise any other ideas (politics, philosophy, scientific theories etc), but not a group of people. Homosexuals are a group of people, not a belief system and as such are entitled to expect the law to protect them from being abused for just being members of that group.

 

[icehorse]

A democratically elected government.

Wow! I certainly don't trust any government I've ever heard of to decide what opinions I should not hear.

 

[Cooky]

That is not my point. There is a claim being made that a specific piece of English law has been broken by someone. I am contesting that it has been.

However, that aside, the usual argument is that one needs to be free to disparage a belief system, just as one can criticise any other ideas (politics, philosophy, scientific theories etc), but not a group of people. Homosexuals are a group of people, not a belief system and as such are entitled to expect the law to protect them from being abused for just being members of that group.

That seems gay.

 

[JJ50]

That is not my point. There is a claim being made that a specific piece of English law has been broken by someone. I am contesting that it has been.

However, that aside, the usual argument is that one needs to be free to disparage a belief system, just as one can criticise any other ideas, but not a group of people. Homosexuals are a group of people, not a belief system.

No one should be insulted because of their race, sexuality, or gender.

As for religion I think it is right to challenge extremists of any religion if their take on it is very abusive to others, as in the case of IS, and the Christians who threaten others with hell-fire if they don't get saved. As I have stated many times I don't have a problem with moderates of any faith even though I don't see it their way.

 

[Cooky]

I do think Europeans are more cruel than Americans. So maybe you guys need those kinds of laws. IDK.

Some european here kept insulting my dead mother as an example. Americans just don't do that.

Another mentally sick European laughed about terrorists killing Americans here not too long ago.

 

[exchemist]

Wow! I certainly don't trust any government I've ever heard of to decide what opinions I should not hear.

It's not about "opinions", as you well know, it is about abuse and the stirring up of hatred.

Laws against racism protect groups from abuse and the fomenting of hatred, just as other laws protect them from physical attack. It is perfectly reasonable for elected legislators to pass such laws. We all benefit from it.

In terms of the old cliché, you are not free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and never have been.

 

[exchemist]

No one should be insulted because of their race, sexuality, or gender.

As for religion I think it is right to challenge extremists of any religion if their take on it is very abusive to others, as in the case of IS, and the Christians who threaten others with hell-fire if they don't get saved. As I have stated many times I don't have a problem with moderates of any faith even though I don't see it their way.

You are free to attack and ridicule the ideas and doctrines of Christianity and other religions (i.e. the intellectual content), but you are not entitled to abuse Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) people or stir up hatred against them purely on the grounds of their belief.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act contains the following free speech protection:
"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."

And if some of the believers do reprehensible things, you can attack those that do for that, of course.

 

[JJ50]

I have heard some racists on forums claim the evil slave trade was no bad thing!

 

[exchemist]

I do think Europeans are more cruel than Americans. So maybe you guys need those kinds of laws. IDK.

Some european here kept insulting my dead mother as an example. Americans just don't do that.

Another mentally sick European laughed about terrorists killing Americans here not too long ago.

Yeah I know, you lovable guys just kill each other with guns instead.

 

[exchemist]

That seems gay.

As we all know, lawyers and judges are well known to be as gay as hairdressers, right?

 

[JJ50]

Jesus is depicted as Caucasian in all the paintings and pictures of him created over the centuries when in actual fact he would have been of middle eastern appearance. I suspect the Caucasian artists found it inconceivable that he could have been other than white.

 

[JJ50]

As we all know, lawyers and judges are well known to be as gay as hairdressers, right?

There is nothing wrong with being gay or straight, not all male hairdressers are gay as I know for a fact!

 

[viole]

Where is it up to us what others choose to do? As for marriage it was ordained by God for a man and a woman. Is marriage a piece of paper or a holy investiture? Marriage in Gods eyes
is only two people man and woman becoming one body an holy investiture where the two become one in Gods eyes. People can make many forms of marriage but a gay couple can never be
married in the eyes of God just the law. That is there choice and we have no say in that matter.



Does the Father have the right to object about a woman aborting a baby?

It all seems so simple doesn't it. The truth is no one gets a say in a woman aborting her baby. We can agree or disagree about abortion itself. But the truth is that unless underage , raped or an abusive partner - did the woman have the choice and the ways to avoid the pregnancy? YES. So I would say if they chose not to take measures to avoid pregnancy then they have the baby or pay for the abortion.


As you can see you assumed and wrote the above with your mind having been made up/ But the answers were not as you expected. Not all believers are in the accusations area some of us actually know what we believe and understand why marriage and abortion are issues only for those outside the life with God.

Well, you answered yourself why atheists have all interest to discuss about God existence, despite not believing in it.

You said God ordained that marriage is only between a man and a woman. In other words, your belief, in what we consider an imaginary being, is affecting public policy. It is affecting the life of gay people, just to make an example, who might not give a rip of what God, the blue fairy or whomever, ordained.

So, for any atheist who is interested to remove things like discrimination of people based on sexual preferences, trying to knock down and ridicule religious beliefs, is not only allowed, but it becomes a social and civil duty.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Darkforbid]

Nope, the criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. So it is up to you to make the case that the law has been broken, not up to me to show it has not been.

So let's take it step by step.

To break this law, the language used would have to be aimed at a specific person. Who is that person, in your view?

OK step by step:

To break this law, the language used would have to be aimed at a specific person. Who is that person, in your view?

No directed at the person is the charge

Let me explain: if I walk down the road shouting abusive language and 3 people complain to the police. I would be charged with 3 counts of (directed at the person) section 4a public order offences

And it doesn't even need to be heard by anyone other than the police

In fact the most common section 4a offence is when people become abusive while being arrested

Your idea that a public order offence needs to be directed at a particular person is laughable

 

[icehorse]

No one should be insulted because of their race, sexuality, or gender.

While I agree, such insults are one cost of free speech. We should discourage such insults, we should marginalize the insulters. But we cannot censor them.

 

[icehorse]

It's not about "opinions", as you well know, it is about abuse and the stirring up of hatred.

Laws against racism protect groups from abuse and the fomenting of hatred, just as other laws protect them from physical attack. It is perfectly reasonable for elected legislators to pass such laws. We all benefit from it.

In terms of the old cliché, you are not free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and never have been.

Some nuance is required here. The test for free speech in the US boils down to: "does this speech call for immediate (or imminent), violence?" the key word being "imminent". I think we should resist ANY curtailment of our precious free speech.

The other point is that far too often legitimate criticism of ideas is mischaracterized as "racism".

 

[exchemist]

OK step by step:

To break this law, the language used would have to be aimed at a specific person. Who is that person, in your view?

No directed at the person is the charge

Let me explain: if I walk down the road shouting abusive language and 3 people complain to the police. I would be charged with 3 counts of (directed at the person) section 4a public order offences

And it doesn't even need to be heard by anyone other than the police

In fact the most common section 4a offence is when people become abusive while being arrested

Your idea that a public order offence needs to be directed at a particular person is laughable

It is not laughable. It is what the act actually says.

And quite obviously if you swear at the policeman arresting you, you are directing it at a person, viz. him!

So I rest my case for the defence m'lud: no offence under the Act in question has been committed, as no person was the target of it.

 

[exchemist]

Some nuance is required here. The test for free speech in the US boils down to: "does this speech call for immediate (or imminent), violence?" the key word being "imminent". I think we should resist ANY curtailment of our precious free speech.

The other point is that far too often legitimate criticism of ideas is mischaracterized as "racism".

Well I can only speak for English law. In English law, abuse purely on grounds of race or sexual orientation is an offence, whether or not physical violence is explicitly called for.

And I must say I think that is perfectly right and proper in a civilised society and I am quite content that my legislators have decided this on my behalf.

 

[Darkforbid]

It is not laughable. It is what the act actually says.

And quite obviously if you swear at the policeman arresting you, you are directing it at a person, viz. him!

So I rest my case for the defence m'lud: no offence under the Act in question has been committed, as no person was the target of it.

It is not laughable. It is what the act actually says.

No it's not what the law says. It's what the website you found says, this is section 4a of the public order act:

4AIntentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

Where does it's say 'directing it at a person'

Oh and here's a link to the Government CPS site if you think I'm lying

Public Order Act 1986

Like I said laughable

 

[icehorse]

Well I can only speak for English law. In English law, abuse purely on grounds of race or sexual orientation is an offence, whether or not physical violence is explicitly called for.

And I must say I think that is perfectly right and proper in a civilised society and I am quite content that my legislators have decided this on my behalf.

Well I would certainly join you in discouraging and marginalizing racist or sexist speech. But to me it's a necessary evil, because the downsides of censorship are so much more dangerous.