From the little bit of info they give there it seems like they're just extending what the 1936 constitution already did for Christianity. Doesn't seem much different than American laws regarding hate speech.
I'd post the cover of Marduk's Fuck Me Jesus if it wouldn't get me infracted. Rumour has it the t-shirts of it are going up in price atm.
Someone should publish something about being sexually attracted to Jesus Christ so that it has to be argued in court whether or not it is blasphemous to want to have sex with a religious figure.
From the little bit of info they give there it seems like they're just extending what the 1936 constitution already did for Christianity. Doesn't seem much different than American laws regarding hate speech.
Doesn't hate speech have to be directed at people though?
I'd post the cover of Marduk's Fuck Me Jesus if it wouldn't get me infracted. Rumour has it the t-shirts of it are going up in price atm.
Someone should publish something about being sexually attracted to Jesus Christ so that it has to be argued in court whether or not it is blasphemous to want to have sex with a religious figure.
Now I want to post that scene from The Exorcist, except I also don't want to get banned.
moniker on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
are there any good/cheap puzzle game packs on steam? that seems worth it.
edit - oh hell yest he doom pack is on sale. that's something I've been hoping for.
From the little bit of info they give there it seems like they're just extending what the 1936 constitution already did for Christianity. Doesn't seem much different than American laws regarding hate speech.
Doesn't hate speech have to be directed at people though?
A religious group is still seen as 'people'.
Seems like the Irish should reword the law, though. If what they've got quoted there is accurate to what the law actually says. As it's worded now it's just going to cause problems.
I'd post the cover of Marduk's Fuck Me Jesus if it wouldn't get me infracted. Rumour has it the t-shirts of it are going up in price atm.
Someone should publish something about being sexually attracted to Jesus Christ so that it has to be argued in court whether or not it is blasphemous to want to have sex with a religious figure.
Now I want to post that scene from The Exorcist, except I also don't want to get banned.
I'd post the cover of Marduk's Fuck Me Jesus if it wouldn't get me infracted. Rumour has it the t-shirts of it are going up in price atm.
Someone should publish something about being sexually attracted to Jesus Christ so that it has to be argued in court whether or not it is blasphemous to want to have sex with a religious figure.
Now I want to post that scene from The Exorcist, except I also don't want to get banned.
I still haven't seen that movie.
I'd go all except that there are still some classics that I've yet to see. To Netflix!
Have you watched Wait Until Dark? Because if not you should pop it into the DVD player and curl up with Dyrwen.
Man, wtf? I just went to do a search and it appears bing.com has a background photo selector, which in this case happens to be the Moeraki Boulders, which is about 3km from where I spent a lot of my childhood in New Zealand. Freaky coincidence, unless Bing has somehow got the inside track about my life
Seems like the Irish should reword the law, though. If what they've got quoted there is accurate to what the law actually says. As it's worded now it's just going to cause problems.
It seems like it should be possible to criticise an organisation without necessarily criticising its individual members, though.
I wouldn't have thought that, for example, "the catholic church" was necessarily the same thing as "all catholics".
Man, wtf? I just went to do a search and it appears bing.com has a background photo selector, which in this case happens to be the Moeraki Boulders, which is about 3km from where I spent a lot of my childhood in New Zealand. Freaky coincidence, unless Bing has somehow got the inside track about my life
Do an image search for 'future wife.' :winky:
moniker on
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
There isn't enough information going around about the laws for me to know exactly what they entail, but I dislike them no matter how restrictive/lax they are. Whoever wrote this makes a pretty valid point.
But as of today in the Irish Republic–a nation known for its poets, authors, musicians and artists, a nation which has had tens of thousands of its citizens beset upon by pedophile priests who’ve now been ordered to pay $242 million in victims’ aid to the children they raped, and nuns who systematically abused children and have since offered to pay$193 million in restitution–blasphemy is punishable by a € 25,000 fine–about $40,000.
Really, the first people who should be fined for blasphemy are those who use the church as shield as they committed crimes against children and their flocks as whole. And fine those who covered up the abuse as well. I can think of no greater blasphemies. But alas, instead this law could and sadly will be used by anyone who is offend by the printing of “Godammit, Christ on cracker, Holy Buddha’s toenail, my sister-in-law is such a witch, and here’s drawing of her next to the Prophet” or any publication–and by extrapolation, broadcast– of jokes about whatever faith one chooses to laugh at.
I mean, the Church actively protects pedophiles and I'm supposed to not call them a shower of cunts?
Seems like the Irish should reword the law, though. If what they've got quoted there is accurate to what the law actually says. As it's worded now it's just going to cause problems.
It seems like it should be possible to criticise an organisation without necessarily criticising its individual members, though.
I wouldn't have thought that, for example, "the catholic church" was necessarily the same thing as "all catholics".
I agree, but there's a difference between criticism (which is fine) and outright threats against or incitements to attack a particular religion. I think the law is referring to this latter issue.
Man, wtf? I just went to do a search and it appears bing.com has a background photo selector, which in this case happens to be the Moeraki Boulders, which is about 3km from where I spent a lot of my childhood in New Zealand. Freaky coincidence, unless Bing has somehow got the inside track about my life
Do an image search for 'future wife.' :winky:
I am sorely tempted
Kalkino on
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I just realized you can't access PATV from the main page yet.
That seems like a rather large blunder.
You can access it from the main comic page. Bottom right corner.
Yeah sure if you turn off AdBlock Plus but I'm not about to do that.
It'd be nice if you could tune ad-block to just block out the annoying ones. I rather like the fact that advertising lets me enjoy 'free' content and all the pleasures and horrors of the internets...but some of those flash ads just make me want to just start slapping people on Madison Avenue.
moniker on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
Threats against human beings are already covered, are they not?
I don't know.
In America no one will arrest you for spreading the idea that all Catholic Priests are evil child rapists who should be murdered, even though there are some fringe Baptists who would love to be able to do this given half a chance. Maybe the Irish law is something about these kinds of statements which aren't against a specific, particular group, but rather a more general group?
Seems like the Irish should reword the law, though. If what they've got quoted there is accurate to what the law actually says. As it's worded now it's just going to cause problems.
It seems like it should be possible to criticise an organisation without necessarily criticising its individual members, though.
I wouldn't have thought that, for example, "the catholic church" was necessarily the same thing as "all catholics".
I agree, but there's a difference between criticism (which is fine) and outright threats against or incitements to attack a particular religion. I think the law is referring to this latter issue.
I'm trying to find the text, but it seems to outlaw anything insulting or liable to cause outrage. In my experience it is often remarkably easy to insult or outrage religious people.
Threats against human beings are already covered, are they not?
I don't know.
In America no one will arrest you for spreading the idea that all Catholic Priests are evil child rapists who should be murdered, even though there are some fringe Baptists who would love to be able to do this given half a chance. Maybe the Irish law is something about these kinds of statements which aren't against a specific, particular group, but rather a more general group?
Does the law cover, say, the Elk's Club?
Incenjucar on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
Seems like the Irish should reword the law, though. If what they've got quoted there is accurate to what the law actually says. As it's worded now it's just going to cause problems.
It seems like it should be possible to criticise an organisation without necessarily criticising its individual members, though.
I wouldn't have thought that, for example, "the catholic church" was necessarily the same thing as "all catholics".
I agree, but there's a difference between criticism (which is fine) and outright threats against or incitements to attack a particular religion. I think the law is referring to this latter issue.
I'm trying to find the text, but it seems to outlaw anything insulting or liable to cause outrage. In my experience it is often remarkably easy to insult or outrage religious people.
See Tav's "Fuck me Jesus" example.
I think it's about large scale 'angrytime' reactions from the community, but yeah, it should be reworded so that the intent is clearer and so easier to examine and, if need be, change again.
Posts
Citizen's arrest the prime minister for wearing cloth woven of different fabrics. He blasphemes against God and Mosaic law!
I'm at the house, all alone. My roommates are spending the holidays with their bfs.
From the little bit of info they give there it seems like they're just extending what the 1936 constitution already did for Christianity. Doesn't seem much different than American laws regarding hate speech.
Face Twit Rav Gram
Someone should publish something about being sexually attracted to Jesus Christ so that it has to be argued in court whether or not it is blasphemous to want to have sex with a religious figure.
Doesn't hate speech have to be directed at people though?
Now I want to post that scene from The Exorcist, except I also don't want to get banned.
edit - oh hell yest he doom pack is on sale. that's something I've been hoping for.
he should work on that
A religious group is still seen as 'people'.
Seems like the Irish should reword the law, though. If what they've got quoted there is accurate to what the law actually says. As it's worded now it's just going to cause problems.
Face Twit Rav Gram
I still haven't seen that movie.
Face Twit Rav Gram
That seems like a rather large blunder.
He smites his therapists.
Lack of self esteem, obviously. Just look at all the melodramatic attention seeking and insistence that everybody love him.
"Love me or you're getting the locusts again."
It's like a two year old holding their breath because they aren't getting their way.
You can access it from the main comic page. Bottom right corner.
Face Twit Rav Gram
I'd go all except that there are still some classics that I've yet to see. To Netflix!
Have you watched Wait Until Dark? Because if not you should pop it into the DVD player and curl up with Dyrwen.
It seems like it should be possible to criticise an organisation without necessarily criticising its individual members, though.
I wouldn't have thought that, for example, "the catholic church" was necessarily the same thing as "all catholics".
See: The Middle East, The South, etc.
Buddhism strikes me as slightly more adult, but also suffers from the issue of being all about being in denial.
He went after Sodom first.
Do an image search for 'future wife.' :winky:
I mean, the Church actively protects pedophiles and I'm supposed to not call them a shower of cunts?
Yeah sure if you turn off AdBlock Plus but I'm not about to do that.
No. I like it this way.
I agree, but there's a difference between criticism (which is fine) and outright threats against or incitements to attack a particular religion. I think the law is referring to this latter issue.
Face Twit Rav Gram
I am sorely tempted
Maybe a Jay-Z song will come on the radio and cheer you up.
sloan peterson
I wonder what her real name was.
It'd be nice if you could tune ad-block to just block out the annoying ones. I rather like the fact that advertising lets me enjoy 'free' content and all the pleasures and horrors of the internets...but some of those flash ads just make me want to just start slapping people on Madison Avenue.
I don't know.
In America no one will arrest you for spreading the idea that all Catholic Priests are evil child rapists who should be murdered, even though there are some fringe Baptists who would love to be able to do this given half a chance. Maybe the Irish law is something about these kinds of statements which aren't against a specific, particular group, but rather a more general group?
Face Twit Rav Gram
Mia Sara
I'm trying to find the text, but it seems to outlaw anything insulting or liable to cause outrage. In my experience it is often remarkably easy to insult or outrage religious people.
See Tav's "Fuck me Jesus" example.
Mia Sara.
And she's from Brooklyn.
That seems to be where all the celebs I want to bang grow up.
Does the law cover, say, the Elk's Club?
I think it's about large scale 'angrytime' reactions from the community, but yeah, it should be reworded so that the intent is clearer and so easier to examine and, if need be, change again.
Face Twit Rav Gram