The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Line on Vulgarity
theSquid
Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
Okay, so a kid gets arrested for wearing a shirt made by Cradle of Filth that says "Jesus is a c**t" with a picture of a nun masturbating, charged with offensive behaviour, in the Gold Coast of Australia.
Teen arrested for 'blasphemous T-shirt'
Firstly, the article is a bit biased since at no point do I see a reference by the police officers to blasphemy, not even by the random Baptist priest they dragged into the article. And its a given that with freedom of speech you should have the right to say whatever you want about a given religion.
Where it becomes shady to me is the use of the c-bomb in public. That seems to be the next level. Are we supposed to be growing out of becoming offended by 4-letter words in public? Or should we be rightfully arresting this kid for the swear and the masturbating nun anyway? (Which may very well be why the police officer arrested the kid in the first place) I mean, children could see it, guys.
Anyway, I'm just not too sure where the line should be drawn here.
Teen arrested for 'blasphemous T-shirt'
Firstly, the article is a bit biased since at no point do I see a reference by the police officers to blasphemy, not even by the random Baptist priest they dragged into the article. And its a given that with freedom of speech you should have the right to say whatever you want about a given religion.
Where it becomes shady to me is the use of the c-bomb in public. That seems to be the next level. Are we supposed to be growing out of becoming offended by 4-letter words in public? Or should we be rightfully arresting this kid for the swear and the masturbating nun anyway? (Which may very well be why the police officer arrested the kid in the first place) I mean, children could see it, guys.
Anyway, I'm just not too sure where the line should be drawn here.
theSquid on
0
Posts
Think of the children.
Genetic deformation into a violent serial killer.
probably "cunt"
I would call this over-reaction if it was just an obscene phrase, but the image of a masturbating nun is disruptive to say the least.
(Sorry, I missed the thing in the OP, only saw the asterisks)
I wonder if it would have been more tolerable had it been just a masturbating woman...
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
As far as I'm concerned... it's not even that there shouldn't be a grey area. There shouldn't be a black/white area. Speech is free or it isn't.
Because they think it is edgy and cool.
Why do they think it is edgy and cool? It goes against the norm of accepted behaviour, without inflicting outright harm on someone else.
It's basically stupid attention seeking idiots who don't realise that being different doesn't make you special, often it just shows you're socially inept and immature.
Public obscenity is public obscenity, regardless of whether it is printed on a shirt or someone is masturbating in front of your children.
Well yeah, there's no denying the kid was a runt.
XBL: QuazarX
Ever watch Mad Max?
I'm not intricately familiar with the laws regarding public obscenity, but seriously, you wouldn't put up posters of a nun masturbating, why is a t-shirt different? You would do a chalk drawing of a nun masturbating, you wouldn't ride around in a car with that spraypainted on.
Just because it has the words "Jesus is a ----" on it, it shouldn't suddenly become a freedom of speech issue. Text does not equate immunity due to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is curtailed by society's sensibilities, that's why we have laws regarding slander.
I'm not Christian, I have no fondness for religion, so this is nothing specific to the Christian faith. If you had a picture of Buddha shagging a pig in the ass and words like "Buddha is a big fat pig-<expletive>", I'd have the same reaction.
I'm fine with the words though.
I'm not a prude, but implying it's harmful to children disregards general instincts of parents to keep children 'innocent' and 'safe' from the real world as long as possible. Knowledge without proper understanding and personal responsibility can be dangerous.
Where did I say they were wrong or I was arguing against them? I'm merely taking their points and expanding on them, throwing in my own personal viewpoint as well.
Slander is not an issue of cultural or societal sensbilities, it's an issue of legitimate and objective harm done to a person through the use of falsehoods suggested to be factual and accurate. I can stand on the street corner and call you a cunt. That isn't slander or defamation of character, it's being a jackass. It's also protected speech. Now, graphic imagery depicting sexual acts generally isn't considered protected in the public square. IIRC.
So it's not a free speech issue?
If you were doing it in public, in front of loads of people, I'm pretty sure you could get strung up for some kind public obscenity, possibly other things. The laws and norms protect the values that the majority hold. Slander and libel, sure has a direct legal application, but it's still there to curtail the freedom of speech.
Free speech got brought up, I wrote about it. I'm confused, what wrong have I committed in my posts?
CoF shirt pic (nsfw, it's naughty) - http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3486/bgctcf15od3.jpg
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
I take it back, there's nothing wrong with that shit.
I thought there'd be more to it than that.
Are you asking from the point of view of graphic depiction in public, or stuff you just want to view at home? Because I don't think many people are going to give two hoots about what's at home, but few are going to say that's something that should be worn (disregarding the text) in public.
No, it is protected speech. A cop would probably arrest me, but it would be thrown out of court on first amendment grounds and the cop'd get a stern talking to, or time off with pay.
Yes it is, solely because it has a direct legal application. You could argue that perjury curtails freedom of speech because it restricts someone's ability to lie to a judge and/or jury. Thing is, that's justified out of the necessity for factual information in the justice system. People blushing and getting the vapours is not a justification for curtailing speech. Even the famous 'fire in a crowded theatre' has been narrowed even further to 'imminent lawless action.'
PSN: TheScrublet
Comparing these famous sculptures of nudity to outright masturbation while calling jesus a cunt is beyond ridiculous.
PSN: TheScrublet
We'd have to obscure you behind a curtain.
Meh, that's not outright at all. I mean I can't even see her Jesus or anything.
Can you give reasons, using only very specific terms?