That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.
What would?
I speak for myself here, but I draw the line at the "fire in a crowded theater" example, where people come immediately and directly to harm as a result of a lie, and not a jot before. I am firmly in the camp of defending to the death the right of racists to speak and publish their horrifying nonsense. As uncomfortable as it makes me, I can't imagine the law that would stop them without opening the door for abuse of a really terrifying kind.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
You can be sued for starting a riot, defamation and a number of other things but the usual standard is harm (damages), not hurt feelings.
As far as I can tell no harm or damages has resulted in this church as a result of the demon summoning. The only way I could see this causing harm is if parishioners all refused to go to that church and donations to that church dropped off sharply. If the church wants to sue the demon summoner for lost donations they might have a case but I think that would only draw a massive wave of bad publicity on the church.
We have yet to see the results of this news coming out and if it has an effect. If it has no effect and the church does nothing to the guy, maybe you guys will stop the "OH GOD OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH" shit?
That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.
What would?
I speak for myself here, but I draw the line at the "fire in a crowded theater" example, where people come immediately and directly to harm as a result of a lie, and not a jot before. I am firmly in the camp of defending to the death the right of racists to speak and publish their horrifying nonsense. As uncomfortable as it makes me, I can't imagine the law that would stop them without opening the door for abuse of a really terrifying kind.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
You can be sued for starting a riot, defamation and a number of other things but the usual standard is harm (damages), not hurt feelings.
As far as I can tell no harm or damages has resulted in this church as a result of the demon summoning. The only way I could see this causing harm is if parishioners all refused to go to that church and donations to that church dropped off sharply. If the church wants to sue the demon summoner for lost donations they might have a case but I think that would only draw a massive wave of bad publicity on the church.
We have yet to see the results of this news coming out and if it has an effect. If it has no effect and the church does nothing to the guy, maybe you guys will stop the "OH GOD OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH" shit?
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
Raiden333 on
There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.
I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'
Because you can't help but think in terms of "sides" consider the hypothetical of a hellfire preacher showing up to a meeting of atheists. Now, the atheists are within their rights (assuming they're on private property) to tell the preacher to take a hike, but it would be insane and evil for them to be able to call the police and have him arrested for insulting, abusive, and threatening speech.
I've never blindly defended people who make it their business to so much as hand out pamphlets asking if you've found Jesus. I've already said earlier in this thread that people like that, hellfire preachers included, need to knock that shit off. If anything they're the number one reason why non-believers are so aggressive and ironically start these goddamn arguments.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.
I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'
Do you honestly find your faith threatened by Mr Wacko McDemonSummoner?
I would truly like to hear your answer, as I can't really believe you were. I can't think you read the article and thought 'oh my god, he summoned a demon, how could he do such a thing? Has the demon hurt anyone? Is everyone OK? I am frightened and distressed.'
Presumably this guy didn't break into the church. Churches tend to be open to welcome people in there. So he went in there, and acted like a wack-job.
Why not just ask the guy never to come back, then get him for trespassing if he does? You know, look like a sane and sensible group responding to one crackpot?
Also, am I the only guy who totally keeps thinking of that King of the Hill episode where bobby joins some group of witches?
It isn't threatened, but it was attacked. And it was done so in a manner that has more weight to it in the church's view. I'm sure for you guys it's reading as something like some jackass riding his bike on someone's lawn and declaring he destroyed their flowerbed or something. But for that person that flowerbed might've been something they work on year to year.
No, for me it's like some jackass standing on someone's sidewalk, waving their arms, and saying 'I HAVE SUMMONED A DEMON TO DESTROY YOUR FLOWERBED".
If someone works very hard on their flower bed-
-very hard-
-very hard indeed-
-and loves it more than anything else in his life-
Should that act, the guy waving his arms and pretending to summon a demon, <--- that act right there!! --entitle the owner of the flower-bed to restitution?
Is this what you honestly believe?
Sounds like you're offended, but uh, maybe the person who needs to get over themselves isn't one of us...
edit:
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
Ego on
Erik
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
You're comparing a kid in his basement playing D&D and telling some Jesus freaks about it to a bomb threat...? Really? Really?
On another note, people in the U.K. generally don't take their religion anywhere near as seriously as people in the U.S. I doubt anyone going to that church actually gives a shit.
Thanatos on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
You're comparing a kid in his basement playing D&D and telling some Jesus freaks about it to a bomb threat...? Really? Really?
On another note, people in the U.K. generally don't take their religion anywhere near as seriously as people in the U.S. I doubt anyone going to that church actually gives a shit.
Why don't you go exercise your right regarding freedom of speech and go to a church and wait by the door, insulting everyone that comes out? Let me know how it goes Than. Can't wait to hear another of your "fuck the police" things when they tell you to move along.
Henroid, I just cast a erudite invocation learned from eldritch entities from beyond the fabric of reality. As of this moment, Azathoth's pinky toe (or, at least, what approximates his pinky toe) now intersects your church in the fifth dimension. The results of this are the following:
* drowsiness, dizziness, tired feeling;
* mild nausea, stomach pain, upset stomach, constipation;
* dry mouth;
* whispers of the true nature of the universe, secrets which are too vast for the frail human psyche to handle, leading to insanity and eventually suicide;
* changes in appetite or weight;
* sleep problems; or
* decreased sex drive, impotence, or difficulty having an orgasm.
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
You're comparing a kid in his basement playing D&D and telling some Jesus freaks about it to a bomb threat...? Really? Really?
On another note, people in the U.K. generally don't take their religion anywhere near as seriously as people in the U.S. I doubt anyone going to that church actually gives a shit.
Why don't you go exercise your right regarding freedom of speech and go to a church and wait by the door, insulting everyone that comes out? Let me know how it goes Than. Can't wait to hear another of your "fuck the police" things when they tell you to move along.
And if that's what this guy had done, it wouldn't have made the news outside of this village, because actual harassment is a crime, unlike "spiritual" harassment. It's not the fucking government's job to enforce your religious tenets on everyone else.
And I really don't see what my feelings about cops have to do with this thread. I mean, keep bringing it up if you want, but all it does is make you look petty.
Thanatos, the people responsible for the child molestation you're obsessing about are in the position to desanctify the churches it occurred in. They're traitors to the religion.
What about the shootings that have happened in churches?
I guess those aren't evil? Or, wait, I guess it happened because their priests deserved it, right? Since they must have done something to "desanctify" the church, right?
And it's interesting that god can keep evil out of his churches, but not out of his priesthood.
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.
I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'
Because you can't help but think in terms of "sides" consider the hypothetical of a hellfire preacher showing up to a meeting of atheists. Now, the atheists are within their rights (assuming they're on private property) to tell the preacher to take a hike, but it would be insane and evil for them to be able to call the police and have him arrested for insulting, abusive, and threatening speech.
I've never blindly defended people who make it their business to so much as hand out pamphlets asking if you've found Jesus. I've already said earlier in this thread that people like that, hellfire preachers included, need to knock that shit off. If anything they're the number one reason why non-believers are so aggressive and ironically start these goddamn arguments.
No. Stop. Listen.
I'm trying to make a point about free speech, not about hellfire preachers. I will welcome a personal hellfire preacher to follow me around if it means that I can continue to speak and write as I please without the fear of violence.
That's all the law is - the threat of violence. And we need that threat of violence, else things get nasty, brutish, and short. But we also need to selectively apply that violence, and discourse unconstrained by violence serves much more public good than "freedom from insult."
nescientist on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Thanatos, the people responsible for the child molestation you're obsessing about are in the position to desanctify the churches it occurred in. They're traitors to the religion.
What about the shootings that have happened in churches?
I guess those aren't evil? Or, wait, I guess it happened because their priests deserved it, right? Since they must have done something to "desanctify" the church, right?
And it's interesting that god can keep evil out of his churches, but not out of his priesthood.
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
Let us assume that (a) the guy who claimed to have summoned a demon to prey on them sincerely believed he did and that (b) demons either do not exist, or if they exist aren't going bother with being summoned.
Can the guy be prosecuted based on intent? I'm not familiar with laws in that area, but would you charge a man who believes that he can and will clobber you to death with a stick of celery with attempted murder even though there was never any realistic chance of it occurring?
That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.
What would?
I speak for myself here, but I draw the line at the "fire in a crowded theater" example, where people come immediately and directly to harm as a result of a lie, and not a jot before. I am firmly in the camp of defending to the death the right of racists to speak and publish their horrifying nonsense. As uncomfortable as it makes me, I can't imagine the law that would stop them without opening the door for abuse of a really terrifying kind.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
You can be sued for starting a riot, defamation and a number of other things but the usual standard is harm (damages), not hurt feelings.
As far as I can tell no harm or damages has resulted in this church as a result of the demon summoning. The only way I could see this causing harm is if parishioners all refused to go to that church and donations to that church dropped off sharply. If the church wants to sue the demon summoner for lost donations they might have a case but I think that would only draw a massive wave of bad publicity on the church.
We have yet to see the results of this news coming out and if it has an effect. If it has no effect and the church does nothing to the guy, maybe you guys will stop the "OH GOD OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH" shit?
The thing is, even if someone from that church now commits suicide I think it's just way too far a stretch to blame it on the demon summoner (assuming he takes no further actions). If you accept that then the police shouldn't be involved at all and the fact that they are is fucked up.
Thanatos, the people responsible for the child molestation you're obsessing about are in the position to desanctify the churches it occurred in. They're traitors to the religion.
What about the shootings that have happened in churches?
I guess those aren't evil? Or, wait, I guess it happened because their priests deserved it, right? Since they must have done something to "desanctify" the church, right?
And it's interesting that god can keep evil out of his churches, but not out of his priesthood.
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
Thanatos, the people responsible for the child molestation you're obsessing about are in the position to desanctify the churches it occurred in. They're traitors to the religion.
What about the shootings that have happened in churches?
I guess those aren't evil? Or, wait, I guess it happened because their priests deserved it, right? Since they must have done something to "desanctify" the church, right?
And it's interesting that god can keep evil out of his churches, but not out of his priesthood.
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
God has a plan.
And fuck you.
Ahhh, so god does think the church shootings are good.
So, if church shootings are part of god's plan, why aren't demon summonings?
It isn't threatened, but it was attacked. And it was done so in a manner that has more weight to it in the church's view. I'm sure for you guys it's reading as something like some jackass riding his bike on someone's lawn and declaring he destroyed their flowerbed or something. But for that person that flowerbed might've been something they work on year to year.
Invalid analogy. A flowerbed is a something that can actually be ridden over by a guy with a bike. Some guy named Jim Darkmagic (of the Cambrige Darkmagics) can't actually destroy your church (or anything else) by having a conniption while saying "SIM SIM SALA-BIM!"
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
Yelling "bomb" causes a panic in 2009. Yelling "I did voodoo on you" hasn't caused panic since 1638.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.
I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'
You can believe whatever the fuck you want to. It's not the government's job to pretend that your beliefs are real, though. He didn't actually do anything.
To put it another way: under your legal regime, what exactly is stopping the Westboro Baptist Church from suing or prosecuting other churches for holding funerals for gay people, because they believe that that is bringing god's wrath down upon America?
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
Let us assume that (a) the guy who claimed to have summoned a demon to prey on them sincerely believed he did and that (b) demons either do not exist, or if they exist aren't going bother with being summoned.
Can the guy be prosecuted based on intent? I'm not familiar with laws in that area, but would you charge a man who believes that he can and will clobber you to death with a stick of celery with attempted murder even though there was never any realistic chance of it occurring?
You can prosecute someone who is buying fertilizer and diesel fuel for their intent to blow other people up.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
Yelling "bomb" causes a panic in 2009. Yelling "I did voodoo on you" hasn't caused panic since 1638.
This is Britain, so it hasn't caused a panic since 1620.
You know, the year they shipped all of their religious crazies overseas.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.
I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'
You can believe whatever the fuck you want to. It's not the government's job to pretend that your beliefs are real, though. He didn't actually do anything.
To put it another way: under your legal regime, what exactly is stopping the Westboro Baptist Church from suing or prosecuting other churches for holding funerals for gay people, because they believe that that is bringing god's wrath down upon America?
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
Prosecuting still requires a trial process which will decide if WBC has grounding. Thankfully people are sane and will say no.
It's one thing to be taken to court for something. It's another to actually be found accountable in that court.
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
This isn't an issue of free speech. First, it's not symbolic speech because conduct (raising of demons) does not have a clear expressive purpose. Second, there wasn't an audience to comprehend the communicative aspect had there been one.
Now, let's assume this is an issue of symbolic speech. I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but there are different levels of scrutiny applied to conduct and speech. Speech holds priority over conduct, and the state needs a compelling reason to limit it (national security issues for the most part). Here, strict scrutiny isn't applicable and rather intermediate scrutiny ought to be applied. In that case, the state needs only to provide substantial interest in limiting rights. Shadee, crazy demon summoner, impinged on the rights of the church, a representative of its constituent members, to freely associate and practice their religion.
Okay, so now lets examine the statute in question having established substantial interest. The main constitutional questions relevant here are, is the statute content-neutral? And, on its face, it is. Groups are not delineated and expression isn't explicitly mentioned nor is there intent to limit expression, rather the statute is erected simply to prevent harassment and mental/emotional damage. Shadee is still in the wrong.
Also, I think people misunderstand the clear and present danger doctrine. Clear and present danger regards those forms of speech that inherently have a form of action in them with an intent to express some idea or expression. The whole fire and bomb threat scenarios are logical contradictions because the speech utilized in them is inherently an action, there's no expression underlying it and has the sole purpose of creating chaos. The whole doctrine was also used mostly in wartime and all the cases using it expressly note the difference in civil liberties during peace and war time.
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
I will totally admit to my first post being pretty conspiracy-theorist-level pessimistic. I was mostly interested in exploring this whole idea of a law against insults, which struck me with such force that I think my brain retreated to the second half of Hot Fuzz as a defense mechanism.
nescientist on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
I will totally admit to my first post being pretty conspiracy-theorist-level pessimistic. I was mostly interested in exploring this whole idea of a law against insults, which struck me with such force that I think my brain retreated to the second half of Hot Fuzz as a defense mechanism.
It was mostly Modern Man, actually, who tends to do that sort of thing when it comes to government.
Proselytising is not practising religion, it is impinging upon the religious freedom of others.
Um, proselytising is one of the most important parts of many religions. Freedom of religion doesn't mean much if the government can prevent you from peacefully trying to convert others to your religion.
As for the law in question,
(1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if 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,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.
Let us assume that (a) the guy who claimed to have summoned a demon to prey on them sincerely believed he did and that (b) demons either do not exist, or if they exist aren't going bother with being summoned.
Can the guy be prosecuted based on intent? I'm not familiar with laws in that area, but would you charge a man who believes that he can and will clobber you to death with a stick of celery with attempted murder even though there was never any realistic chance of it occurring?
I'm pretty sure there has to be a realistic chance of it happening. I think it's called a credible threat.
Dman on
0
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Let us assume that (a) the guy who claimed to have summoned a demon to prey on them sincerely believed he did and that (b) demons either do not exist, or if they exist aren't going bother with being summoned.
Can the guy be prosecuted based on intent? I'm not familiar with laws in that area, but would you charge a man who believes that he can and will clobber you to death with a stick of celery with attempted murder even though there was never any realistic chance of it occurring?
I think in this case, since the celery stick is also invisible (except for crazy people)....No.
Both parties (if indeed the police do get involved) should be charged with wasting police time, since the whole thing is clearly ridiculous.
Um, proselytising is one of the most important parts of many religions. Freedom of religion doesn't mean much if the government can prevent you from peacefully trying to convert others to your religion.
As for the law in question,
(1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if 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,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.
That was the point that triggered this.
My saying this unironically may cause reality to collapse, but; Modern Man has a point. The terms used in that law are highly subjective and open to all sorts of interpretation.
I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.
I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'
You can believe whatever the fuck you want to. It's not the government's job to pretend that your beliefs are real, though. He didn't actually do anything.
To put it another way: under your legal regime, what exactly is stopping the Westboro Baptist Church from suing or prosecuting other churches for holding funerals for gay people, because they believe that that is bringing god's wrath down upon America?
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
Prosecuting still requires a trial process which will decide if WBC has grounding. Thankfully people are sane and will say no.
It's one thing to be taken to court for something. It's another to actually be found accountable in that court.
So, what you're saying is that you think this protection from "spiritual harassment" should only extend to religions that people like? Or religions that you, personally like? I'm not understanding where the legal principle is here that makes these two cases different.
Thanatos on
0
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
There's a documentary by Stewart Lee (Brit comedian who wrote "Jerry Springer the Opera") that covers similar ground to this discussion (at least where it's headed). I think it might be on youtube, I'll see if I can dig it up.
There's also a debate about blasphemy by Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the Guardian website (it's an mp3, link is in the article).
Although it's debatable if they're exactly congruent with this thread topic (harassment is not blasphemy, and vice versa), it's heading that way anyway with the free speech stuff so what the hey, some of you might find them interesting.
Thanatos, the people responsible for the child molestation you're obsessing about are in the position to desanctify the churches it occurred in. They're traitors to the religion.
What about the shootings that have happened in churches?
I guess those aren't evil? Or, wait, I guess it happened because their priests deserved it, right? Since they must have done something to "desanctify" the church, right?
And it's interesting that god can keep evil out of his churches, but not out of his priesthood.
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
God has a plan.
And fuck you.
Totally OT, but I just have to comment on this. Any God whose plan includes institutionalized child rape is a God I have no problems telling to fuck off and straight up calling evil.
This isn't an issue of free speech. First, it's not symbolic speech because conduct (raising of demons) does not have a clear expressive purpose. Second, there wasn't an audience to comprehend the communicative aspect had there been one.
This is a jokepost, right? The police made a reference to a British law that would only have come to effect if Shadee had, in fact, communicated his intent verbally to the churchgoers. If all he did is make a few gestures, then even under what passes for justice there he's off scot-free.
And I'm totally baffled by your introduction of the idea that Shadee "impinged on the rights of the church, a representative of its constituent members, to freely associate and practice their religion." You are aware that the establishment clause applies to the government and not individuals, right? Also, Britain.
I've been arguing in favor of free speech as a natural right of man and a sound principle of governance, not as an American legal institution. Pardon the confusion since, well, I use the same words.
EDIT: Actually, I got that bit about communicating intent wrong. All they had to do is be distressed by the ritual, I guess (?) even if they didn't understand it. This has not elevated my opinion of the Public Order Act.
a potential crime under the Public Order Act could have been committed if anyone was in the church at the time of the ritual and was alarmed or distressed by it.
What would happen if a priest/parishioner of Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs committed suicide?
Or a whole bunch of them for that matter. I'll bet it would really fuck with a lot of people if all of a sudden like 5 church members start killing thsemselves every day. Hell, I'm sure even the guy who "summoned the demon" would be scared shitless.
What would happen if a priest/parishioner of Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs committed suicide?
There would be an investigation. I don't know british law, but they would probably look into the role of the demon-summoner's statements in the death. I could see this case getting the dude a manslaughter rap in some of our more backwards areas here in the states.
So, what you're saying is that you think this protection from "spiritual harassment" should only extend to religions that people like? Or religions that you, personally like? I'm not understanding where the legal principle is here that makes these two cases different.
In terms of law, it should be that those who practice religion have a right to do so without harassment from others (be they of another religion or not), just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do. So it's not just religions "people like," or my personal take - it's all religions. I'm not saying, "Hey, Christians get special treatment." If someone went to a Mosque and pulled some shit, it's still wrong.
If it's to be a law, it'd have to be carefully worded. It'd have to be specific about actual intent to harass or disrupt the religious people. Otherwise things would get out of hand with religions flipping their shit about people's lifestyles (and then we'd be a shitty theocracy).
Look, all I want is for people of my religion, of any religion, to be left alone and worship as they please as long as that worship doesn't include going out and disrupting other people's lives, other through violent retribution or attempts at converting.
My saying this unironically may cause reality to collapse, but; Modern Man has a point. The terms used in that law are highly subjective and open to all sorts of interpretation.
No doubt it's a bad piece of legislation, but it's been on the books in some form or another for many, many years, and I'm not sure how much support you'd have in getting it changed given the general political climate.
GungHo on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Totally OT, but I just have to comment on this. Any God whose plan includes institutionalized child rape is a God I have no problems telling to fuck off and straight up calling evil.
I hate the "God has a plan" thing and have never accepted it myself. Part of my "Fuck you" comment is because I got fed up trying to answer Thanatos and just jumped to an answer I don't believe.
I don't see how this is any worse than what hellfire preachers do in public on a daily basis.
Yeah. Uh.
There should be some sort of evidence right? Like can we get the two parties to spend an afternoon conjuring at one another until something happens because that would be quite the case.
Oh we should also prosecute everyone who has ever forwarded a chain letter about a creepy kid killing you at night if you don't forward it. Because I believe kids are creepy. Point is it's a dangerous road to head down and it sets precedent for a lot of silly legislation.
DasUberEdward on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
My saying this unironically may cause reality to collapse, but; Modern Man has a point. The terms used in that law are highly subjective and open to all sorts of interpretation.
It's cool that there's a point there, but the way he chose to word it made it seem like he was going into another "oh government" thing. Interpretation of the law is a bitch sometimes, but that's the Supreme Court's job (in America) right? And for the most part in our country, the Supreme Court has made the right decisions regarding civil rights. I don't know how the UK handles this sort of thing.
Posts
We have yet to see the results of this news coming out and if it has an effect. If it has no effect and the church does nothing to the guy, maybe you guys will stop the "OH GOD OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH" shit?
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
I've never blindly defended people who make it their business to so much as hand out pamphlets asking if you've found Jesus. I've already said earlier in this thread that people like that, hellfire preachers included, need to knock that shit off. If anything they're the number one reason why non-believers are so aggressive and ironically start these goddamn arguments.
No, for me it's like some jackass standing on someone's sidewalk, waving their arms, and saying 'I HAVE SUMMONED A DEMON TO DESTROY YOUR FLOWERBED".
If someone works very hard on their flower bed-
-very hard-
-very hard indeed-
-and loves it more than anything else in his life-
Should that act, the guy waving his arms and pretending to summon a demon, <--- that act right there!! --entitle the owner of the flower-bed to restitution?
Is this what you honestly believe?
Sounds like you're offended, but uh, maybe the person who needs to get over themselves isn't one of us...
edit:
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
On another note, people in the U.K. generally don't take their religion anywhere near as seriously as people in the U.S. I doubt anyone going to that church actually gives a shit.
Why don't you go exercise your right regarding freedom of speech and go to a church and wait by the door, insulting everyone that comes out? Let me know how it goes Than. Can't wait to hear another of your "fuck the police" things when they tell you to move along.
* drowsiness, dizziness, tired feeling;
* mild nausea, stomach pain, upset stomach, constipation;
* dry mouth;
* whispers of the true nature of the universe, secrets which are too vast for the frail human psyche to handle, leading to insanity and eventually suicide;
* changes in appetite or weight;
* sleep problems; or
* decreased sex drive, impotence, or difficulty having an orgasm.
And I really don't see what my feelings about cops have to do with this thread. I mean, keep bringing it up if you want, but all it does is make you look petty.
No. Stop. Listen.
I'm trying to make a point about free speech, not about hellfire preachers. I will welcome a personal hellfire preacher to follow me around if it means that I can continue to speak and write as I please without the fear of violence.
That's all the law is - the threat of violence. And we need that threat of violence, else things get nasty, brutish, and short. But we also need to selectively apply that violence, and discourse unconstrained by violence serves much more public good than "freedom from insult."
God has a plan.
And fuck you.
Can the guy be prosecuted based on intent? I'm not familiar with laws in that area, but would you charge a man who believes that he can and will clobber you to death with a stick of celery with attempted murder even though there was never any realistic chance of it occurring?
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
The thing is, even if someone from that church now commits suicide I think it's just way too far a stretch to blame it on the demon summoner (assuming he takes no further actions). If you accept that then the police shouldn't be involved at all and the fact that they are is fucked up.
Spoken like a true Christian.
So, if church shootings are part of god's plan, why aren't demon summonings?
Yelling "bomb" causes a panic in 2009. Yelling "I did voodoo on you" hasn't caused panic since 1638.
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You know, the year they shipped all of their religious crazies overseas.
Problem solved.
Prosecuting still requires a trial process which will decide if WBC has grounding. Thankfully people are sane and will say no.
It's one thing to be taken to court for something. It's another to actually be found accountable in that court.
This isn't an issue of free speech. First, it's not symbolic speech because conduct (raising of demons) does not have a clear expressive purpose. Second, there wasn't an audience to comprehend the communicative aspect had there been one.
Now, let's assume this is an issue of symbolic speech. I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but there are different levels of scrutiny applied to conduct and speech. Speech holds priority over conduct, and the state needs a compelling reason to limit it (national security issues for the most part). Here, strict scrutiny isn't applicable and rather intermediate scrutiny ought to be applied. In that case, the state needs only to provide substantial interest in limiting rights. Shadee, crazy demon summoner, impinged on the rights of the church, a representative of its constituent members, to freely associate and practice their religion.
Okay, so now lets examine the statute in question having established substantial interest. The main constitutional questions relevant here are, is the statute content-neutral? And, on its face, it is. Groups are not delineated and expression isn't explicitly mentioned nor is there intent to limit expression, rather the statute is erected simply to prevent harassment and mental/emotional damage. Shadee is still in the wrong.
Also, I think people misunderstand the clear and present danger doctrine. Clear and present danger regards those forms of speech that inherently have a form of action in them with an intent to express some idea or expression. The whole fire and bomb threat scenarios are logical contradictions because the speech utilized in them is inherently an action, there's no expression underlying it and has the sole purpose of creating chaos. The whole doctrine was also used mostly in wartime and all the cases using it expressly note the difference in civil liberties during peace and war time.
I will totally admit to my first post being pretty conspiracy-theorist-level pessimistic. I was mostly interested in exploring this whole idea of a law against insults, which struck me with such force that I think my brain retreated to the second half of Hot Fuzz as a defense mechanism.
It was mostly Modern Man, actually, who tends to do that sort of thing when it comes to government.
Edit - To elabroate:
That was the point that triggered this.
I'm pretty sure there has to be a realistic chance of it happening. I think it's called a credible threat.
Both parties (if indeed the police do get involved) should be charged with wasting police time, since the whole thing is clearly ridiculous.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Fake edit: it's called "Don't get me Started" and part 1 can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU]
There's also a debate about blasphemy by Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the Guardian website (it's an mp3, link is in the article).
Although it's debatable if they're exactly congruent with this thread topic (harassment is not blasphemy, and vice versa), it's heading that way anyway with the free speech stuff so what the hey, some of you might find them interesting.
This is a jokepost, right? The police made a reference to a British law that would only have come to effect if Shadee had, in fact, communicated his intent verbally to the churchgoers. If all he did is make a few gestures, then even under what passes for justice there he's off scot-free.
And I'm totally baffled by your introduction of the idea that Shadee "impinged on the rights of the church, a representative of its constituent members, to freely associate and practice their religion." You are aware that the establishment clause applies to the government and not individuals, right? Also, Britain.
I've been arguing in favor of free speech as a natural right of man and a sound principle of governance, not as an American legal institution. Pardon the confusion since, well, I use the same words.
EDIT: Actually, I got that bit about communicating intent wrong. All they had to do is be distressed by the ritual, I guess (?) even if they didn't understand it. This has not elevated my opinion of the Public Order Act.
Or a whole bunch of them for that matter. I'll bet it would really fuck with a lot of people if all of a sudden like 5 church members start killing thsemselves every day. Hell, I'm sure even the guy who "summoned the demon" would be scared shitless.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
In terms of law, it should be that those who practice religion have a right to do so without harassment from others (be they of another religion or not), just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do. So it's not just religions "people like," or my personal take - it's all religions. I'm not saying, "Hey, Christians get special treatment." If someone went to a Mosque and pulled some shit, it's still wrong.
If it's to be a law, it'd have to be carefully worded. It'd have to be specific about actual intent to harass or disrupt the religious people. Otherwise things would get out of hand with religions flipping their shit about people's lifestyles (and then we'd be a shitty theocracy).
Look, all I want is for people of my religion, of any religion, to be left alone and worship as they please as long as that worship doesn't include going out and disrupting other people's lives, other through violent retribution or attempts at converting.
I hate the "God has a plan" thing and have never accepted it myself. Part of my "Fuck you" comment is because I got fed up trying to answer Thanatos and just jumped to an answer I don't believe.
Yeah. Uh.
There should be some sort of evidence right? Like can we get the two parties to spend an afternoon conjuring at one another until something happens because that would be quite the case.
Oh we should also prosecute everyone who has ever forwarded a chain letter about a creepy kid killing you at night if you don't forward it. Because I believe kids are creepy. Point is it's a dangerous road to head down and it sets precedent for a lot of silly legislation.
It's cool that there's a point there, but the way he chose to word it made it seem like he was going into another "oh government" thing. Interpretation of the law is a bitch sometimes, but that's the Supreme Court's job (in America) right? And for the most part in our country, the Supreme Court has made the right decisions regarding civil rights. I don't know how the UK handles this sort of thing.