But your Honour, it's funny

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "But your Honour, it's funny" by rabbitpirate.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/news/but-your-honour-its-funny/

 

[Tylzen]

It is sad to see how religion tries to kill off any form of humour.
We had in Denmark with the Mohammed Cartoons.
Seriously, get some skin instead being a wandering piece of foreskin.

 

[Demojen]

I'm glad in the west here, we have this thing called freedom of speech. The UK are being preyed upon by all denominations of religion now that Europe and the middle east have begun to crack under the pressure of indoctrination.

 

[Squawk]

I agree with pretty much everything in the article. They ARE funny, and the nutjobs taking offense, fuck em. See if that causes them offense.

 

[borrofburi]

I hear you all in the UK making fun of us in the states fairly often, but at least we have the bill of rights and the ACLU...

I want to see the comics!

 

[Aught3]

I hear you all in the UK making fun of us in the states fairly often, but at least we have the bill of rights

The UK has a bill of rights as do many other Western countries.

The interesting part of this case to me is that he left the cartoons in a prayer room, a place where he knew religious believers would come into contact with materials that they he would have known would be offensive. As far as it goes they were fairly mild so I doubt he will be convicted of anything serious if at all.

 

[borrofburi]

I hear you all in the UK making fun of us in the states fairly often, but at least we have the bill of rights

The UK has a bill of rights as do many other Western countries.

One with freedom of speech?

The interesting part of this case to me is that he left the cartoons in a prayer room, a place where he knew religious believers would come into contact with materials that they he would have known would be offensive

It is not my job to keep track of what might offend others. To say "he should have known" or "he would have known" it was going to be offensive is to posit that there are occasions where we are legally supposed to self-censor.

 

[Aught3]

One with freedom of speech?

Well the 1688/9 Bill of Rights was the first document to ever formalise the concept of free-speech, although it was severely limited on who it applied to. The UK's freedom of speech now comes from the Human Rights Act which adopts the European convention wording.

Article 10, Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Although, I do have to say I prefer the terseness of the founding fathers.

It is not my job to keep track of what might offend others. To say "he should have known" or "he would have known" it was going to be offensive is to posit that there are occasions where we are legally supposed to self-censor.

Well there are situations were you have to self-censor, you aren't at liberty to say whatever you like about someone, for example, at least not without legal consequence. If the materials this guy had left in the prayer room had been more threatening in nature there is no doubt in my mind that he would be guilty of harassment or possibly hate speech. In this case it was a couple of cartoons so I doubt it will be treated as seriously, even if he could have reasonably known they would be offensive.

 

[borrofburi]

Article 10, Freedom of expression
...
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society...for the protection of health or morals

That's nigh worthless...

It is not my job to keep track of what might offend others. To say "he should have known" or "he would have known" it was going to be offensive is to posit that there are occasions where we are legally supposed to self-censor.

Well there are situations were you have to self-censor, you aren't at liberty to say whatever you like about someone, for example, at least not without legal consequence. If the materials this guy had left in the prayer room had been more threatening in nature there is no doubt in my mind that he would be guilty of harassment or possibly hate speech. In this case it was a couple of cartoons so I doubt it will be treated as seriously, even if he could have reasonably known they would be offensive.

I *very* rarely agree with the concept of "hate" anything, especially "hate speech". I also guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with UK concept of "free speech" (note I am largely ignorant of the UK concept, so I could be entirely off-base): it's free "within reason", which means it's not free. Why aren't I at liberty to say what I want without legal consequence. What precisely is legally legislated against, why? How precisely does such legislation still allow free speech to actually be free (free as in liberty)?

 

[Aught3]

I *very* rarely agree with the concept of "hate" anything, especially "hate speech". I also guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with UK concept of "free speech" (note I am largely ignorant of the UK concept, so I could be entirely off-base): it's free "within reason", which means it's not free. Why aren't I at liberty to say what I want without legal consequence. What precisely is legally legislated against, why? How precisely does such legislation still allow free speech to actually be free (free as in liberty)?

It's pretty much the same as anywhere else in the Western world, a bit broader on what is considered harmful than the system in the USA and the libel laws in the UK are a bit problematic. The moral exception I think refers to the offensive nature of some publications (i.e. allowing the offense principle to be considered), can't think what else it would be for.

 

[borrofburi]

I *very* rarely agree with the concept of "hate" anything, especially "hate speech". I also guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with UK concept of "free speech" (note I am largely ignorant of the UK concept, so I could be entirely off-base): it's free "within reason", which means it's not free. Why aren't I at liberty to say what I want without legal consequence. What precisely is legally legislated against, why? How precisely does such legislation still allow free speech to actually be free (free as in liberty)?

It's pretty much the same as anywhere else in the Western world, a bit broader on what is considered harmful than the system in the USA and the libel laws in the UK are a bit problematic. The moral exception I think refers to the offensive nature of some publications (i.e. allowing the offense principle to be considered), can't think what else it would be for.

And I fundamentally disagree with any form of "offense principal".

 

[Demojen]

In libel and slander free speech isn't free. It has a price because your intent is to attack another's freedom of security with a lie.
I believe that's where the UK differs from the western world...The legislation for libel and slander in the UK seems to represent the interest of thin skinned conservatives and religion.

I'd be pissed if I lived in the UK and was a citizen. You have christian political parties...which I find absolutely terrifying.

Politics can change legislation and manifest their interests in statutes and regulations that serve only to undermine case law. Since the judicial system in secular countries is chiefly controlled by case law, statutes or legislation and it changes as society changes such that it adapts to the interests of those in power, a christian political party is a FARCE that screams in the face of secular interests.

The very fact that the UK tolerate this political party existing is disgusting.

 

[5810Singer]

In libel and slander free speech isn't free. It has a price because your intent is to attack another's freedom of security with a lie.
I believe that's where the UK differs from the western world...The legislation for libel and slander in the UK seems to represent the interest of thin skinned conservatives and religion.

I'd be pissed if I lived in the UK and was a citizen. You have christian political parties...which I find absolutely terrifying.

Politics can change legislation and manifest their interests in statutes and regulations that serve only to undermine case law. Since the judicial system in secular countries is chiefly controlled by case law, statutes or legislation and it changes as society changes such that it adapts to the interests of those in power, a christian political party is a FARCE that screams in the face of secular interests.

The very fact that the UK tolerate this political party existing is disgusting.

None of the major parties are overtly religious in any way.

Which party were you thinking of?




Aught3's raised a massive issue here, after reading the original Telegraph article that the blog appears to based on, the defendant, philosophy tutor Harry Taylor, adapted religiously inspired cartoons by adding his own captions to them. He then deliberately left them in a recognised place of worship.......which begs the question, why?

Did he think they'd give theists a jolly good laugh?

I think he wanted to kick a hornets nest,....and he succeeded.
I think the court proceedings are an over-reaction, but people who are deliberately provocative can't feel too hard done by if they provoke a negative response.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Wow, if this guy gets found guilty of this... we should arrest every street preacher and person who shouts threats at atheists. Seriously, how can you say the pope with a condom on his finger is threatening and not say that people shouting in the streets that you will burn in the fires of hell if you don't believe what they believe as threatening.

Time to let them have some of their own medicine, and start arresting fundamentalists for abusing freedom of speech too then. I guarantee they will give up these sort of witch hunts right quick.

 

[MRaverz]

None of the major parties are overtly religious in any way.

Which party were you thinking of?

I think he means this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Party_(UK)

They're pretty horrific.

 

[Athywren]

Harrassment? Threatening??
Every weekend there are crazies parading around the city shouting about how evil everyone but them are (well, them too, but they get their Get Out Of Hell Free card in the form of a liberal coating of Jesus' blood, so they're ok,) and how we are all going to burn in hell and deserve to and this is fine, no worries. But leaving lightly mocking cartoons is threatening religious harrassment?

I vote we make our own religion - gnostic agnosticism: there is a god but he doesn't want us to know anything about him in this life, as a result of this, making shit up is punishable by an eternity of being lightly mocked while bowing down before papier-mà¢ché mannequins. Sure, it's no less threatening or offensive, but it's ok because it's a religious threat.

 

[Demojen]

But I don't believe in a god....of anything.

I find it a little bit amusing when people worship things.

Then I'm overcome with a feeling of indignation and rage that worship of things was necessary at all for humanity to get to where it is and at the many individuals who won't shuck themselves of superstition, instead hold us all back with illogical fears and religious propaganda.

Control can be great when you have it, but it's enraging when you realize you've given it up in almost it's entirety, to something you didn't get a chance to say no to.

I don't vote we create a new religion.
I vote revolution.

 

[Athywren]

Hmm... you make a good point, it would be a fun little riposte to begin with, but then people would start actually believing it (as I suspect some people will with flying spaghetti monsters and celestial teapots in time.)

I think I'm going to have to unfirst my move and second yours.
At the very least we should slap these whining lunatics about the cheeks and tell them to grow up, also to stop trying to marginalise gays, pro-choice types and whoever else they want to oppress while crying oppression at every raised eyebrow because, hell, if they're right we'll all burn for eternity anyway so what's with trying to punish us in advance? And if they're wrong it doesn't matter that they're offended by our ability to think or choice of orifice.

I have only one stipulation if I'm going to back you in this: Kent Hovind is the first against the wall.

 

[Andiferous]

I suspect that the fact he left these in a prayer room is at larger issue than whether or not Atheists should be allowed to pass out fliers. As Singer pointed out:

Aught3's raised a massive issue here, after reading the original Telegraph article that the blog appears to based on, the defendant, philosophy tutor Harry Taylor, adapted religiously inspired cartoons by adding his own captions to them. He then deliberately left them in a recognised place of worship.......which begs the question, why?

Did he think they'd give theists a jolly good laugh?

I think he wanted to kick a hornets nest,....and he succeeded.
I think the court proceedings are an over-reaction, but people who are deliberately provocative can't feel too hard done by if they provoke a negative response.

I suspect the offense arose because the prayer room is a place of worship. A stunt like this might be considered on level with lobbing tomatoes at the Tabernacle or peeing on a WWI veteran's memorial, and possibly as juvenile...

 

[Raistlin Majere]

I'd be pissed if I lived in the UK and was a citizen. You have christian political parties...which I find absolutely terrifying

We have this in the states too. They're called "Republicans" :lol: