Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

01/01/2010 Blasphmey Law in Effect.

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Undergod wrote: »
    Baby Jesus disagrees.

    Baby Jesus needs to grow up. It's been what, 2,000 years?


  • Options
    #93
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Baby Jesus needs to grow up. It's been what, 2,000 years?
    Baby Jesus grew up. Baby Jesus died. Long time ago. No news since then.

    Time for the world to get over it, really.


  • Options
    #94
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Ye're all going to hell! :pac:


  • Options
    #95
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    axer wrote: »
    Ye're all going to hell jail ! :pac:

    FYP :pac:


  • Options
    #96
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Comedians have nothing to worry about. (Thank you 'artistic meerit' :))
    I visit a lot of comedy clubs frequently, and I must say it's getting a bit pathetic how nearly every comedian these days tries to be edgy by saying things like, "Oh look there's a new blasphemy law..." then make jokes about religion. If they knew more about the law they would realise it's only making them look ignorant.
    Now, I have nothing against blasphemous comedy material. In fact, a lot of it is bloody well hilarious. It's just when they try to invoke the blasphemey laws in an attempt to make their material seem more daring, that's annoying.

    If they really want to be daring, then they should challenge the blasphemy law by cracking jokes about Mohammed, then post the video on youtube. Now, that would be edgy!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    PDN wrote: »
    If they really want to be daring, then they should challenge the blasphemy law by cracking jokes about Mohammed, then post the video on youtube. Now, that would be edgy!

    It'd probably lead to me to wanting to get off this depressing planet. I might be surprised, but given the ridiculously stupid over reaction to the Danish cartoons, I'd say that if Muslims declared Ireland an "Enemy of Islam" over such similar nonsense then that would really be it. Humans would no longer deserve their existence and I'd pray to every single divine entity there is to ensure we don't go out there and contaminate a universe.
    In short, it would probably be the one thing that would return to me faith because I don't think I could handle reality anymore.


  • Options
    #98
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Malty_T wrote: »
    given the ridiculously stupid over reaction to the Danish cartoons,

    You mean when the Islamic countries decided to boycott Danish exports such as porno mags, beer and bacon? :)


  • Options
    #99
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    We need a cutting edge economy where science Phd's investigate the cutting edge of new technology and push back the darkness of ignorance, one where you can be charged 25k for libelling someones imaginary friend.


    -Moe: Down with science! *beats Mammoth model w/ a stick & tusk drops on him* Oh no, I'm papralyzed! I only hope modern science can save me!


  • Options
    #100
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    PDN wrote: »
    You mean when the Islamic countries decided to boycott Danish exports such as porno mags, beer and bacon? :)

    That, and the death threats,riots,setting fire to embassies, bounties for beheading, distributions of false cartoons to incite anger and praying for and praising the "poor chap" who tried to murder someone in their own home etc etc


  • Options
    #101
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    PDN wrote: »
    You mean when the Islamic countries decided to boycott Danish exports such as porno mags, beer and bacon? :)


    Probably... :o)

    Anyhoo! Whether we are talking about one of the Jesus', his prostitute mother and lies that were made up about him/them, or the epileptic sheister politician that came 500 years after him/them. It's irrelivent, there's way too much rational discussion going on here folks. We need some real and ORIGINAL blasphemy, I want to see some folks offended here...

    Another thing while I'm at it, why has the Religious Humor thread title been changed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    33% God
    Closed Accounts Posts: 338 ✭✭33% God


    Dades wrote: »
    Mod note: I've merged your new thread with the existing Blasphemy Thread that was on page 1 of the forum.

    That is a huge assumption. Just because something is a bit "controversial" and involves religion doesn't mean it's blasphemous. Also, as an artist you should have noted that the legislation makes exceptions for materials etc that are deemed to have artistic merit.

    So, no, I doubt the Attorney General will be taking a case against you. :)
    I think that a large part of the point is that while artistic or academic merit might keep you out of jail, one should not be compelled to prove that their words or actions have artistic/academic/whatever merit. One should be able to make statements without having to worry whether or not a court will see the merit in it, simply because the statement they made was about someone's religious belief.


  • Options
    #103
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    My own view is, that unless you go out of your way to repeatedly, obscenely and publicly slander someone's deity with a view to getting yourself charged you can put on whatever show you like.

    Don't mistake the idea that our principles of free speech have been attacked with any realistic actual threat on our free speech, imo.


  • Options
    #104
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    What about if I purchased some advertising space on buses etc that read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

    Many people might find this offensive.

    Am I in trouble? Is there "genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value" in what I have done?


  • Options
    #105
    33% God
    Closed Accounts Posts: 338 ✭✭33% God


    Dades wrote: »
    My own view is, that unless you go out of your way to repeatedly, obscenely and publicly slander someone's deity with a view to getting yourself charged you can put on whatever show you like.

    Don't mistake the idea that our principles of free speech have been attacked with any realistic actual threat on our free speech, imo.
    The "Four Horsemen" (RichardDawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) certianly fulfil the bold part. They shouldn't have to prove their intent or their merit to a court simply because what they said offended someone's religious belief. Particularly when they could similarly insult a political view or a favourite sports team without having to do so. It's a ridiculous and harmful double standard. I know there's the Irish attitude of "Ahh sure, it'll just sit on the books and we'll ignore it", but to be honest that attitude just doesn't cut it. If a law is not going to be enforced then it shouldn't exist. If a law impinges on the principles on which a modern democratic state should be founded, then it shouldn't exist.
    If nothing else this law has made us something of an international laughing stock, and sets a fairly poor example for middle eastern theocracies etc who will now point to us when trying to establish and defend similar laws.
    The biggest disgrace is that the real reason it exists is simple laziness and apathy on the part of our government, forever taking the "easier" option, regardless of whether or not it is the right one.


  • Options
    #106
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    33% God wrote: »
    I know there's the Irish attitude of "Ahh sure, it'll just sit on the books and we'll ignore it", but to be honest that attitude just doesn't cut it...
    Let me clear on my views - I'll agree with anyone that comes on here and says the new blasphemy laws are bullsh*t and should never have been written - but I'll also tell people to cop on who have an irrational fear that something they say will land them court. It just won't. That's what I've been saying above.


  • Options
    #107
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Dades wrote: »
    Let me clear on my views - I'll agree with anyone that comes on here and says the new blasphemy laws are bullsh*t and should never have been written - but I'll also tell people to cop on who have an irrational fear that something they say will land them court. It just won't. That's what I've been saying above.
    I agree with what you are saying, but I am curious, why such a large fine? I am sure it has been covered before, but if the opurpose of this legislation was to prevent anyone from actually being prosecuted why not have a €1 maximum fine to show some consistency?

    MrP


  • Options
    #108
    33% God
    Closed Accounts Posts: 338 ✭✭33% God


    Dades wrote: »
    Let me clear on my views - I'll agree with anyone that comes on here and says the new blasphemy laws are bullsh*t and should never have been written - but I'll also tell people to cop on who have an irrational fear that something they say will land them court. It just won't. That's what I've been saying above.
    I have no irrational fear of being prosecuted, that's not my point. Principles are important, ideals are important, particularly ideals about free speech. If a law isn't going to be enforced then it shouldn't be there, the fact that it won't be enforced is no defence of it.


  • Options
    #109
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I agree with what you are saying, but I am curious, why such a large fine? I am sure it has been covered before, but if the opurpose of this legislation was to prevent anyone from actually being prosecuted why not have a €1 maximum fine to show some consistency?

    MrP

    A 25k fine practically ensures the ordinary person on the street won't get charged. The freedom to the art, academic or political arguments practically ensures that no journalists, politician or otherwise will get hit with it.


  • Options
    #110
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    What would I have to do to get this €25k fine? Hypothetically...


  • Options
    #111
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    liamw wrote: »
    What would I have to do to get this €25k fine? Hypothetically...

    Stand in Grafton Street with a placard yelling "God is .... God is ...."
    The more imaginative you get the closer to this fine you will be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    liamw wrote: »
    What would I have to do to get this €25k fine? Hypothetically...
    I posted a possible scenario above whereby you put adverts up around with "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" which was done before. I don't see how that does not break this law.


  • Options
    #113
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    axer wrote: »
    What about if I purchased some advertising space on buses etc that read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

    Many people might find this offensive.

    Am I in trouble? Is there "genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value" in what I have done?
    axer wrote: »
    I posted a possible scenario above whereby you put adverts up around with "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" which was done before. I don't see how that does not break this law.

    Political value.


  • Options
    #114
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The baby jesus butt plug* now with added blasphemy.

    * does exist google at your own peril.


  • Options
    #115
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    33% God wrote: »
    I have no irrational fear of being prosecuted, that's not my point.
    Never said you did.

    I only replied to you as you were reading into my post that I somehow condone the new laws - which I don't.
    I just don't like hysteria, either.
    33% God wrote: »
    Principles are important, ideals are important, particularly ideals about free speech. If a law isn't going to be enforced then it shouldn't be there, the fact that it won't be enforced is no defence of it.
    I've already agreed with this. :)


  • Options
    #116
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Stand in Grafton Street with a placard yelling "God is .... God is ...."
    The more imaginative you get the closer to this fine you will be.

    The thing is though that any act done specifically to protest against and flout the new law is by definition political and so doesn't break the law :)


  • Options
    #117
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The thing is though that any act done specifically to protest against and flout the new law is by definition political and so doesn't break the law :)

    Hmm....*Homer Simpson voice* "It appears you have a point"

    How the heck do we even get charged?


  • Options
    #118
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The thing is though that any act done specifically to protest against and flout the new law is by definition political and so doesn't break the law :)

    That is not strictly true. The defences are for the accused to invoke. If you simply failed to invoke them and claimed you did it for kicks (which, for instance, is what A.ie would claim should they be prosecuted) then you could be prosecuted. The accused has to positively show on the balance of probabilities that a defence exists.
    axer wrote: »
    I posted a possible scenario above whereby you put adverts up around with "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" which was done before. I don't see how that does not break this law.


    That wont even come close, tbh.

    1. How did that actually cause outrage amongst a substantial number of religionists???! A bunch of Xtians cant just turn uo and say 'yep, i was outraged' - they have to show evidence and it seems that it is at least a partially objective test so a ridiculously sensitive bunch of xtians being outraged by relatively mild insults wont cut it.
    2. Did you intend to cause outrage?


  • Options
    #119
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    drkpower wrote: »
    That is not strictly true. The defences are for the accused to invoke. If you simply failed to invoke them and claimed you did it for kicks (which, for instance, is what A.ie would claim should they be prosecuted) then you could be prosecuted. The accused has to positively show on the balance of probabilities that a defence exists.

    In fairness in any case the defendant has to mount a defence. Anyone who just lets the prosecution say whatever they want and deliberately withholds information that could exonerate him is going to be convicted.


  • Options
    #120
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    drkpower wrote: »
    2. Did you intend to cause outrage?

    Telling people to 'stop worrying and enjoy life' does not dtrike me as a phrase that was intended to cause outrage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    hiorta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭hiorta


    drkpower wrote: »
    [/I]
    [I How did that actually cause outrage amongst a substantial number of religionists???! A bunch of Xtians cant just turn uo and say 'yep, i was outraged' - they have to show evidence and it seems that it is at least a partially objective test so a ridiculously sensitive bunch of xtians being outraged by relatively mild insults wont cut it.[/I]
    2. Did you intend to cause outrage?

    Isn't it the case that 'offence' can only be taken and not given?
    If someone intended to offend or verbally insult me and I was not going to allow it, then I would not be 'offended'.


Advertisement