Would you support a UN Sponsored Anti-Blasphemy law that provided penalties (fines/prison/lashes) for speech that defames religions or religious figures (Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, Jesus, Brama)?
When the religious prove to me that blasphemy is criminal in nature, I'll support it, but that will never happen, so hell no.
Hell no. Blasphemy does not have to affect anyone in a tangible way. If it pisses you off, that's your problem. Stop holding the opinion of people you don't know so sacred that it dictates your emotional state.
Via Volokh: All of You Who Harshly Condemn Anti-Homosexuality Religious Beliefs, Take Note Eugene Volokh • September 12, 2012 11:17 am And same for all of you who mock young earthers, or devout Scientologists, or believers in miracles — and all who say that, for instance, racist or sexist religious beliefs are contemptible — and maybe even all those who, even politely, contend that rival religions’ views are wrong and will deny salvation to the holders of those views: The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. So says the Secretary of State, in quite categorical terms. After all, in all the examples given above, you would presumably be intentionally denigrating the religious beliefs of others: saying that they are immoral and foolish. The U.S. government deplores your speech. It’s not just that the government doesn’t endorse the speech, not just that it deplores a limited and narrow category of blasphemous acts (e.g., burning a Koran, treading on a crucifix, and the like), but rather that it deplores any attempt to denigrate religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, which are routinely used by billions as a guide to private action and a guide to lawmaking, are supposed to be somehow immune from the denigration that is a commonplace and necessary part of debate about ideological beliefs generally. The government statement also rightly condemns the murder of American diplomats and soldiers, but in the process deplores anti-religious speech as well. And, yes, I understand the context in which the statement was made, the demands of diplomacy (which often include the need to lie), and the reality that the State Department likely cares only about denigration of those religious groups that contain a substantial extremist fringe likely to respond to the denigration with murder. But the statement says what it says, and deliberately goes beyond an expression of nonendorsement to an expression of official governmental condemnation.
Where? Provide the quote, please. Edit: Found it. I agree with the writer in that the correct position of the government should be "non-endorsement" rather than "official disapproval". On the other hand, as he acknowledges, this is a circumstance where stronger language than a mere "non-endorsement" was used likely for diplomatic purposes. So long as it doesn't translate to any actual legal censuring of free speech, I don't take issue with it.
Thanks, I am dumber for having read this thread. The Volokh article is dumb enough. The poll is the icing on the cake. I deplore this thread, and I condemn any thread by misguided individuals that uses logical fallacies in a lame attempt to win an argument.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Religion The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and protects each person's right to practice (or not practice) any faith without government interference. The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center operates several Religious Freedom Programs advancing the understanding of freedom of religion in public schools and other venues. Free speech The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference. The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center presents several programs addressing aspects of free speech, including Freedom Sings and First Amendment on Campus. Free press The First Amendment gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference. This also means people have the right to publish their own newspapers, newsletters, magazines, etc. The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center provides a program for newspaper editors and other staff through a partnership with the American Press Institute. Assembly The First Amendment says that people have the right to gather in public to march, protest, demonstrate, carry signs and otherwise express their views in a nonviolent way. It also means people can join and associate with groups and organizations without interference. Petition The First Amendment says that people have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or that they feel strongly about. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation.
It's a heckler's veto where the heckler comes armed with AKs and explosives. Sadly it is being seriously considered by some legal scholars.
the solution isn't about laws. It's about using free speech to condemn these fools and idiots. It's about educating the other side and letting them know that these idiots are not Americans but rather stupid fools who should be sent to the moon.
