6 ms·

In Poland, we still have a blasphemy law. A newspaper along the lines of Charlie Hebdo had its owner dragged over courts for over 8 YEARS. The offense was illus

by b0rsuk 6y ago

In Poland, we still have a blasphemy law. A newspaper along the lines of Charlie Hebdo had its owner dragged over courts for over 8 YEARS. The offense was illustrating an article about emptying churches with a surprised Jesus in a road sign. The newspaper routinely posts much more offensive content: cartoon dicks, cartoon sex, caricatures of pope, Jews, politicians (some dick-headed or engaged in homosexual sex), national flags in dog shit... But it was ostensibly a surprised Jesus that crossed the line. Since the current government entrenched itself, police is investigating things like suspicious duck-shaped snowmen next to statues (related to last name Kaczyński). The party leader that had 80 police squad cars guarding his villa. One of worst parts of thin skinned politicians is fabricating excuses to harass people they don't like.

jariel 6y ago
There are literally words you can say in so called 'Western Liberal' countries that can get you arrested or charged with hate speech. Those are our version of 'Blasphemy' laws. It's basically very disrespectful what Charlie Hebdo does, but shouldn't be illegal, and I guess, there should be 'someone somewhere' who is pushing the boundaries. Similarly, there are a lot of very rude things you can say to people, but none of it should be illegal, and frankly I don't care if there's a website somewhere that people say nasty things. So long as none of it gets out of hand. While the top commenters bit about Thai, local law and 'face saving' is fine, it's also obviously unjust. Justice takes many forms but there is some degree of universality to it.
- echelon 6y ago
  > Those are our version of 'Blasphemy' laws. There's a difference in a racial epithet, which is aimed at a person in hostility, and a religious mockery, which is aimed at something people believe in - not people directly. Attacking a person vs attacking something someone believes in. Saying "Christians are stupid" is different than saying "Christ is stupid". We should all be able to tolerate having our ideals and beliefs criticized and mocked. But we should stand up for anyone of a race or group being attacked or marginalized. Black, white, gay, straight, religious, atheist, educated or not, whatever. A belief doesn't have feelings and doesn't feel pain. People do. > can get you arrested or charged with hate speech. Maybe in some democracies, but in America we allow it. Free speech is one of the core foundations of our democracy. If you want to put your foot in your mouth and say something stupid or hateful, be my guest. I'll even defend your right to do it. But it doesn't free you from being judged by your peers.
  - kenneth 6y ago
    Pretty sure free speech is gone from "liberal democracies" now that the left has decided that Twitter and Facebook should be arbiters of what speech is allowed.
    - xnyan 6y ago
      I'm confused, are you arguing that if I host a popular website, the government should be able to compel to promote ideas I disagree with? How is that not worse than the current situation?
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        Exactly, just like the telephone company. Or that lady who didn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
        xnyan 6y ago
        Ok let’s practice. I’m the government. I order you to post the following “I don’t think the government should be able to order Twitter not to delete tweets” If you don’t want to post that, why should Twitter be forced to do so?
    - honkycat 6y ago
      And what would the right do? Pass legislation to force these corporations to host unprofitable content on their website?
    - kingaillas 6y ago
      Here I thought it was the right-wing/conservative/republicans that were in favor of private enterprise, free association, no government intereference, etc. Which is exactly what happened here. Must only be for bakeries and gay wedding cakes.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
- trasz 6y ago
  There's a fundamental difference between blasphemy - which by definition doesn't attack anyone, and the right to which is one of the cornerstones of our civilisation, being a part of religious freedom - and hate speech.
  - b0rsuk 6y ago
    In Poland it's not literally called blasphemy, but "offense against religious feelings". So it's framed as if someone was hurt. There are no equivalent laws for other kinds of feelings, like atheistic feelings, romantic feelings, vi vs emacs feelings, or even patriotic feelings. I think disrespecting the flag and national symbols is illegal. But it is essentially a blasphemy law. This caricature pokes fun at it: https://memnews.pl/images/0/0/0/6/7/6/7/1/2levbnjk.png https://memnews.pl/images/0/0/0/6/7/6/7/1/2levbnjk.png "Doctor, will my husband come out of it?" "Hard to say. Religious feeling damage is very deep."
  - jariel 6y ago
    "blasphemy - which by definition doesn't attack anyone" There is a difference of course, but religious affiliation is absolutely a 'protected category' in most places and it's a very nuanced thing to say 'attacking a faith' is not attacking a culture or group. Most people in the world identify more with their faith as much as they do nationality, or skin colour. "Here's my funny, irreverent comment about X Religion" "Here's my funny movie questioning X Religion" "Here's me in a costume of X Religious Figure" "X Religious Figure is a cockroach" "People who follow Religious X Figure are cockroaches" "These Specific Religious Folks are cockroaches" "This Specific Religious Building is full of cockroaches" "There's no evidence This Specific Religious group was massacred" I'm going to bet some of those things are possibly a little 'blasphemous' but really benign, whereas others are 'blasphemous' to the point of straight up, 'hate speech' by legal definition. It get complicated quickly, it's not all just benign. In India, Myanmar etc. this seems to be quite evidently a problem, especially on Facebook.
    - trasz 6y ago
      It’s true that blasphemy can sometimes turn into hate speech. But when it happens, then it’s wrong because it’s hate speech, not because it’s blasphemy. It’s also worth noting that in many, or perhaps most, cases of blasphemy the root of the problem is preventing someone from harassing others in the name of their religion. Good example is Poland, where people are being sued for protesting against Catholic discrimination of minorities.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  > There are literally words you can say in so called 'Western Liberal' countries that can get you arrested or charged with hate speech. And a good thing too. > Those are our version of 'Blasphemy' laws. Not at all. For example in Germany, you can't be a Nazi or show Nazi symbols. Why? Because Nazis murdered millions of people in death camps, not because "Blasphemy". Hate speech, death threats: these are illegal in civilized countries because these things have been tremendously destructive to society in the past. America's First Amendment prioritizes paid lies casually invented and spread by anonymous billionaires over hard-won truths spoken by individuals. It doesn't seem to be working out so well.

by b0rsuk 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

There are literally words you can say in so called 'Western Liberal' countries that can get you arrested or charged with hate speech. Those are our version of 'Blasphemy' laws. It's basically very disrespectful what Charlie Hebdo does, but shouldn't be illegal, and I guess, there should be 'someone somewhere' who is pushing the boundaries. Similarly, there are a lot of very rude things you can say to people, but none of it should be illegal, and frankly I don't care if there's a website somewhere that people say nasty things. So long as none of it gets out of hand. While the top commenters bit about Thai, local law and 'face saving' is fine, it's also obviously unjust. Justice takes many forms but there is some degree of universality to it.

echelon 6y ago
> Those are our version of 'Blasphemy' laws. There's a difference in a racial epithet, which is aimed at a person in hostility, and a religious mockery, which is aimed at something people believe in - not people directly. Attacking a person vs attacking something someone believes in. Saying "Christians are stupid" is different than saying "Christ is stupid". We should all be able to tolerate having our ideals and beliefs criticized and mocked. But we should stand up for anyone of a race or group being attacked or marginalized. Black, white, gay, straight, religious, atheist, educated or not, whatever. A belief doesn't have feelings and doesn't feel pain. People do. > can get you arrested or charged with hate speech. Maybe in some democracies, but in America we allow it. Free speech is one of the core foundations of our democracy. If you want to put your foot in your mouth and say something stupid or hateful, be my guest. I'll even defend your right to do it. But it doesn't free you from being judged by your peers.
- kenneth 6y ago
  Pretty sure free speech is gone from "liberal democracies" now that the left has decided that Twitter and Facebook should be arbiters of what speech is allowed.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    I'm confused, are you arguing that if I host a popular website, the government should be able to compel to promote ideas I disagree with? How is that not worse than the current situation?
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      Exactly, just like the telephone company. Or that lady who didn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
      - xnyan 6y ago
        Ok let’s practice. I’m the government. I order you to post the following “I don’t think the government should be able to order Twitter not to delete tweets” If you don’t want to post that, why should Twitter be forced to do so?
  - honkycat 6y ago
    And what would the right do? Pass legislation to force these corporations to host unprofitable content on their website?
  - kingaillas 6y ago
    Here I thought it was the right-wing/conservative/republicans that were in favor of private enterprise, free association, no government intereference, etc. Which is exactly what happened here. Must only be for bakeries and gay wedding cakes.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
trasz 6y ago
There's a fundamental difference between blasphemy - which by definition doesn't attack anyone, and the right to which is one of the cornerstones of our civilisation, being a part of religious freedom - and hate speech.
- b0rsuk 6y ago
  In Poland it's not literally called blasphemy, but "offense against religious feelings". So it's framed as if someone was hurt. There are no equivalent laws for other kinds of feelings, like atheistic feelings, romantic feelings, vi vs emacs feelings, or even patriotic feelings. I think disrespecting the flag and national symbols is illegal. But it is essentially a blasphemy law. This caricature pokes fun at it: https://memnews.pl/images/0/0/0/6/7/6/7/1/2levbnjk.png https://memnews.pl/images/0/0/0/6/7/6/7/1/2levbnjk.png "Doctor, will my husband come out of it?" "Hard to say. Religious feeling damage is very deep."
- jariel 6y ago
  "blasphemy - which by definition doesn't attack anyone" There is a difference of course, but religious affiliation is absolutely a 'protected category' in most places and it's a very nuanced thing to say 'attacking a faith' is not attacking a culture or group. Most people in the world identify more with their faith as much as they do nationality, or skin colour. "Here's my funny, irreverent comment about X Religion" "Here's my funny movie questioning X Religion" "Here's me in a costume of X Religious Figure" "X Religious Figure is a cockroach" "People who follow Religious X Figure are cockroaches" "These Specific Religious Folks are cockroaches" "This Specific Religious Building is full of cockroaches" "There's no evidence This Specific Religious group was massacred" I'm going to bet some of those things are possibly a little 'blasphemous' but really benign, whereas others are 'blasphemous' to the point of straight up, 'hate speech' by legal definition. It get complicated quickly, it's not all just benign. In India, Myanmar etc. this seems to be quite evidently a problem, especially on Facebook.
  - trasz 6y ago
    It’s true that blasphemy can sometimes turn into hate speech. But when it happens, then it’s wrong because it’s hate speech, not because it’s blasphemy. It’s also worth noting that in many, or perhaps most, cases of blasphemy the root of the problem is preventing someone from harassing others in the name of their religion. Good example is Poland, where people are being sued for protesting against Catholic discrimination of minorities.
TomSwirly 6y ago
> There are literally words you can say in so called 'Western Liberal' countries that can get you arrested or charged with hate speech. And a good thing too. > Those are our version of 'Blasphemy' laws. Not at all. For example in Germany, you can't be a Nazi or show Nazi symbols. Why? Because Nazis murdered millions of people in death camps, not because "Blasphemy". Hate speech, death threats: these are illegal in civilized countries because these things have been tremendously destructive to society in the past. America's First Amendment prioritizes paid lies casually invented and spread by anonymous billionaires over hard-won truths spoken by individuals. It doesn't seem to be working out so well.