3 ms·

I didn't suggest anything, generally I avoid suggestion. It's pusillanimous. Switzerland has a lot of freedom, certainly compared to China and other European c

I didn't suggest anything, generally I avoid suggestion. It's pusillanimous. Switzerland has a lot of freedom, certainly compared to China and other European countries. It's without a doubt my favorite country, one I'd want to live in. But, as we're finding out, the "free speech protections" that we drone on about are only as good as we are willing to insist on. "freedom of speech is protected in this country" is meaningless if it only restricts government from silencing its citizens. Companies and powerful interest groups can and do restrict the speech of people, and I don't see the Swiss government rushing to pass laws to force Google to stop censoring. Anyway, freedom of speech protections in Switzerland are not that good compared to, say, the US. You can't, for example, criticize islam (I hate when people mock islam, btw). From Article 261 of the Swiss Penal Code: "Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intend- ed for a religious ceremony or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to a monetary penalty.277" So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. Not unless muslims, rightly, get upset about the depiction of the most revered woman in Islam. But it gets worse: "Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons, any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns, any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity, any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty." You can drive a Mac truck through that. What does "inciting discrimination" mean? Are the people campaigning to have the veil banned in Switzerland not inciting discrimination? And, for the record, I despise people who mock any and all religions (although valid criticism is very important). But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich.

belter 5y ago
Sounds wonderful. Would then my religious convictions be protected in Switzerland according to law or does my deity has to contact the Swiss government somehow ? Because I am a Pastafarian, and I can't stand the abuse and mockery anymore. I was thinking of emigrating to Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Both you and I know this is provocation, so there's no point in pretending otherwise. But sure, it is an argument in favor of the confessional state. Liberal societies are de facto confessional states anyway, it's just that the liberal religion (which Rawls can't quite seem to acknowledge as one, but deploys without scruples) by which all others are measured and restricted is not named as one.
  - belter 5y ago
    I up voted your comment...
- amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
  No because pastafarianism is a funny, if aged, joke among atheists. You don't sincerely believe in the spaghetti monster, and the courts could hold you in contempt. But why would an atheist who likes to mock religion want to live in a country that criminalizes it?
bobthechef 5y ago
> So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Charlie Hebdo is indeed disgusting. They're nihilists from a cultural milieu that know no moral limits. There is a difference, as you say, between rational criticism of Islam and its mockery and charity is a pretty good way to distinguish between good and bad behavior (i.e., even assuming Islam is terribly flawed, it is uncharitable to mock it in this way given what it is, but charitable to criticize it). > Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. You mean like what the Talmud says about Mary, the same Talmud that depicts Jesus boiling in excrement? The same nihilistic cultural milieu hates Christianity most of all. You think the mockery of Islam was bad? Look at how they depict Christ in those comics. It's far worse as a matter of the kinds of things they depict as well as the subject of the depiction (Mohammad is just a prophet, Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, of God Himself, thus we're talking about the difference between irreverent desecration and outright blasphemy and sacrilegious imagery). But hatred of Christianity has become normalized and made acceptable by this nihilistic cultural milieu and Christians have been intimidated into acceptance and spineless in their resistance which is why it persists with impunity. Muslims have been known to go in the opposite extreme. > But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich. Freedom of speech was never unrestricted. It cannot be. The days of that libertarian anything-goes thinking is dead even among the same Mother Jones type lefists who wanted it back when they were still dope-smoking boomers. The question isn't whether you restrict speech, but how you restrict it and what you restrict and whether it is good. Without a specific case in mind, I would generally rather risk being a bit too permissive than being too restrictive, greater liberality in what is permitted and greater conservatism in how law is interpreted, but prudential judgement is key.

belter 5y ago

Sounds wonderful. Would then my religious convictions be protected in Switzerland according to law or does my deity has to contact the Swiss government somehow ? Because I am a Pastafarian, and I can't stand the abuse and mockery anymore. I was thinking of emigrating to Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

bobthechef 5y ago
Both you and I know this is provocation, so there's no point in pretending otherwise. But sure, it is an argument in favor of the confessional state. Liberal societies are de facto confessional states anyway, it's just that the liberal religion (which Rawls can't quite seem to acknowledge as one, but deploys without scruples) by which all others are measured and restricted is not named as one.
- belter 5y ago
  I up voted your comment...
amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
No because pastafarianism is a funny, if aged, joke among atheists. You don't sincerely believe in the spaghetti monster, and the courts could hold you in contempt. But why would an atheist who likes to mock religion want to live in a country that criminalizes it?

bobthechef 5y ago

> So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Charlie Hebdo is indeed disgusting. They're nihilists from a cultural milieu that know no moral limits. There is a difference, as you say, between rational criticism of Islam and its mockery and charity is a pretty good way to distinguish between good and bad behavior (i.e., even assuming Islam is terribly flawed, it is uncharitable to mock it in this way given what it is, but charitable to criticize it). > Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. You mean like what the Talmud says about Mary, the same Talmud that depicts Jesus boiling in excrement? The same nihilistic cultural milieu hates Christianity most of all. You think the mockery of Islam was bad? Look at how they depict Christ in those comics. It's far worse as a matter of the kinds of things they depict as well as the subject of the depiction (Mohammad is just a prophet, Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, of God Himself, thus we're talking about the difference between irreverent desecration and outright blasphemy and sacrilegious imagery). But hatred of Christianity has become normalized and made acceptable by this nihilistic cultural milieu and Christians have been intimidated into acceptance and spineless in their resistance which is why it persists with impunity. Muslims have been known to go in the opposite extreme. > But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich. Freedom of speech was never unrestricted. It cannot be. The days of that libertarian anything-goes thinking is dead even among the same Mother Jones type lefists who wanted it back when they were still dope-smoking boomers. The question isn't whether you restrict speech, but how you restrict it and what you restrict and whether it is good. Without a specific case in mind, I would generally rather risk being a bit too permissive than being too restrictive, greater liberality in what is permitted and greater conservatism in how law is interpreted, but prudential judgement is key.