Atheist charged with blasphemy

[Remington]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8549613.stm

Taylor, 59, of Griffen Street, Salford, admitted at Liverpool Crown Court religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

The Crown Prosecution Service said each case should be treated on its merits.

The atheist admitted leaving images of important religious figures in sexual poses but said he was simply challenging the views of others.

   
All we can do is to look at each on its merits
Crown Prosecution Service

The chaplain at the airport, who was "severely distressed" by the discoveries in November and December 2008, immediately reported the images to the police, prosecutors said.

Taylor, who has been released on bail, will be sentenced on 23 April.

The maximum sentence for such an offence is seven years in prison.

Because you only get freedom of expression if you're expressing the right things.

[Dr. Paes]

Fuck.
I really wish this surprised me at all.

[Enrico Salazar]

"Freedom" is freedom to do stupid shit. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You know... I am 100% FOR Freedom of expression... but why 'express challenging views' by showing religious figures in sexual positions? That seems far more like shock-jake material as opposed to debate of one's views of God. So BOO to the UK and their Failure to grok freedom of expression... but a good kick in the nads to the dumbass that thought naughty pictures of Jesus was somehow going to 'challenge' the views of others.

The only thing it will challenge in the end is his rectum if he goes to prison for 7 years.

EDIT: Now if he claimed to have done it because it was funny and his right to speak freely... I'd be more apt to back his play. But the "challenge the views of others" thing sounds like a false justification to me.

[Enrico Salazar]

"Freedom" is freedom to do stupid shit.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

"Freedom" is freedom to do stupid shit.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"Freedom" is freedom to do stupid shit.

Is true Enrico... just lame to hide behind a noble cause like "challenging people's beliefs" when it seems more likely that he was "taking a piss on people's beliefs". I approve of both, but naked cartoons of Buttfucker Jesus or whatever don't seem to fit in the first group.

[Freeky]

I was actually hoping this would be funnier.

[Enrico Salazar]

I was actually hoping this would be funnier.

This will be epitaph on Enrico's tombstone some day.

[Jasper]

Okay, I'd be slightly outraged if he hadn't posted offensive images in public.  While I'd like to see more offensive public imagery, I can at least appreciate that it's illegal and I wouldn't pull the whiny assed oppression card if I was caught doing it.

[Requia ☣]

Okay, I'd be slightly outraged if he hadn't posted offensive images in public.  While I'd like to see more offensive public imagery, I can at least appreciate that it's illegal and I wouldn't pull the whiny assed oppression card if I was caught doing it.

Of course, we can't have people expressing the Wrong Ideas.

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, I'd be slightly outraged if he hadn't posted offensive images in public.  While I'd like to see more offensive public imagery, I can at least appreciate that it's illegal and I wouldn't pull the whiny assed oppression card if I was caught doing it.

Illegal imagery.

Heh.

[Jasper]

Are we really going to not give this guy shit for thinking that anti-religious sex pictures are "challenging their beliefs"?  The man's an ass.

[Requia ☣]

So is Larry Flint.

But the alternative was letting Falwell decide what was and wasn't acceptable.

[Jasper]

If we're going to get all Henry David Thoreau up in this, I'll say this:  Civil disobedience in the name of justice is more effective when it appeals to the values of other people and gains support for your cause, instead of making a laughing stock of the people who already do support your cause.