http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8549613.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8549613.stm)
QuoteTaylor, 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.
Fuck.
I really wish this surprised me at all.
:x
"Freedom" is freedom to do stupid shit.
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.
"Freedom" is freedom to do stupid shit.
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on March 05, 2010, 03:07:02 PM
"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.
I was actually hoping this would be funnier.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on March 05, 2010, 05:53:18 PM
I was actually hoping this would be funnier.
This will be epitaph on Enrico's tombstone some day.
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:15:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:15:00 PM
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.
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.
So is Larry Flint.
But the alternative was letting Falwell decide what was and wasn't acceptable.
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:41:14 PM
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.
Some expression shouldn't be protected, because it might offend people.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:47:02 PM
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.
And I'm going to get all Patrick Henry up in this, I'll say this: I get to say what I want, or kill me.
Remember, the guy did this in Liverpool, not America. Shit like this comes standard here. Have you seen some of the newspapers in Seattle?
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:47:02 PM
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.
Who said anything about civil disobedience in the name of justice? Was this guy trying to get caught? No? then he's just the latest asshole targeted by The Machine.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:53:22 PM
Remember, the guy did this in Liverpool, not America. Shit like this comes standard here. Have you seen some of the newspapers in Seattle?
Doesn't matter. People aren't free because of where they happen to live, they're free because they'd rather die than let someone tell them what they can think or say.
Needless to say, there aren't many free people in the world, in America or otherwise.
This guy is free. People who think he should go to jail aren't.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 05, 2010, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:47:02 PM
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.
Who said anything about civil disobedience in the name of justice? Was this guy trying to get caught? No? then he's just the latest asshole targeted by The Machine.
He's just the latest guy who deserves to rot in prison because he had all the wrong values.
And free speech applies, of course, only to the right values.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 05, 2010, 06:56:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 06:53:22 PM
Remember, the guy did this in Liverpool, not America. Shit like this comes standard here. Have you seen some of the newspapers in Seattle?
Doesn't matter. People aren't free because of where they happen to live, they're free because they'd rather die than let someone tell them what they can think or say.
Needless to say, there aren't many free people in the world, in America or otherwise.
This guy is free. People who think he should go to jail aren't.
He got
caught doing it. My hope is that, over time, criminals who aren't clever enough to get away with shit are selected out, and replaced by criminals more suited to the task.
On a more serious note, I hope he doesn't get a stiff sentence. What he did is really not a big deal.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:02:20 PM
He got caught doing it.
So what? He expressed himself, and he's going to prison for it.
There is no excuse for this happening. None at all.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:02:20 PM
On a more serious note, I hope he doesn't get a stiff sentence.
I hope he gets acquited, and the judge apologizes to him for wasting his time. That's not going to happen, but it's the only result that would make me happy about this.
"expressed himself" = "posting pictures in a prayer room that could be construed as hate speech"
:?
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:09:11 PM
"expressed himself" = "posting pictures in a prayer room that could be construed as hate speech"
:?
Hate speech? Is that one of those "unapproved forms of speech", with all the wrong values?
Hang the bastard.
I wonder if I could be extradited for e-mailing (or snail-mailing) pictures of YAHWEH, the Child-Molesting Sky Fairy to various religious leaders in England.
It's times like this that I wish I could draw. :sad:
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on March 05, 2010, 07:12:32 PM
I wonder if I could be extradited for e-mailing (or snail-mailing) pictures of YAHWEH, the Child-Molesting Sky Fairy to various religious leaders in England.
It's times like this that I wish I could draw. :sad:
Ship him off to Saudi Arabia. They know how to deal with this sort of shit.
He does have the wrong values. He thinks that offending people with dirty pictures is a valid means of challenging church doctrine. He is not only giving them a reason to lock him away and shut him up, he is giving them ammunition to be used against ME when I try to discuss religion with people. Fuck this guy. Him, Dawkins, and all the other prats who make my stance a tasteless joke in popular discourse.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
He does have the wrong values.
Righteo, then. Whom else should be restricted from badwrong filthyspeech?
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
He does have the wrong values.
You make good Generalissimo.
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on March 05, 2010, 07:16:41 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
He does have the wrong values.
You make good Generalissimo.
Issue the man a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, Enrico. We'll have all this shit sorted out by next Wednesday.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 05, 2010, 07:16:13 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
He does have the wrong values.
Righteo, then. Whom else should be restricted from badwrong filthyspeech?
While I'm being an unreasonable oppressor, the entire radio should shut up and die.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:19:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 05, 2010, 07:16:13 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
He does have the wrong values.
Righteo, then. Whom else should be restricted from badwrong filthyspeech?
While I'm being an unreasonable oppressor, the entire radio should shut up and die.
Yeah, they're not "mature" enough, anyway.
I didn't click the link, but what was the actual crime he was being charged for?
"religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress."
Basically being rude. The brits hate that.
Quote from: dimo on March 05, 2010, 07:20:35 PM
I didn't click the link, but what was the actual crime he was being charged for?
Being a big meanie.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
"religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress."
Basically being rude. The brits hate that.
Sigmatic hate it too.
Don't do what Donnie Don't does.
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on March 05, 2010, 07:23:17 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
"religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress."
Basically being rude. The brits hate that.
Sigmatic hate it too.
Don't do what Donnie Don't does.
I like rude. I just hate him personally.
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on March 05, 2010, 07:23:17 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
"religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress."
Basically being rude. The brits hate that.
Sigmatic hate it too.
Don't do what Donnie Don't does.
We can't have people running around all unregulated, you know.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:24:02 PM
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on March 05, 2010, 07:23:17 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
"religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress."
Basically being rude. The brits hate that.
Sigmatic hate it too.
Don't do what Donnie Don't does.
I like rude. I just hate him personally.
But he has beautiful singing voice...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 05, 2010, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: dimo on March 05, 2010, 07:20:35 PM
I didn't click the link, but what was the actual crime he was being charged for?
Being a big meanie.
Wow. They'd have locked me up and swallowed the key a long time ago if I lived there. Seriously, though, that's fucked up.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
He does have the wrong values. He thinks that offending people with dirty pictures is a valid means of challenging church doctrine. He is not only giving them a reason to lock him away and shut him up, he is giving them ammunition to be used against ME when I try to discuss religion with people. Fuck this guy. Him, Dawkins, and all the other prats who make my stance a tasteless joke in popular discourse.
While I certainly disagree with this guy being legally prosecuted, he's still a twatwaffle and IAWTC.
I mean, you guys' fanciful ideals are wonderful and all, but as long as reality insists on intruding on them, I'll go with what works in reality.
Is true, why fool yourself to think anything will ever be better? Status quo, she is paramount.
Things are great, for me. The silly foibles of less-competent monkeys are difficult for me to get worked up over.
This is what Enrico try to tell people... there will always be more monkey.
Freedom is only for the cool kids.
I think the guy is an asshole, but the worst thing that should be thrown on him is a vandalism lawsuit. That, and general disdain.
Quote from: Kai on March 05, 2010, 08:33:03 PM
I think the guy is an asshole, but the worst thing that should be thrown on him is a vandalism lawsuit. That, and general disdain.
THIS.
Petty vandalism, yes.
Badwrong speech, no.
That being said, I give it less than 10 years before we have blasphemy laws here, again.
It's unconstitutional.
:lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 08:42:12 PM
It's unconstitutional.
You're so 20th century. Besides, what's the constitution, when stacked up against peoples' feelings?
People are hurting out there, Sig. They feel grossly offended, and this can't be allowed to continue.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 08:44:41 PM
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on March 05, 2010, 08:42:35 PM
:lulz:
:thanks:
I was hoping someone would get it.
Yeah, I feel kinda dumb. :lulz:
You actually had me believing you cared about the constitution for a minute. :lulz:
Sheesh.
It's a dig at other unconstitutional bills that have been passed lately.
The joke has been explained, and the funny is dead. Now look what you made me do.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
He does have the wrong values. He thinks that offending people with dirty pictures is a valid means of challenging church doctrine. He is not only giving them a reason to lock him away and shut him up, he is giving them ammunition to be used against ME when I try to discuss religion with people. Fuck this guy. Him, Dawkins, and all the other prats who make my stance a tasteless joke in popular discourse.
No this is not the point.
Yes the guy is an asshole probably.
If he would have it in a church, maybe you cuold have given the man a fine for being an asshole breaking the house rules of a church or something, depending on local laws and such.
But this is not the case. He left a bunch of NSFW WOMPs in a
public prayer room in an airport.
This is not "hate speech". Hate speech is when you incite or threaten with violence. If the flyers had said "DIE YOU CHRISTIAN DOGS DIE" or "IMMA SODOMIZE YOUR ASS", that is hate speech.
This incident is on the same level as throwing toiletpaper all over the floor of a public toilet. In the sense that it annoys people or perhaps even ruins their experience when making use of a public facility. And because apart from that, it doesn't really accomplish anything, it's IMO dickish and childish.
It is in NO WAY something somebody should run the risk of going to jail over.
The most you can hope for, would be to somehow prove that he caused damages in some way (such as could be done with the toilet mess example above), and give him a fucking fine. A fine, but no more.
Justice?
Come on.
This is not the sort of thing the law should "protect" us against.
People get away with so much more tiny things. Bad, disgusting and detestable tiny things that I sometimes too wish they would not get away with. Over here, junkies sometimes even get caught with theft or handling stolen goods, they get a note, or a stern talking to, at most one night in the cell and then they walk. Why? Because our justice system has more important things* to do, that's why.
But somebody leaves a bunch of tasteless flyers in a prayer room and you want them thrown into jail??? That's ... what does that even ... accomplish? You already host 25% of the world's prison population, more than 1% of your nation. (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/02/where-are-1-of-american-adults.html)
* Such as making sure the quotum of fines is on target at the end of the year by putting out extra surveillance on bikers using proper bicycle lights (white front, red backlights!) switched on when it's dark.
You know that this didn't happen in the states, right? Liverpool.
Also, will people please stop putting words in my mouth. There are plenty there already. I never said he should go to jail and I never said I think that this is a good law to have, I'm saying I won't bother to be outraged in support of his right to make atheism a joke.
WHUTEVER, OPPRESSOR MCOPRESSORSON!
\
:nigel:
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 09:31:26 PM
You know that this didn't happen in the states, right? Liverpool.
Also, will people please stop putting words in my mouth. There are plenty there already. I never said he should go to jail and I never said I think that this is a good law to have, I'm saying I won't bother to be outraged in support of his right to make atheism a joke.
Atheism is a joke, just like any other belief system.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 05, 2010, 09:36:41 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 09:31:26 PM
You know that this didn't happen in the states, right? Liverpool.
Also, will people please stop putting words in my mouth. There are plenty there already. I never said he should go to jail and I never said I think that this is a good law to have, I'm saying I won't bother to be outraged in support of his right to make atheism a joke.
Atheism is a joke, just like any other belief system.
Maybe, but they don't know that.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 09:39:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 05, 2010, 09:36:41 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 09:31:26 PM
You know that this didn't happen in the states, right? Liverpool.
Also, will people please stop putting words in my mouth. There are plenty there already. I never said he should go to jail and I never said I think that this is a good law to have, I'm saying I won't bother to be outraged in support of his right to make atheism a joke.
Atheism is a joke, just like any other belief system.
Maybe, but they don't know that.
That just makes it funnier.
All I'm saying is he should try to cover his arse with "I was trying to stir debate/I was challenging people's beliefs". He should say "I think Christians are stupid and thus I made fun of them."
Should be protected speech. He should absolutely have the freedom to make fun of people that believe in invisible sky daddies... but he shouldn't try to make it a noble attempt at debate.
He fails at having the balls to be honest.
The UK fails at understanding freedom of speech.
Uk law on freedom of speech:
QuoteThe right can be restricted where it is justified in the public interest, for example where national security concerns prevail (see the case of Ponting) or where countervailing interests of privacy, public order or religious tolerance must take priority. In addition, the law may also require that in certain situations information is kept confidential or may place a restriction on its dissemination. This is the case of the confidentiality and defamation laws, as well as the offence of contempt of court. Television, radio and other broadcast media are also subject to legal regulation (see for example the Press Complaints Commission and Ofcom).
This law sucks.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 10:21:24 PM
Uk law on freedom of speech:
QuoteThe right can be restricted where it is justified in the public interest, for example where national security concerns prevail (see the case of Ponting) or where countervailing interests of privacy, public order or religious tolerance must take priority. In addition, the law may also require that in certain situations information is kept confidential or may place a restriction on its dissemination. This is the case of the confidentiality and defamation laws, as well as the offence of contempt of court. Television, radio and other broadcast media are also subject to legal regulation (see for example the Press Complaints Commission and Ofcom).
This law sucks.
If the right can be restricted, it's a privilege.
Yup.
I am momentarily taken aback to, for once, be looking at a law that I like less than the US equivalent.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 10:23:41 PM
Yup.
I am momentarily taken aback to, for once, be looking at a law that I like less than the US equivalent.
Three words: First. Amendment. Zones.
:crankey: OH SONOVA-
...Hey, can anybody set one of those up?
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 10:30:02 PM
...Hey, can anybody set one of those up?
Dunno. Try it.
I think it's time to resurrect the Temporary Autonomous Zone idea. In a big way.
I thought the temporary autonomous zone was just a mental excercise that relied on being caught, in the case of doing anything verboten....
???
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 05, 2010, 09:31:26 PM
You know that this didn't happen in the states, right? Liverpool.
But it's also not okay if it happens in Liverpool...
QuoteAlso, will people please stop putting words in my mouth. There are plenty there already. I never said he should go to jail and I never said I think that this is a good law to have, I'm saying I won't bother to be outraged in support of his right to make atheism a joke.
Well, the article says he is facing a maximum of 7 years in prison.
And since you were agreeing with the article, I figured you were also agreeing with sending the guy to prison over this.
If not, then, what is your point?
Fine him 50 eurobucks for being an asshole? Sure, why not.
You just quoted my point. I think the guy's a tard, and I wish he didn't get caught doing stupid shit in the name of atheism, because it helps them establish the legal precedent for further outspoken atheists to get put in jail.
Who determines which religions are protected?
If someone writes offensive Star Wars fanfic, can followers of the Jedi religion press charges?
No (legal) reason why not.
Well my deep beliefs are based on the ineffable and mystical legal reasons why not.
So your post grieves me painfully.
HOW DO I PRESSED CHARGE?
Religion 'A' says their god is the One True God.
Religion 'B' says their god is the One True God.
Both religions are mutually blasphemous. There can be only one possible solution...
CLASS ACTION CAGE MATCH!!!!
No can do. My infinitely superior religion is morally opposed to testing its fallibility against any sort of material standard. Even if the cage match was lost, this just means that the other party is blaspheming against the True Plan.
If that were to happen this would cause me unfathomable emotional distress.
So I would press charges on account of being oppressed.
Therefore my religion is the real correct one.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 05, 2010, 08:40:00 PM
That being said, I give it less than 10 years before we have blasphemy laws here, again.
OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!! :crankey:
Wait, Enrico is still alive?
YAY!
Quote from: Regret on March 06, 2010, 03:30:21 AM
Wait, Enrico is still alive?
YAY!
He was temporarily dead, for tax purposes.
I wonder if hes going to write a book while in jail...
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 05, 2010, 02:59:56 PM
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.
I'd say he successfully challenged their views, as instead of turning the other cheek they got him arrested.
Right now, with the Catholic Chuch about as popular as a shit sandwich, and the CoE (who have Bishops sitting in the House of Lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual)) whining about persecution, not to mention assorted Muslim nutters with big mouths running all over the place, I can see this prosecution turning very ugly.
If I were him, I'd be doing a big PR campaign before going to court pointing out how he is essentially being punished for abusing the most morally corrupt institutions in this country, behind Parliament and the banks. It'd make actually getting a conviction a lot more difficult.