http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html)
QuoteAround the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion...
:horrormirth:
Libertas is not going to be the busiest Roman goddess this century, I think.
This reminds me of the anti-porn feminists; after their laws were passed, the first and only porn stores closed were the lesbian book stores.
-toa,
all is fail in love and war
Yeah, this is really going to end up biting the Muslims in the ass. They love to criticize Jews.
I'd love to see Atheists become a protected group - what's more hateful than telling others that non-believers will burn in hell for eternity?
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 19, 2009, 10:46:49 PM
I'd love to see Atheists become a protected group - what's more hateful than telling others that non-believers will burn in hell for eternity?
According to them: Atheism is not a religion.
Besides, we all know it's not about the text of the law, but who's enforcing it. Only Christians will be protected. Any hate speech against others is just the Christian's freedom of religion ("preaching the gospel" and stuff...)
-toa,
ain't no party like a fundy party...
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 19, 2009, 11:25:17 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 19, 2009, 10:46:49 PM
I'd love to see Atheists become a protected group - what's more hateful than telling others that non-believers will burn in hell for eternity?
According to them: Atheism is not a religion.
Besides, we all know it's not about the text of the law, but who's enforcing it. Only Christians will be protected. Any hate speech against others is just the Christian's freedom of religion ("preaching the gospel" and stuff...)
-toa,
ain't no party like a fundy party...
I'd bet you quite a bit that the Jews are going to be well protected by it. ADL is a pretty powerful group already, and they aren't stupid, give them something like this and they will take full advantage of it.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 19, 2009, 11:37:24 PM
I'd bet you quite a bit that the Jews are going to be well protected by it. ADL is a pretty powerful group already, and they aren't stupid, give them something like this and they will take full advantage of it.
The day we forget about WWII is the day...
...hmm. I guess Hitler's too congenial of a personality to be forgotten.
Christians and Sarah Silverman it is, then.
-toa,
they don't control hollywood; they're just hotter than us, that's all
Meh. It's a non-binding UN resolution. I double dare them to try to enforce it.
PS. Fuck Muhammed, Jesus and Buddha.
The Right is gonna use it as a rally against the NWO and the various religious groups are all gonna claim anything said against them is hate speech. So even though it is a UN thing, the fundamentalists will all try to censor their detractors.
Getting Muslim countries to sign on to a free-speech resolution is impressive in the first place.
Yes, they should do away with theocracies and blasphemy laws, but how do you guys recommend we do it? Should we follow Ann Coulter's advice to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all" to discordianism. The resolution would be better if it didn't contain this exception. The article seems intentionally misleading, as it's extremely short on the content of the resolution and the nature of Obama's support and very longwinded on the fact that blasphemy laws are bad (thanks guys, I didn't already know that).
This is how diplomacy works. Compromises and baby steps.
I'm kind of new to the forum, so I don't know if there was some subtext here I was missing. Can anyone explain what the big deal is here?
You guys act almost as if freedom of speech ever existed. All countries that claim to have it have these magnificent escape clauses like 'obscenity' or 'distasteful' or 'hateful' or all other terms they can come up with that are vague enough to be of use later on. All countries claim to have freedom of speech and every country prohibits it if the dominant culture in that country finds it 'offensive', if you can't insult the last prophet—peace be upon him—or you can't just go glorify Hitler or say you think all black people should die, I fail to see the difference. 'Freedom of speech' is a way for governments to stroke their own ego.