The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
So you claim that religious organisations have significantly more influence per member than other organisations? I doubt that.
Trade unions do not have laws against mocking their feelings.
Perhaps you underrate how many people identify with churches.
I do, however, note that churches often lie about how many members they have.
I note that there are some privileges of churches that are becoming controversial and that will have to go--in Germany it's the funding by the state that's highest on the list. I don't see that there is support for scrapping legislation against defamatory acts, though.
All I'm asking for is equal treatment. If it is legal to say that comparing Bill Gates to a pestilential, cock-sucking gutter rat is an insult to gutter rats, then it should also be legal to say that comparing the Pope to a pestilential, etc.
Religious people need to grow the fuck up and realize that every other organization with a comparable turnover and public profile to the Russian Orthodox Church has to deal with punkers like Pussy Riot protesting their activities.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
If it is legal to say that comparing Bill Gates to a pestilential, cock-sucking gutter rat is an insult to gutter rats, then it should also be legal to say that comparing the Pope to a pestilential, etc
Well, and I know of no law that treats the two different, so what exactly do you want to prove?
But, OK. You don't see a problem with comparing the Pope to a diseased rodent. Then what's your gripe with making mimed punk-rock in a church that's open to the general public and was not being used for any church-related purposes at the time?
(Denmark has such a law, by the way, although nobody has actually been convicted since the Interbellum.)
Can you make clear what you are talking about?
Calling out the behavior of clerics is political speech insofar as that behavior is sanctioned by the Church, because the Church has decided that it wants to be a political actor.
Defamation of anybody is a crime. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether there should be a lower standard for what constitutes defamation of religious groups than of non-religious groups. And about whether religious groups should get to decide whether the insult constitutes defamation. Because that's the prerogative you want to arrogate for religious communities. It's a prerogative no other group has - not even under the absurdly frivolous British libel law - and which is deeply corrosive to democracy (again, the best example of how frivolous libel law hurts society is the UK).
Religious people sometimes, erroneously, believe that either of the first two is defamation of themselves and their faith. This is obviously horseshit. But the frequent assertion makes it extremely relevant to a discussion of whether religious people should be allowed to set their own standards for defamation.
by Oui - Feb 4 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 49 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 269 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2732 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments