Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The fact that a bunch of nasty reactionaries jumped on the bandwagon neither makes the outrage at textbook censorship unjustified, nor the response of perpetuating the sacrilege unmerited.

The proper response to attempts at censorship is to replicate that action which prompted the attempt. I would have thought this to be a universally recognized principle among those of us who do not support censorship. But apparently not.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 04:43:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can only whine about successful censorship by religious groups because you distort the facts. You even call the refusal to supply illustrations as censorship and "a textbook scrapped". You call a complaint on grounds of personality rights a censorship of political speech. Then you claim a church was public space where you can set the rules. You need to go out a bit and think about why you have nasty reactionaries as allies.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 05:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Looks to me like you also have nasty reactionnaries (the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin) as allies...

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:00:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I have made very clear indeed that my problem with PR is different from theirs, so how are they my allies?
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:06:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And I made very clear that the motives for my support for challenging the Islamic taboo on iconography are different from the motives of reactionary assholes trying to get a cheap laugh out of riling up stupid mullahs.

So again you resort to special pleading. Your objection is really different from Putin's and the Patriarch's objections, but my objection is not really different Ralf Pittelkow's objection. Because you say so, apparently.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:22:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now you are denying that the cartoon campaign offended Muslims, not only mullahs. In the case of PR you deny that the performance offended Christians, not only clerics and Putin.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:30:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'm not denying that people were offended.

I'm stating that "people being offended" is not a valid basis for prosecution in a court of law, due to the reducto ad absurdum of such a trial being extremely offensive to some subset of the population. And therefore, under the "offending people is illegal" standard, the trial itself is grounds for prosecution of the prosecutor.

Unless, of course, only religious people are entitled to take offensive speech to court. Which is, of course, what you are consistently arguing, even if you dress it up in morphing ad hoc definitions that let you pretend that you're not arguing against equal protection.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:53:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'm not denying that people were offended

But you are denying (or shrugging off) that people other than members of clerical hierarchies and Putin were offended. You don't want to admit that the actions you find fine offend ordinary people whom progressives would like to have as allies.

I'm stating that "people being offended" is not a valid basis for prosecution in a court of law, due to the reducto ad absurdum of such a trial being extremely offensive to some subset of the population.

There are much larger subsets of the Russian population who would handle the PR affair in the same way the Lebanese population handled the cartoon affair. If you manage to prevent lawsuits that doesn't mean that the offended people are prevented from all agency... Is that what you want?

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:12:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But you are denying (or shrugging off) that people other than members of clerical hierarchies and Putin were offended. You don't want to admit that the actions you find fine offend ordinary people whom progressives would like to have as allies.

I'm offended by Pussy Riot being put on trial for exercising their inalienable right to free speech.

But somehow the offense I take is less important than the offense you take. I wonder why.

The only equitable way to deal with people being offended at people being offended is to not make "being offended" a valid legal basis for prosecution.

There are much larger subsets of the Russian population who would handle the PR affair in the same way the Lebanese population handled the cartoon affair.

Let's try that again, in a slightly different context: There are much larger subsets of the RussianDixie population who would handle the PR affaircivil rights movement in the same way the Lebanese population handled the cartoon affair.

The proper response to that is and was sending the federal police to impose some overlong delayed civilization on that substantial part of the population.

If you manage to prevent lawsuits that doesn't mean that the offended people are prevented from all agency... Is that what you want?

I want offended people to not resort to violence to express their offense, whether in person or by proxy through the police.

And I want offended people who are not willing to refrain from resorting to violence to express their offense locked up in a psychiatric institution next to Anders Breivik.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:33:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm offended by Pussy Riot being put on trial for exercising their inalienable right to free speech.

Fortunately there is no such thing as that right in Europe. We don't want the incitement of hatred here. Take your barbarian free speech back to the US where it belongs.

Hell. You are really shocking me. I am European.

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The criminalization of incitement of hatred is not generally taken to mean inciting hatred against yourself. That is normally held to be its own punishment.

I am also more than a little disturbed by your apparent refusal to totally, unambiguously and unequivocally condemn any and all risk of violence that might have arisen against Pussy Riot if they had not been put through a formal witch trial.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:16:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's the most important rationale behind this sort of legislation: to maintain peaceful relations in society. It's not only the injury of hate speech or the danger that this develops into physical violence. It's the reaction too that is prevented by putting a lid on all this.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
to maintain peaceful relations in society

So we have to allow people prone to violent reactions to dictate the law so they don't react violently?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If driven far enough we all are prone to violent reactions.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:46:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what harassment laws are for.

In none of the cases under discussion did the "offenders" accost or pursue the "offended" with the intent to cause them distress.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:49:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If driven far enough we all are prone to violent reactions.

But reacting violently to a YouTube video would be considered grounds for psychiatric evaluation if the contents of the video were not blasphemous.

I'm just saying it should also be if the contents of the video are blasphemous.

Unless it's a part of a wide-spread, long-term campaign of harassment. Which Pussy Riot is not, except in the deluded fantasies of conspiracy merchants.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Blasphemy isn't the issue. It is really ridiculous that you deny that in a church the church can dictate which behaviour is allowed and which is not.

Mind, there are cases where a line must be drawn. Where it is difficult to decide which behaviour to criminalise and which not. This doesn't apply here, because the performance was in a church.

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:03:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Except that you have repeatedly refused to specify precisely what happened inside the church which merits such outrage. Because the actual outrage with which you sympathize is directed at a video on YouTube which could just as easily have been clipped together from stock footage, without Pussy Riot ever setting foot inside the church in question, or indeed within eight time zones of said church. The events in the church are wholly incidental to the moralistic thuggery.

The standard you repeatedly appeal to - consistently with the outrage being about the YouTube video rather than anything that happened in the church - is "offends religious sentiments." Blasphemy offends the religious sentiments of many people. Therefore, criminalization of blasphemy is a subset of the standard you propose.

You further propose that any building that a religious group uses for its occasional get-togethers should be subject to religious law at all other time, no matter its wider historical, aesthetic, cultural or architectural significance. That is a monopolization of cultural heritage which I frankly also find objectionable.

Mind, there are cases where a line must be drawn. Where it is difficult to decide which behaviour to criminalise and which not.

I'm not necessarily asking you to draw the line. I'm asking you to commit to an objective standard which can be applied by a disinterested, and therefore necessarily secular, observer.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not necessarily asking you to draw the line. I'm asking you to commit to an objective standard which can be applied by a disinterested, and therefore necessarily secular, observer.

Because we're assuming that if it comes to that, the judge presiding over a court case should be described as disinterested (and, therefore, secular).

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:34:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the point of having courts is to have cases reviewed by a disinterested arbiter.

There is a name for the sort of society where there are different kinds of courts for different religious or ethnic groups, and you cannot appeal to a universal standard of jurisprudence. We call such a society "apartheid."

There is also a name for societies which raise the prejudices of a single religious group to the level of universal standard of jurisprudence. We call such a society "theocracy."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 12:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Increasingly, there are suggestions of incorporating religious law into European personal law. There was something about that in Britain some years ago
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, sparked a stormy debate when he appeared to suggest that some aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in the UK.
Brilliant gambit, where an Anglican Archbishop uses "tolerance of cultural differences" and Sharia to get Anglican law back into British personal law.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 12:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's nothing in principle wrong with the model of allowing religious people to resolve their differences using religious arbiters rather than real courts. Provided that using the religious arbiter requires informed consent from all parties to the case, and that the case can be appealed to a real court.

Then again, some elements of Sharia are already in European legal codes. Because Sharia contains a bunch of commonsense rules that every society needs, and which, therefore, the Sharia contains alongside all the bonkers stuff.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 12:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK has Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religious courts and they work without too many problems, on the whole. As Jake mentions they are voluntary, both parties must agree to have their matter resolved there. There was absolutely nothing remarkable in Williams' remarks.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 01:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's remarkable if he wants to insinuate the more recondite forms of religious law into the law that the real courts use.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 02:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends. Quite possible that Sharia has something to make contract law clearer. Pretty sure that it doesn't for family law. This is a debate that societies have to go through without excluding their Muslim minorities.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:11:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But equally without deferring to them simply on the ground that they happen to not have done the whole "five centuries of telling the church to sit down and shut the fuck up" thing.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought secularism in public life (as opposed to private life) was the solution Europe had found to wars of religion.

Apparently I was mistaken, and the European solution to wars of religion is self-censorship and closeting of minority beliefs.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:26:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's the most important rationale behind this sort of legislation: to maintain peaceful relations in society. It's not only the injury of hate speech or the danger that this develops into physical violence. It's the reaction too that is prevented by putting a lid on all this.

Fun fact: That is, in so many words, the rationale behind banning Gay Pride in many Eastern European cities.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hardly, even if that is claimed.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that a true Scotsman I see there? I think that's a true Scotsman. But he puts sugar on his porridge. So apparently he isn't a true Scotsman.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's about keeping reproduction and sexuality under control. People aren't meant to reflect that sex and sexuality are more ambiguous than they thought.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know that and I know that, but how're you gonna prove that in a court of law? Judges aren't telepaths. They can't tell fake outrage from real outrage.

Besides, the security risk is very real - pride parades all over eastern Europe have been attacked with broken bottles and worse. So if "religious fanatics might use violence to silence Pussy Riot" is a good enough reason to silence Pussy Riot, then "religious fanatics have demonstrated that they will use violence to silence pride parades" must be an even better reason to ban the latter.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 04:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The security risk is very real, but the outrage isn't. There is nothing spontaneous about it either.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 04:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And how do you propose that a court of law tell the difference between sincere and fake outrage? Since you're proposing to make sincere outrage the standard for prohibition, you really need a clear, simple, straightforward, honest answer to that.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 04:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't propose at all that a court of law decides that. For the legislator the prevention of violence is the rationale to become active and make laws so that people can have the insult to what they hold dear (and the humiliation that causes) punished by law.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 04:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So every religious taboo which it is illegal to break should be on a blacklist?

That'll be a joy for parliament to write.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 04:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Personality rights do not prohibit political satire of public figures.

Claiming that they do is obviously frivolous, and in the pertinent cases clearly motivated by religious bigotry.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:12:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If that was obvious instead of ambiguous, Titanic would have the pictures back online. Good to know that you know the law better than their lawyers.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:33:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wait, what? If the attempted censorship fails, it's not valid because it failed, and if the attempted censorship succeeds, it's not valid because there was a legal basis for the censorship?

Holy unfalsifiable hypothesis, Batman.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:49:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it succeeded, you could rightfully lament the power of religious communities to exercise censorship. Since there are no (contemporary) cases of that, you are either hopelessly behind the times or you are fantasising.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You keep forgetting the how to cook a Christ case, where hundreds of thousands of Euros were posted as bail to avoid preventative jailing for a case that was subsequently thrown out.

That definitely has a chilling effect. Of course it doesn't succeed in censoring the content, but it succeeds in harassing the author.

But since, as a Lutheran, you're an iconoclast, you don't care. While you do care about the Danish cartoon controversy.

How confusing.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:06:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry to confuse you, and I keep forgetting that case, which is because I can't fathom what this video does with the feeling of Catholics, and what the history of publication of that video is (I suspect the video was difficult to find in order to be outraged, yes?), and what kind of laws were used to harrass the author. Do you think this case is typical for the problem Jake cites?

Mind, I do not deny that there are laws that ought to be abolished: all blasphemy laws for instance. Or laws forcing religion on all schoolchildren.

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:28:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it is unjust to prosecute blasphemers, then what about the sincere moral outrage that religious people feel when they learn that someone has blasphemed?

For that matter, what was the cartoon jihad about if not blasphemy?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:35:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For that matter, what was the cartoon jihad about if not blasphemy?

A campaign to incite hatred against immigrants and Muslims. By the way, it was not against any law. A pity. Humiliating Muslims is legal. You are aware that your argument of protection for a minority applies here, aren't you? Astonishing that you support this despicable campaign.

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:44:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the argument for supporting oppressed minorities applies here.

However, in this particular case it must be weighted against the equally legitimate argument that people were attempting to enforce a blanket ban on pictorial depiction of a historical figure. Such a blanket ban must be opposed, because it is far too wide reaching to legitimately claim to be concerned with hate speech.

I find the latter argument more persuasive. The mullahs were not demanding legitimate protection from hate speech. They were demanding the intrusion of an extremist caricature of Islam into general society.

The fact that legitimate and proper backlash against the meritless intrusion of backwards religious dogmatism into secular society creates an opportunity for racist hate speech when the meritless intrusion is committed by an oppressed minority is regrettable, but probably not avoidable. Unless you want to give oppressed minorities a blank check to engage in any or all antidemocratic behavior simply because they are an oppressed minority. Which is a bridge I am not quite prepared to cross.

In any event, the Russian Orthodox Church obviously cannot claim the need for any such protection. Rather, it is Pussy Riot which can clearly claim the need for protection from the Russian Orthodox Church.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that legitimate and proper backlash against the meritless intrusion of backwards religious dogmatism into secular society creates an opportunity for racist hate speech when the meritless intrusion is committed by an oppressed minority is regrettable, but probably not avoidable. Unless you want to give oppressed minorities a blank check to engage in any or all antidemocratic behavior simply because they are an oppressed minority. Which is a bridge I am not quite prepared to cross.

Now we can discuss clitoris ablation for another 400 comments.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
what kind of laws were used to harrass the author

I have actually quoted the applicable law in the subthread.

I can't fathom what this video does with the feeling of Catholics

It mocks the Descent from the Cross, the Stigmata, the Holy Sepulchre and the Resurrection. Apart from proposing actually eating a Christ.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
Apart from proposing actually eating a Christ.

they got anticipated on that one...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:32:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have actually quoted the applicable law in the subthread.

Sigh. I'll try and find it in this jungle.

Apart from proposing actually eating a Christ.

Er, what is wrong with that?

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:44:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The same that is wrong with suggesting that the Communion is cannibalism (that would see you sued for blasphemy, or for offending believers, pretty quick).

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course, you personally as a Lutheran would not be offended by jokes about transubstantiation, so that makes them okay?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh. Apparently you did misunderstand what I wanted to express there, when I used those words: there are a few things that must be explained to me, because they are not my background. Catholic or Buddhist or Copimist rites and the related sensitivities for instance.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:27:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You also said in relation to the Christophagy that since as a Lutheran (again) you don't believe in the holiness of images you did not see what was so offensive about the video.

So it all appears to come down to whether you share the personal outrage.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:29:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And now I have clarified twice.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:51:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh. I'll try and find it in this jungle.

Hint: the Krahe case discussion starts in its own top-level comment, joking about taking a poll.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There was an American case a while back where a kid took one of the sanctified crackers out of the church to show it to a friend.

I don't remember whether the parish sued over this gross mistreatment of their holy cracker. But several parishioners did threaten to put the kid in a hospital.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:02:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why are we suddenly interested in American cases?
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:28:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because we're talking about thin-skinned, violently repressive religious bigotry.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:30:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because we're talking about thin-skinned, violently repressive religious bigotry deeply hurt religious feelings.

FIFY.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because we are talking about your proposal that "offend religious feelings" should be a criminal offense.

Examples of actions that hurt religious feelings, and therefore would be criminal under the standard you propose, are germane to the discussion.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 09:38:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh, the leaking pope? The cock-cross? Cooking a crucifix?

But of course since those campaigns of censorship were successful, you are now going to deny that they were motivated or successful based on religious bigotry.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The leaking pope is citing protection of his privacy, just as the leaking Jake could (being a VIP helps him, but that's not necessarily being a religious sort of VIP. Compare the photos of Merkel's naked arse, which were printed in Britain, but not in Germany.)

The cock-cross was blasphemy. We are in agreement there: scrap all blasphemy laws.

Cooking Christ: Possibly. I expect Mig will enlighten us what law that was. So possibly you can cite one single case in all of Europe, namely in Spain, which has not yet gotten rid of all ghosts of Franquism, and is perhaps not THAT representative for all Europe. And even that ended in an acquittal.

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 07:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The leaking pope is citing protection of his privacy,

Again: Claims of privacy protection can have no merit whatever when directed against satire of a public figure.

Further, the fact that this particular picture, and only this, was pulled, despite many similarly baseless challenges to the magazine, supports the contention that the Papacy gets special treatment. De facto if not de jure.

Compare the photos of Merkel's naked arse, which were printed in Britain, but not in Germany.)

But those are not comparable, because those photos involve Merkel's actual ass, not a satirical photoshop of Merkel mooning somebody.

The cock-cross was blasphemy. We are in agreement there: scrap all blasphemy laws.

What is the objective difference between Pussy Riot's video? (The video itself, leaving aside what they did in church, because that's not the point - the video would have been equally offensive if they had used stock footage and claimed to have filmed it in church, and lying about where you shot a picture is not in and of itself a crime.)

Cooking Christ: Possibly. I expect Mig will enlighten us what law that was. So possibly you can cite one single case in all of Europe, namely in Spain, which has not yet gotten rid of all ghosts of Franquism, and is perhaps not THAT representative for all Europe. And even that ended in an acquittal.

That it ended in acquittal does not matter. It was not summarily dismissed, the defendant was not awarded damages for the cost, wasted time and distress incurred, nor were the vexatious litigants slapped down hard enough to provide a reasonable deterrent against future frivolous lawsuits.

Considering that the Catholic Church is a transnational corporation with an annual profit comparable to the GDP of a small country, that outcome is not reassuring at all: The church can afford to sponsor such a lawsuit every day until the heat death of the universe and not even make a dent in their propaganda budget.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:36:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is back on their website right now.

Also the following cover:

by generic on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 05:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I expect Mig will enlighten us what law that was.

Two days ago, in response to a comment of yours. The plaintiffs were proud that it was the first time anyone was prosecuted under that article of Spanish law.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 08:43:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Personality rights do not prohibit political satire of public figures."

That is not true. public figures still do have personality rights, if somewhat limited.

by IM on Wed Sep 5th, 2012 at 03:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Political satire does not negate personal privacy; it just pushes the boundaries.

(I assume that privacy is what is meant when talking about "personality rights" - which sounds like a tradeable commodity, e.g. "You're not allowed to publish my photo in the newspaper, I've sold my personality rights to Fabergé")

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Sep 5th, 2012 at 04:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series