Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?

[Godobeyer]

i heard in the news that some countries will goes to UN to establish new LAW , about ban provocation against all religions .

notice :
as i considerate "mock/insult/lie" as attack
against other beliefs ,it's not forcely mean it's prohibition the debate or discuss other religions .

please vote and describe your opinion " why you vote with or against "

for me :
i voted , with law of prohibition , because i found that some people use the freedom of speech, for me the freedom of speech was used by some people to encourage the hate and racism ....etc

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I saw that in the news.
Put me down for opposing UN regulation of speech.
I need to mock religions....especially those filthy Bokononists! (They're so smugly peaceful.)

 

[Breathe]

It'd make RF a hell of a less interesting place.

 

[Godobeyer]

It'd make RF a hell of a less interesting place.

it's not about debate , the laws in this RF don't allow insult or mock or lie about religions
which mean it's correspond the LAW

 

[Revoltingest]

it's not about debate , the laws in this RF don't allow insult or mock or lie about religions....

We sure seem to get away with it a lot.
I'd hate to see that change because of the prospect of blue jack boots kicking down my door.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Then how are we supposed to talk about the Jedi religion? Or the Breatharians?

 

[England my lionheart]

i heard in the news that some countries will goes to UN to establish new LAW , about ban provocation against all religions .

notice :
as i considerate "mock/insult/lie" as attack
against other beliefs ,it's not forcely mean it's prohibition the debate or discuss other religions .

please vote and describe your opinion " why you vote with or against "

for me :
i voted , with law of prohibition , because i found that some people use the freedom of speech, for me the freedom of speech was used by some people to encourage the hate and racism ....etc

I find it amusing that the UN would sanction such a law when some religious books threaten eternal torture to others of a different belief or non belief so i would oppose the UN,unless of course the offending parts of these books were removed too,it would have the benefit of making them pocket sized .

 

[Storm]

Religious and strongly opposed.

 

[robo]

i heard in the news that some countries will goes to UN to establish new LAW , about ban provocation against all religions .

notice :
as i considerate "mock/insult/lie" as attack
against other beliefs ,it's not forcely mean it's prohibition the debate or discuss other religions .

please vote and describe your opinion " why you vote with or against "

for me :
i voted , with law of prohibition , because i found that some people use the freedom of speech, for me the freedom of speech was used by some people to encourage the hate and racism ....etc

Hmm...There are certain religions out there that provoke people of other religions - for instance by saying that all people of other religions will be burned in eternal hellfire by the one true God. Will the UN ban cover such provocative books as well?

 

[robo]

I find it amusing that the UN would sanction such a law when some religious books threaten eternal torture to others of a different belief or non belief so i would oppose the UN,unless of course the offending parts of these books were removed too,it would have the benefit of making them pocket sized .

Ahh...I hadnt read this gem from Eml.

:bow:

 

[Alceste]

I would support a resolution against hate speech, but you'd have to include homosexuals. Somehow I don't think the religious members would go for that.

 

[Storm]

I would support a resolution against hate speech, but you'd have to include homosexuals. Somehow I don't think the religious members would go for that.

I'd need to see the technicalities of what qualified, myself.

And yeah, the whole issue of who can say what inevitably turns hypocritical.

I realize it's mostly cultural paradigm talking, but I think the US approach is ideal for once: it's illegal when it causes objective damages, be that lost wages or physical violence. "You hurt my feelings" need not apply.

 

[fallingblood]

I am religious and strongly oppose. We need to protect speech that we dislike, otherwise freedom of speech is meaningless (not that is to a certain extent, if the speech is actually damaging).

 

[Alceste]

I'd need to see the technicalities of what qualified, myself.

And yeah, the whole issue of who can say what inevitably turns hypocritical.

I realize it's mostly cultural paradigm talking, but I think the US approach is ideal for once: it's illegal when it causes objective damages, be that lost wages or physical violence. "You hurt my feelings" need not apply.

Yes, the Canadian hate speech laws are as far as I think any should go. They protect people of any religion, ethnicity, age, ability, gender or sexual orientation from speech directly advocating violence against them. I think that opens a can of worms when many of the countries calling for the law still execute homosexuals and apostates.

My opinion is that it's an outrageous demand: "it's OK for us to murder you for who you are, but you're not allowed to laugh at us for what we believe."

 

[Storm]

Yes, the Canadian hate speech laws are as far as I think any should go. They protect people of any religion, ethnicity, age, ability, gender or sexual orientation from speech directly advocating violence against them. I think that opens a can of worms when many of the countries calling for the law still execute homosexuals and apostates.

Totally on board with that.

My opinion is that it's an outrageous demand: "it's OK for us to murder you for who you are, but you're not allowed to laugh at us for what we believe."

Uh huh.

 

[Alceste]

I should point out that the UN would not be passing a "law". I think it would be a declaration of rights, which would then be ratified by any countries that wished to implement it, and each country who choose to ratify it would then draft their own legislation. There would be no enforcement except by individual states. It's more of a symbolic achievement than anything else, since western states would never ratify it. It does force the UN to take a stand on the issue, though, and I hope they choose wisely.

 

[McBell]

i heard in the news that some countries will goes to UN to establish new LAW , about ban provocation against all religions .

notice :
as i considerate "mock/insult/lie" as attack
against other beliefs ,it's not forcely mean it's prohibition the debate or discuss other religions .

please vote and describe your opinion " why you vote with or against "

for me :
i voted , with law of prohibition , because i found that some people use the freedom of speech, for me the freedom of speech was used by some people to encourage the hate and racism ....etc

This has got to be one of the most asinine laws ever thought up.

 

[McBell]

I should point out that the UN would not be passing a "law". I think it would be a declaration of rights, which would then be ratified by any countries that wished to implement it, and each country who choose to ratify it would then draft their own legislation. There would be no enforcement except by individual states. It's more of a symbolic achievement than anything else, since western states would never ratify it. It does force the UN to take a stand on the issue, though, and I hope they choose wisely.

One wonders how they propose to enforce said "you have the right to never be offended" law and what punishment(s) they think should be applied.

 

[McBell]

I would be interested in knowing who is pushing for this law and why they think there should be laws to protect their weak faith in their own beliefs.

 

[Breathe]

Can we have a link to a news site (or UN site) on this please?