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

[Quintessence]

Need more information. I abstain from voting due to ignorance. As with Odion, I want a reference for this first.

That said, hate speech is a valid concern and a real danger.

 

[Kerr]

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 voted no because such laws has some rather nasty implications. For example, would the movie Team America World Police be illegal under such a law?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/
[youtube]RPBX47zSktc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc
Some people could theoretically find it offensive because some of the bad guys are stereotypical Muslim terrorists that are evil for no reason. But the movie is not a parody on Muslims, its a parody on American action movies and as such, it takes what they tend do and blows it out of proportion. Like having Muslim terrorists who are evil for no reason. Or having the good guys accidently blow up the eiffel tower when trying to shoot an evil Muslim terrorist with an RPG and miss.
[youtube]HIPljGWGNt4[/youtube]
Team America: World Police (1/10) Movie CLIP - Team America Intro (2004) HD - YouTube

 

[Alceste]

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.

In Canada, it isn't based on "somebody taking offense". It's based on reading the material to determine whether it advocates violence and hatred toward any group on the basis of religion, ethnicity, gender, ability, age or sexual orientation. The decision as to whether the material qualifies as hate speech is left to a court, and the remedy (rarely applied) is usually a fine.

 

[Kerr]

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 could agree to that.

 

[Alceste]

A bit more info here. If you can wade through a heavy helping of opinion there are a couple of facts to be learned.
A war is raging against free speech - CNN.com

 

[RisingKnowledge]

Such a dumb law.

 

[horizon]

If people are unable to be decent to one another, even when they disagree on something, then maybe a law is necessary. It certainly seems like a lot of people aren’t able to make that decision on their own.

 

[Storm]

If people are unable to be decent to one another, even when they disagree on something, then maybe a law is necessary. It certainly seems like a lot of people aren’t able to make that decision on their own.

Disagree. I mean, it's an appealing idea if you don't think too hard on how it would work, but laws are by necessity arbitrary. You simply can't craft a practicable law that ensures nobody's feelings ever get hurt.

 

[horizon]

Disagree. I mean, it's an appealing idea if you don't think too hard on how it would work, but laws are by necessity arbitrary. You simply can't craft a practicable law that ensures nobody's feelings ever get hurt.

Being decent doesn’t have a lot to do with never hurting someone’s feelings, it does however have a lot to do with not engaging in deliberate provocative actions designed to tear someone down.

 

[Storm]

Being decent doesn’t have a lot to do with never hurting someone’s feelings, it does however have a lot to do with not engaging in deliberate provocative actions designed to tear someone down.

I agree with the above quote. I disagree that this can be translated into an effective legal system. If you think it can, please address the post upthread regarding the example of Team America: World Police.

My point is not that hurling bigoted insults at anyone is acceptable social behavior. My point is that the application of law is functionally limited to more concrete examples of harm.

 

[Caladan]

If the Islamic bloc wishes to establish international blasphemy laws, even on societies with different standards and values than their own, then they need to compromise and open up on other values.
For example, just like Islamic societies and bodies believe that their dogma should be protected by law, then they should accept our values as well. For example protection of homosexuals, of women, and of minorities.
If religion is to be regarded as above condemnation. Then homosexuality should be internationally accepted and homosexuals protected. No more condemnation or persecution of homosexuals.
If satires about Islam are ever to be banned, then films which demonize Jews through out the Muslim world should be banned as well.
In short, there should be a really good reason to protect religions or cultures which often persecute others.

 

[Rakhel]

Here is the UN press release
Foreign Ministers Urge Member States to Take Charge of Efforts Aimed at Strengthening Multilateral System as General Debate Continues

 

[horizon]

My point is that the application of law is functionally limited to more concrete examples of harm.

I don’t know what a good legal solution would be but continuing to allow the equivalent of going into a crowded space and yelling fire just to see what happens isn’t working either.

 

[Storm]

I don’t know what a good legal solution would be but continuing to allow the equivalent of going into a crowded space and yelling fire just to see what happens isn’t working either.

Now, that would be one of the more concrete examples I was talking about.

We don't need anti-blasphemy laws to prosecute incitement of violence.

 

[Alceste]

Now, that would be one of the more concrete examples I was talking about.

We don't need anti-blasphemy laws to prosecute incitement of violence.

That's why I generally support legislation against explicit hate speech, but not anti-blasphemy laws. Religion should not receive any special treatment.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm vehemently against legal regulation of speech that does not cause direct harm, because such regulation is too easy to misuse by claiming something as "offensive" when it's not meant to be at all.

 

[Alceste]

I'm vehemently against legal regulation of speech that does not cause direct harm, because such regulation is too easy to misuse by claiming something as "offensive" when it's not meant to be at all.

It's not that easy to misuse. We have hate speech laws in Canada, and they have no impact at all on our freedom of expression. Maybe because we're polite to begin with. It's so rare that somebody actually wants to disseminate Nazi literature calling for the extermination of the Jews (for example) that our hate speech laws are almost never even tested.

 

[Riverwolf]

It's not that easy to misuse. We have hate speech laws in Canada, and they have no impact at all on our freedom of expression. Maybe because we're polite to begin with. It's so rare that somebody actually wants to disseminate Nazi literature calling for the extermination of the Jews (for example) that our hate speech laws are almost never even tested.

Individual organizations also have hate speech policies here in the States, but the problem is that hate speech is not necessarily what's being regulated, here. What seems to be happening is that anyone who feels like they have been religiously insulted can now take legal action against the "offender", even when there was never offense intended.

When Jesus Christ Superstar was in theaters, I know of at least two instances of theater bombings by extremist groups who were offended by the film. Under legal regulation of "religiously offensive" expression, the entire musical could have been banned because of these groups.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Yer darned toot'n!
Some say we need them to prevent hateful & offensive speech, but the violent responses appear to be against those who commit relatively minor transgressions.
Others say that such laws would be no problem because the ones already on the books here & there are rarely enforced. If either case, we don't need them.
Some might trust Obama's government to enforce them judiciously. (Although he does seek to squelch whistle blowers & there is his pursuit of Julian Assange.)
But will you feel the same if Romney wins? What if Santorum or Bachman win some day? It looks like a bad idea to enact laws with great potential for abuse by
the tyrannical just to keep some violent Muslims in other countries from rioting. If we really want to stop the rioting, just threaten to stop the foreign aid...
..their government will see to it pronto!

 

[Alceste]

Individual organizations also have hate speech policies here in the States, but the problem is that hate speech is not necessarily what's being regulated, here. What seems to be happening is that anyone who feels like they have been religiously insulted can now take legal action against the "offender", even when there was never offense intended.

When Jesus Christ Superstar was in theaters, I know of at least two instances of theater bombings by extremist groups who were offended by the film. Under legal regulation of "religiously offensive" expression, the entire musical could have been banned because of these groups.

They can't take legal action, though, in western countries with hate speech laws. Islamic states are simply trying to make their domestic blasphemy laws universal, but of course they will not succeed. Elevating religion to an exalted status beyond criticism or satire is not what our hate speech laws are designed to do. They are a mild disincentive to publishing literature advocating violence, murder or genocide against any particular group. Considering many of the existing laws in the Islamic world would qualify as hate speech in Western countries (ie. the death penalty for homosexuals, apostates and loose women), I think it very unlikely we will find any common ground any time soon.

Universality is a common theme for declarations of rights passed by the UN. It can never be acceptable for ONLY religious people to benefit from a certain initiative.

It's a can of worms, anyway. If they succeed it's only a matter of time before the United Church of Loose Women gains a foothold in their own countries, and benefits from this same initiative. I will be their pope!