Blasphemy

[exchemist]

It is not laughable. It is what the act actually says.

No it's not what the law says. It's what the website you found says, this is section 4a of the public order act:

4AIntentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

Where does it's say 'directing it at a person'

Oh and here's a link to the Government CPS site if you think I'm lying

Public Order Act 1986

Like I said laughable

".....intent to cause a person......"

 

[exchemist]

Well I would certainly join you in discouraging and marginalizing racist or sexist speech. But to me it's a necessary evil, because the downsides of censorship are so much more dangerous.

There's no censorship implied in the legislation. A judge can quite easily discriminate between an argument and mere abuse or incitement to hatred. And don't forget it is the courts that determine guilt, not the government, so the government has no way to use it for censorship.

 

[Darkforbid]

It worried me a bit that a a site would provide incorrect legal info so I've checked

They got the information posted on their site from a charge sheet, not from reading the law

 

[icehorse]

There's no censorship implied in the legislation. A judge can quite easily discriminate between an argument and mere abuse or incitement to hatred. And don't forget it is the courts that determine guilt, not the government, so the government has no way to use it for censorship.

I'm extremely concerned about censorship, no matter who the censor is. The "government" or judges, censors are censors, IMO.

 

[Darkforbid]

".....intent to cause a person......"

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

a person what do you think it would say a car, a dog, cat

 

[exchemist]

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

a person what do you think it would say a car, a dog, cat

A person means a person. If it is abuse of an idea, a theory of science, a piece of music, or a religion (as opposed to its adherents), it is not abuse of a person.

 

[exchemist]

I'm extremely concerned about censorship, no matter who the censor is. The "government" or judges, censors are censors, IMO.

If you were a member of an unpopular religious, sexual or racial group, you would I think see that the law may need to outlaw certain speech if you are to enjoy equal rights as a citizen. If not, you can be persecuted indefinitely by bigoted or unpleasant people.

 

[icehorse]

If you were a member of an unpopular religious, sexual or racial group, you would I think see that the law may need to outlaw certain speech if you are to enjoy equal rights as a citizen. If not, you can be persecuted indefinitely by bigoted or unpleasant people.

first, we have to separate religion from the other two - religion is a choice. you can change your religion, you cannot change your race.

second, you will not eliminate bigotry by trying to stifle speech.

 

[Darkforbid]

A person means a person. If it is abuse of an idea, a theory of science, a piece of music, or a religion (as opposed to its adherents), it is not abuse of a person.

Post after post of rubbish. I should have realised you a comprehension problem when you accused me of saying 'all the post on this site break the law'

The law doesn't say 'the abuse of a person' it the 'intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress' I'll post the act again for you


4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

 

[exchemist]

first, we have to separate religion from the other two - religion is a choice. you can change your religion, you cannot change your race.

second, you will not eliminate bigotry by trying to stifle speech.

The aim is not eliminate bigotry. It is far more modest: to protect people from persecution.

And no, we do not have to separate religion from the other two: persecution on grounds of religion is just as unacceptable as any other form of persecution. You don't have to be a Jew or a Muslim to relate to this: any Scottish or Irish Catholic will understand it very well.

 

[exchemist]

Post after post of rubbish. I should have realised you a comprehension problem when you accused me of saying 'all the post on this site break the law'

The law doesn't say 'the abuse of a person' it the 'intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress' I'll post the act again for you


4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

"........with intent to cause a person....."

There is no reason for the first sentence to include the phrase "a person" if the law did not mean that. If you delete "a person" it makes perfect sense but is then more general.

There has to be intent towards a person.

 

[Darkforbid]

"........with intent to cause a person....."

There is no reason for the first sentence to include the phrase "a person" if the law did not mean that. If you delete "a person" it makes perfect sense but is then more general.

There has to be intent towards a person.

So how is posting something harassing , alarming or distressing not intent towards a person.

And before we go down the same 'it has to be directed at a specific person' road again the law also states 'thereby causing that or another person'

Bet you're popular in church

 

[exchemist]

So how is posting something harassing , alarming or distressing not intent towards a person.

And before we go down the same 'it has to be directed at a specific person' road again the law also states 'thereby causing that or another person'

Bet you're popular in church

It is possible to direct abusive words or behaviour towards entities that are not persons. If you do that it falls outside the scope of this law. I quite agree such an action could not be harassment, though perhaps it could be alarming or distressing to some people.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at with your throwaway remark about my popularity in church. Would you care to explain that?

 

[icehorse]

The aim is not eliminate bigotry. It is far more modest: to protect people from persecution.

And no, we do not have to separate religion from the other two: persecution on grounds of religion is just as unacceptable as any other form of persecution. You don't have to be a Jew or a Muslim to relate to this: any Scottish or Irish Catholic will understand it very well.

This thread is about blasphemy, not persecution. Blasphemy boils down to criticism of ideas, such criticism should not be censored.

 

[Darkforbid]

This thread is about blasphemy, not persecution. Blasphemy boils down to criticism of ideas, such criticism should not be censored.

Did you notice he pretend to be agreeing with me about something I never said

I quite agree such an action could not be harassment, though perhaps it could be alarming or distressing to some people.

 

[Tiberius]

Here in the UK the medieval blasphemy laws were eventually scrapped in 2008, far too late in the day, imo.

I think one should be permitted to say exactly what one likes about any god, especially as they are more than likely human creations.

Agreed. If God doesn't like me talking bad about him, he can come and stop me.

Besides, if your God is so weak that he needs to have laws to stop others from making fun of him, then he doesn't deserve to be worshipped.

 

[Tiberius]

WHY? Why say anything at all about any topic that you believe may be false?

Which is why anti-vaxxers are famously quiet about their views on vaccines, and why we never see any vegans proclaim that meat is murder...

 

[RESOLUTION]

It is for people to prove god exists as there is no verifiable evidence to substantiate it does. Its existence is no more credible than the existence of any fairy tale character like fairies, for instance.

IYO but the truth is that it is not for anyone to prove god exists. It is only pertinent that the person who believes have their personal proof. If you yourself cannot prove it to yourself then you have very little chance of proving there is no verifiable evidence or to substantiate your personal opinion. Which is really all you have.

 

[JJ50]

IYO but the truth is that it is not for anyone to prove god exists. It is only pertinent that the person who believes have their personal proof. If you yourself cannot prove it to yourself then you have very little chance of proving there is no verifiable evidence or to substantiate your personal opinion. Which is really all you have.

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled, but it is only an opinion, that is all.

 

[Notanumber]

What is free speech - and why does it matter?

Hate speech = Political Censorship.