Iceland Decriminalises Blasphemy - hooray!

[Augustus]

I hope other countries will follow this lead and make strong, positive declarations in defense of secularism!

Iceland decriminalises blasphemy after Charlie Hebdo attack - Yahoo News

Excellent! I've always thought that Thor was a right c*** but was afraid to tell anyone. Thunder causing, hammer throwing b******.

 

[icehorse]

There's a story in Nordic Lore, called Lokasenna (or The Flyting of Loki) where Loki crashes a great feast where all the Gods are attending, and just slanders all of them one by one, even as they rise to each others' defenses, until Thor throws him out. He even slandered Odin, his very Blood Brother.

One way that I read this is that Loki, as a Trickster God, oversees comedy and parody. In his jests, he revealed aspects of the Gods that none of them were willing to admit to each other, even though everything he said was probably true, at least to some degree. That is, after all, one of the functions of comedy that's any good: revealing uncomfortable truths that nobody's willing to address in any other way. Comedy that's not challenging to someone is mediocre, and thus poor comedy.

But another way to read this is that Loki deserved to be thrown out; after all, he basically broke ALL the taboos of guest conduct. (Even killing guards in order to get in). Even if the things he said were partially true, it's likely that he was exaggerating and leaving out key details. He came in and just caused unnecessary trouble for everyone there for no other reason than to troll. Trolling isn't necessary challenging of the status quo; it's just being a jerk for its own sake.

You don't get freedom of speech for nothing. If we have to put up with some trolling from time to time, it's a small price to pay.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, Luis was the only one to know that Sept 30 is Blasphemy Day.

 

[Riverwolf]

You don't get freedom of speech for nothing. If we have to put up with some trolling from time to time, it's a small price to pay.

Oh, of course.

Then again, freedom of speech doesn't, and can't, protect from all consequences; just the one consequence of being arrested (with reasonable exceptions such as yelling "fire" in a crowded building). It also doesn't protect people from enforcing their own private rules within their own private houses or businesses. A host for a private party has every right to throw out someone who's causing trouble with speech alone.

 

[icehorse]

Oh, of course.

Then again, freedom of speech doesn't, and can't, protect from all consequences; just the one consequence of being arrested (with reasonable exceptions such as yelling "fire" in a crowded building). It also doesn't protect people from enforcing their own private rules within their own private houses or businesses. A host for a private party has every right to throw out someone who's causing trouble with speech alone.

Agreed. But if we look at a couple of examples, we can see where freedom of speech is essential:

- recently with the Hebdo cartoons.
- a few years back with the Danish cartoons
- a few decades back, The Satanic Verses

What everyone knows is that these publications caused violent protests and death threats around the world - and that's bad enough.

What people might NOT know is that - at least in the last two cases - highly placed Christian clergy condemned the authors, not the violence. Popes and Bishops and Cardinals cried "blasphemy"!

What people also might not know is that in the case of the Danish cartoons, 99% of the world's so-called "free press" were too frightened to publish the cartoons. In other words, 99% of the world's "free press" was effectively blackmailed by religion.

Who is okay with this? Who is willing to let clergymen censor what you can read and hear?

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, Luis was the only one to know that Sept 30 is Blasphemy Day.

I guess our conspiracy of the blasphemous needs more publicity.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess our conspiracy of the blasphemous needs more publicity.

And we need to show the fun loving, warm fuzzy side of blasphemy!

 

[Riverwolf]

Agreed. But if we look at a couple of examples, we can see where freedom of speech is essential:

- recently with the Hebdo cartoons.
- a few years back with the Danish cartoons
- a few decades back, The Satanic Verses

What everyone knows is that these publications caused violent protests and death threats around the world - and that's bad enough.

What people might NOT know is that - at least in the last two cases - highly placed Christian clergy condemned the authors, not the violence. Popes and Bishops and Cardinals cried "blasphemy"!

What people also might not know is that in the case of the Danish cartoons, 99% of the world's so-called "free press" were too frightened to publish the cartoons. In other words, 99% of the world's "free press" was effectively blackmailed by religion.

Who is okay with this? Who is willing to let clergymen censor what you can read and hear?

I don't call that censorship, and I'm with internet critic MovieBob on those issues. They're not related to free speech as we understand it from the US's First Amendment; they have to do with being able to go to work without having to worry about getting killed for it.

Calling these acts of violence censorship and attacks on free speech is just using them as buzz words to rally support against them unnecessarily. It muddies what free speech and censorship actually are, and I suspect is a large contributor to the huge misunderstanding of what those are that's circulating the internet right now. I'd rather just stick with calling these acts of violence terrorism.

Now, if these acts cause governments to ban the types of publications that invited these attacks, then you have a free speech and censorship problem.

 

[icehorse]

I don't call that censorship, and I'm with internet critic MovieBob on those issues. They're not related to free speech as we understand it from the US's First Amendment; they have to do with being able to go to work without having to worry about getting killed for it.

Calling these acts of violence censorship and attacks on free speech is just using them as buzz words to rally support against them unnecessarily. It muddies what free speech and censorship actually are, and I suspect is a large contributor to the huge misunderstanding of what those are that's circulating the internet right now. I'd rather just stick with calling these acts of violence terrorism.

Now, if these acts cause governments to ban the types of publications that invited these attacks, then you have a free speech and censorship problem.

I wasn't referring to the violence as censorship. I was referring to the fact that religious folks from several Abrahamic religions publicly labeled the authors as blasphemic and did not decry the violence. Further, the media censored itself due to threats. So religious bullying and threats lead to censorship.

 

[Riverwolf]

I wasn't referring to the violence as censorship. I was referring to the fact that religious folks from several Abrahamic religions publicly labeled the authors as blasphemic and did not decry the violence. Further, the media censored itself due to threats. So religious bullying and threats lead to censorship.

Well, I don't consider such behavior to actually be "censorship" except in loose colloquial terms (and thus useless for free speech activism), but I thank you for your clarification.

Religious bullying and threats can lead to censorship, for sure. It's also definitely noteworthy that the most amount of focus on religious figures' reactions were on the ones that denounced the works in question but not the violence, though I wonder how much religious outcry against the violence rather than the works went unreported.

 

[icehorse]

Well, I don't consider such behavior to actually be "censorship" except in loose colloquial terms (and thus useless for free speech activism), but I thank you for your clarification.

Which behavior don't you consider to be censorship? I would say that most of the media was censored via threat of violence.

Religious bullying and threats can lead to censorship, for sure. It's also definitely noteworthy that the most amount of focus on religious figures' reactions were on the ones that denounced the works in question but not the violence, though I wonder how much religious outcry against the violence rather than the works went unreported.

No doubt many religious folks decried the violence. Who cares? The end result in these cases was that censorship occurred and that it was religiously inspired.

 

[morphesium]

I hope other countries will follow this lead and make strong, positive declarations in defense of secularism!
Iceland decriminalises blasphemy after Charlie Hebdo attack - Yahoo News
:Salute:The very notion of "blasphemy" deserves nothing more than mockery and derision, and it certainly should be totally and universally defanged in any legal way.

I Salute the lawmakers of Iceland for this.

 

[leibowde84]

Blasphemy falls in the same category as ridiculing and mocking emotions of people. I don't know what wisdom is, I would say that it should be part of social culture, not laws, whether or not people accept it. But certainly it should then also be allowed to not deal with blasphemers, to not have to be confronted with blasphemy. So blasphemy can be reason for being fired from a job, just as well as ridiculing people's emotions can be a reason to be fired.

You can be fired for both of these things still. It's called being "unprofessional in the workplace". But, blasphemy laws are a slap in the face to our ability to express our thoughts and criticisms. Freedom means taking the bad with the good. It always comes at a cost.

 

[Nakosis]

I hope other countries will follow this lead and make strong, positive declarations in defense of secularism!

Iceland decriminalises blasphemy after Charlie Hebdo attack - Yahoo News

The very notion of "blasphemy" deserves nothing more than mockery and derision, and it certainly should be totally and universally defanged in any legal way.

Don't we call that a "Hate Crime" in the US?

1. "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[leibowde84]

Don't we call that a "Hate Crime" in the US?

1. "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, not the same. A "hate crime" has to start with a "crime" that is determined to be motivated by "hate". Blasphemy is just words spoken, so unless blasphemy is illegal, there is no crime. So, blasphemy would not be a "hate crime" unless blasphemy is illegal.

 

[Nakosis]

No, not the same. A "hate crime" has to start with a "crime" that is determined to be motivated by "hate". Blasphemy is just words spoken, so unless blasphemy is illegal, there is no crime. So, blasphemy would not be a "hate crime" unless blasphemy is illegal.

Sorry, I really meant to refer to the mocking of religions. Blasphemy is not necessarily mocking. I should have responded to a different post.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry, I really meant to refer to the mocking of religions. Blasphemy is not necessarily mocking. I should have responded to a different post.

Mocking a religion is not a "hate crime" either, as it is protected by the 1st amendment. The State cannot arrest/punish anyone for mocking another's religion. Imho, this is an essential aspect of this protection. Religion SHOULD NOT be granted special protection, as that would violate the establishment clause (endorsing theism). We CANNOT give into the terrorists, giving away our freedoms one by one. People need to learn to deal with the FACT that jerks who want to offend them will always exist, and it is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore or meet this mockery with more mockery.

 

[Nakosis]

Mocking a religion is not a "hate crime" either, as it is protected by the 1st amendment. The State cannot arrest/punish anyone for mocking another's religion. Imho, this is an essential aspect of this protection. Religion SHOULD NOT be granted special protection, as that would violate the establishment clause (endorsing theism). We CANNOT give into the terrorists, giving away our freedoms one by one. People need to learn to deal with the FACT that jerks who want to offend them will always exist, and it is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore or meet this mockery with more mockery.

So should we be allowed to mock folks because of their sexual preference or race or gender?

 

[Riverwolf]

Which behavior don't you consider to be censorship? I would say that most of the media was censored via threat of violence.

No doubt many religious folks decried the violence. Who cares? The end result in these cases was that censorship occurred and that it was religiously inspired.

I don't consider privately-organized media outlets not allowing certain things published in their name "censorship".

Otherwise, the media has been censoring itself ever since it existed.

 

[icehorse]

So should we be allowed to mock folks because of their sexual preference or race or gender?

From a moral and ethical perspective, the key distinction is whether you're mocking a person or an idea. It's morally reprehensible to mock a person or their sexual preference or their race or gender.

On the other hand, religion is an idea. It's a choice. One can choose to no longer be a Christian or a Hindu. It is morally acceptable to criticize ideas. Some ideas are just bad ideas.