Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Blasphemy and Free Speech  (Read 27649 times)

Blasphemy and Free Speech

All societies have some rules about behaviour, often coupled to religion or custom. Even when dealing with members of one's own culture we sometimes struggle to avoid offence and conflicts but even more so if we live in a multicultural society.

In some countries, blasphemy is illegal, in others not. In the latter case, laws against blasphemy are substituted by laws against "hateful speech" or "incitement". But those laws merely transpose the underlying dilemma because such terms as "hateful speech" or "incitement" are themselves culture-driven, and vary, even from person to person, let alone between, say, different religions or countries.

We can avoid all these "problems" by avoiding communication with everyone, but that's not a viable solution so we have invented this concept of Free Speech and hope the problem will go away.

So are there limits? How do we recognise them?

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #1 –
Blasphemy and slander are by far clearer concepts than hateful speech. As to incitement, I thought it sounded weird and by looking it up, sure enough "Incitement was an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It was an inchoate offence. It consisted of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement So, incitement is a serious form of complicity.

Free speech is a curious phenomenon. I suppose it was invented because free thinking (which was the incipient form of free speech) was not so easily regulated. Free speech can be heard in audio and seen in print, so it's more clearly a social phenomenon and can thus be regulated.

But I'm quite positive that ultimately only free thinking matters. I grew up in the Soviet Union, the country known for its suppression of free speech. However, the level of free thinking was notable. People were able to read between the lines, encrypt and unencrypt messages, think before they acted etc. This is all for the best, right? Now we have free speech, everybody can say pretty much what they want, and there's so much said and written that nobody has time to digest it. Consequently, nobody can tell a serious statement from an unserious one and good ideas are not heard. Free thinking suffers under free speech.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #2 –
All speech or expression of idea should be considered soundly protected as free speech until such expression &/or statements are proven to cause serious criminal harm to another, or others, in a manner totally unacceptable by society because it is proven to cause serious criminal harm, & that such harm is subject to penalty via existing law.

What is said or expressed via any medium may be repugnant, unpopular, & despised by the general public, but unless it causes serious criminal harm to society as a whole, those statements & expressions must be permitted in any free & open society, & also protected by law in order to protect those making the statements or expressions in question.

Blasphemy, in a free & open society, should be considered no better or worse than any other statement or expression.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #4 –
So can a lot of politically correct rubbish, but both would (& should) be protected as Freedom of Speech irregardless of our likes or dislikes.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #5 –
I don't agree that blasphemy is easier to understand/identify that hateful speech. On the context of a multicultural exchange it's quite easy to make hateful remarks but one would not necessarily know what was blasphemous and what wasn't.

I'm all for free speech and very much against politically correct registration. But there are fuzzy boundaries around what we"can" say or write. In practice I imagine that most of those limits are self-generated from, say,a sense of politeness (a sort of self enforced PC!), but some are external such as the laws of libel and when a court case is in progress. The latter is interesting and difficult to avoid when a nice juicy court case is in progress with lots to talk about. In the UK just recently, the Prime Minister was publicly chastised for commenting when a court case was in progress due to the possibility of his remarks affecting the outcome.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #6 –
Quote from: string on
I don't agree that blasphemy is easier to understand/identify that hateful speech. On the context of a multicultural exchange it's quite easy to make hateful remarks but one would not necessarily know what was blasphemous and what wasn't.

This is how it sounds to me: Blasphemy and slander are insults or lies against some authority or normality in the society, while hateful speech is just an insult without the distinction.

Why would someone's slur of insults matter against something non-existent or against something irrelevant regarding a culture? There would be no point in regulating such insults, even though the insults may be seriously intended as insults. The regulation only matters when the target of the insults or lies matters in the society.

Then there are unintended insults. When someone gets offended due to your ignorance, the offence is (usually) pardonable or mitigated, because it was unintentional. An unintentional insult is neither hateful nor blasphemy nor slander in the proper sense.

Hateful speech only seems to look at the intention and doesn't distinguish the target. This is why hateful speech has more Orwellian qualities as a legal concept and poses a serious threat to free speech, while the concepts of blasphemy and slander are more free from problems. Of course, finally it matters what the law actually says. Words may shift in meaning.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #7 –
Regardless, whether there be a basis in fact or not, speech that is distasteful or insulting, should have no bearing on whether the speaker can or can't exercise it's use under the auspices of freedom of speech protection.

Under the protection of freedom of speech, I could insult anyone I so please, as long as the insults I hurl could not be construed as being directly insightful of physical harm by others upon the individual or individuals I insult.

The same goes for hate speech, which has no actual basis in law & was borne solely out of Political Correctness, that unless the speech was directly attributable to insighting physical violence by others upon the object of the hate speech, such speech should be rightfully protected by freedom of speech in a free & open society.

Never at any cost, within a free & open society, should Political Correctness ever be allowed to trump free speech in any way, manner, or form.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #8 –
Quote from: string on

I don't agree that blasphemy is easier to understand/identify that hateful speech. On the context of a multicultural exchange it's quite easy to make hateful remarks but one would not necessarily know what was blasphemous and what wasn't.

Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #9 –
On the Blasphemy thing,, Mac, yes it is very squishy, very cultural dependent and very individual. Some people actually think singing is blasphemous, others that wearing funny clothes ....Well one could go on, and on, and on, and on and still not absorb all the daft stuff that is out there.

But I'd not want to spoil someone's Christmas by setting up an advertising boarding within the Vatican insisting there is no God but Santa Claus, not would I care to stand on the centre of Mecca mouthing off about the shortcomings of some prophet or other. Such adventures can spoil your whole day. Avoiding that bad hair day is not about preventing free speech, outs about survival.

SF you seem to limit your definition of hateful speech to having been proven to cause physical harm.  However non-physical harm can be very damaging to an individual. In a court of law one is required to tell the truth, why should that not extend, by convention, to every day life. Also why wait till someone is killed before deciding that inciting someone to kill him is wrong?

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #10 –
Quote from: string on

But I'd not want to spoil someone's Christmas by setting up an advertising boarding within the Vatican insisting there is no God but Santa Claus, not would I care to stand on the centre of Mecca mouthing off about the shortcomings of some prophet or other. Such adventures can spoil your whole day. Avoiding that bad hair day is not about preventing free speech, outs about survival.

Of course not, you're not an asshole.
But then again, this isn't the Vatican or Mecca and people who come here to preach to the choir and not to have their feelings hurt by the existence of dissent didn't understand what this forum is for.

Quote from: string on

SF you seem to limit your definition of hateful speech to having been proven to cause physical harm.  However non-physical harm can be very damaging to an individual. In a court of law one is required to tell the truth, why should that not extend, by convention, to every day life. Also why wait till someone is killed before deciding that inciting someone to kill him is wrong?

In this case I agree with the rules at the old place - if you feel the need to post personal attacks you need to step away from the keyboard and calm the hell down. If you can't do that some moderator may help you out with a timed ban ( after warnings etc. etc. ).

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Macallan on

Of course not, you're not an asshole.
But then again, this isn't the Vatican or Mecca and people who come here to preach to the choir and not to have their feelings hurt by the existence of dissent didn't understand what this forum is for.
Not an Asshole? I must try harder.

Actually the oddities we got in D&D gave us a lot of fun. I hope we get some here too. Katsung - all is forgiven!

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Macallan on
Quote from: String
SF you seem to limit your definition of hateful speech to having been proven to cause physical harm.  However non-physical harm can be very damaging to an individual. In a court of law one is required to tell the truth, why should that not extend, by convention, to every day life. Also why wait till someone is killed before deciding that inciting someone to kill him is wrong?

In this case I agree with the rules at the old place - if you feel the need to post personal attacks you need to step away from the keyboard and calm the hell down. If you can't do that some moderator may help you out with a timed ban ( after warnings etc. etc. ).


Ok.....this is a whole new 'kettle of fish'.....The Freedom of Speech, the protected right I enjoy as an American via the First Amendment to the US Constitution in my daily real life, & the Freedom of Speech as relative to forums ---- this forum. 

Two, distinctly different animals so to speak.

When speaking of the latter, I personally agree 100%......as String might put it, out of 'survival'. Forum survival, unless I really get pissed off (which has never happened) where I would gladly toss in any membership to a 'forum' if principals were truly in the balance.

That said, I stand by my original statement(s) when dealing with the former.

I will defend, to the death, my 'real world' Freedom of Speech just as vigorously (maybe even more-so) as I would my Right to Own & Bear Arms, & just about any/all of the other "Bill of Rights" Freedoms (the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution).

JFYI...... 'To the death' is not a statement of bravado. No, it's something I am totally prepared to back up with personal action ----- that is at last resort, if push should ever come to shove.  Anyone that truly knows me, knows that on this I never make light.

In the past, I have defended my rights to the eternal detriment of those that opposed me. 

In the future I would hope & appreciate, that the parameters of discussion would be clearly defined, as is obviously absent in this particular thread, that here we are only speaking of activity in these (or other) forums, & not of the 'real world'.


Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #13 –
I'm going to break my own self-imposed ban about replying-- or even opening-- threads that have a religious character because this one has to do with "free speech" and Smiley brings up an important-- but often misunderstood-- point.

True, the First Amendment does grant-- or maybe the word is protect-- the right of "free speech". Actually, it protects the freedom of the press, but leave that for the moment or we'll never stop.

That "freedom" is not an absolute however. It doesn't give me the right to call other users here bad names without consequences, for example. That freedom really extends to the person who owns the press, not necessarily to the guy who writes an angry letter to the editor. So, if I have a bad falling out with Macallan (for example) and decide to say on open forum exactly what I think of him and his ancestors, I can expect that somebody is going to step in and do something about it, up to and including banning-- whether temporary or permanent depending on the situation. My right of free speech has very definite limits and if I trespass those limits I will suffer the results of my actions.

I'm not even really sure to what extent the American constitution pulls any weight here anyway because this server is not on American soil as far as I know, and trying to insist on "rights" while in somebody else's house never seems to come to a good end.

Blasphemy-- well, that's something else. There, you're trampling on someone's religious beliefs and it becomes important where you do it. Some parts of this world still have stoning to death as a punishment, so I would think twice before saying anything while in one of those parts of the world. Here in the States-- it seems that belief in God is fair game and you can say anything against anybody's god-- and probably be celebrated for your brave stance against superstitions. Different parts of the world have different ways of dealing with blasphemy, pay attention to where you are physically before shooting off your bazoo against your fellow man's beliefs.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #14 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
I'm not even really sure to what extent the American constitution pulls any weight here anyway because this server is not on American soil as far as I know, and trying to insist on "rights" while in somebody else's house never seems to come to a good end.

The Dutch constitution, it's implementation details, and European rules on the matter of freedom of expression are obviously the only ones directly relevant to this forum. As a rule of thumb, article 7 of the Dutch constitution grants roughly the same rights as the first amendment of the US constitution.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #15 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze
When speaking of the latter (about free speech in the forums), I personally agree 99.99947%......as String might put it, out of 'survival'. Forum survival..........


I think that should put it into prospective Mike

When I speak/comment, I speak & comment out of personal experience, of which there might be a few subjects that I am fervent about. 

That may cloud issues for others of different cultures & levels of experience, those who I've never conversed with, but rest assured I know the difference in both subject matter, & matters somewhat unique to my homeland.

Sometimes paths might cross, for contrary to some opinion, I am simply human ----

American first yes, but I can always err as a human nevertheless.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #16 –
Blasphemy is proper of irrelevant people. Being a strict religious concept, none of erudite religions refers to it these days.
It's certainly at the level of atheists and agnostics.

Free speech has nothing to do with "blasphemy" .
A matter of attitude.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #18 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on

True, the First Amendment does grant-- or maybe the word is protect-- the right of "free speech". Actually, it protects the freedom of the press, but leave that for the moment or we'll never stop.

Actually it keeps the government ( and until the 14th amendment only the federal government ) from interfering. It does not prevent me from censoring your letter to my newspaper.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on

I'm not even really sure to what extent the American constitution pulls any weight here anyway because this server is not on American soil as far as I know, and trying to insist on "rights" while in somebody else's house never seems to come to a good end.

Probably the most misunderstood point of US law. 'Free speech' does not give me the right to preach on your front porch, nor does it force anyone to listen or prevent anyone from telling me to shut the hell up. It prevents the government from telling me what I can or can not say, within certain limits.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Macallan on
It prevents the government from telling me what I can or can not say.........


Correct.

That was the obvious purpose of the Founding Fathers regarding the "Bill of Rights", which they inseverablely incorporated into the US Constitution as it's first 10 Amendments --- Protecting American Citizens from abusive government rule.

That said, free speech between private individuals begins at the speakers lips, & ends at the listener's ears  --  so to speak.   

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Macallan on
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.

If you pick the wrong religion, say, radical Islam, you're likely to find out quickly. :'(

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #21 –
I agree with the distinction between the "Real World" and such things as forums, although the boundary is a little blurred. For example I guess most would temper their language to the less explicit swear words if Granny was around rather than exercising their freedom of speech for all to hear. The same is true in a bible-reading session a forum or a kindergarten. One is there reacting to self control rather than government control of course, even in a club or a forum where the administration might be thought of as having some form of authority role. It's arguable whether Granny, like forums, are in the "Real World" but in either case judgement on these things are often subjective. It's only when laws are defined to the last specific detail with penalties attached that they become important. That's where Governments can interfere too much. One could argue that an individual's decision not to say something is, in fact, a form of free speech in that it remains a personal decision on what to say and what not to say, uncoerced by overwhelming penalties.

Nevertheless there remain some issues which are quite legitimately  and widely accepted as being limitations to free speech. I mentioned some before but no-one picked me up on that as far as I can see, They are libel and commenting during the conduct of a trial where both can result in harm to someone who does not deserve it; not necessarily physical harm but harm nonetheless.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Quote from: Macallan on
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.

If you pick the wrong religion, say, radical Islam, you're likely to find out quickly. :'(

They can wail & gnash their teeth to their little hearts' content.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #23 –
Quote from: string on

For example I guess most would temper their language to the less explicit swear words if Granny was around rather than exercising their freedom of speech for all to hear. The same is true in a bible-reading session a forum or a kindergarten.

Well, this is neither Granny's living room nor a bible study group. What good would a debates & discussions forum be if everyone had to make sure not to (possibly) hurt anyone else's feelings?

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #24 –
Quote from: Macallan on

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Quote from: Macallan on
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.

If you pick the wrong religion, say, radical Islam, you're likely to find out quickly. :'(

They can wail & gnash their teeth to their little hearts' content.


Unless you're physically in a radical Islamic state when you make the blasphemous statement. Then, you could have a problem. Wailing and gnashing of teeth while selecting stones to throw--- uh--- it was nice knowing you--.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!