Skip to main content
Topic: Blasphemy and Free Speech  (Read 27543 times)

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #50
Here's an example where Free Speech and Blasphemy have collided.
Blasphemy case: Briton in Pakistan sentenced to death

Based on the report Pakistan isn't a country that honors the notion of free speech. The sad aspect of the case in Pakistan is that it is tied to the death penalty.

The death penalty exists in a number of US states, but not for blasphemy.
Quote
A Mexican citizen has been executed in Texas for killing a Houston police officer despite pleas and diplomatic pressure from Mexico’s government and the U.S. State Department to halt the punishment.


As of 2003 the following was still law in the state of Maryland.
Quote
If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #51

Quote
A Mexican citizen has been executed in Texas for killing a Houston police officer despite pleas and diplomatic pressure from Mexico’s government and the U.S. State Department to halt the punishment.


The problem wasn't that anyone thought he's innocent but that he's a mexican citizen and the mexican authorities haven't been informed in time so he didn't get consular counsel. In other words, procedures weren't followed.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #52
                                                             


Quote
The problem wasn't that anyone thought he's innocent but that he's a mexican citizen and the mexican authorities haven't been informed in time so he didn't get consular counsel. In other words, procedures weren't followed.


Ten years not enough time?

Somebody dropped the ball somewhere.

Well, IMHO, in the end justice was served long overdue.

Not for killin' a cop, but for being an Illegal who killed an American Citizen in America.

Otherwise, to an extent I'm against the death penalty .................

I'm all for the 1930's style of penal institution that featured 'chain gang' slop on the plate, hard labor for life for convicted murderers & child molesters/rapists.

                                          

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #53
[glow=black,2,300]Now, back on Topic...........[/glow]

Majority of US college campuses becoming [glow=black,2,300]‘no-free-speech’[/glow]  zones.[/i][/size]

Quote from: A Recent News Article here   http://tinyurl.com/jwqeey2
Despite the explicit protections of the First Amendment, a majority of US institutions of higher learning enforce rules that severely restrict free speech on campus, according to a new study.

According to a report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), 59 percent of US colleges and universities received a ‘red light’, meaning that the schools endorse policies that the watchdog group says impede on First Amendment rights.

A red-light institution, according to FIRE, is one that has “at least one policy both clearly and substantially restricting freedom of speech, or barring public access to its speech-related policies by requiring a university log-in and password for access.”

Out of 427 schools surveyed in the report, about one out of every six enforced “free speech zone” policies – legislation that limits student protests and other “expressive activities” to small and isolated parts of campus..................continued


How the Progressive Left's  'Institutions of Propaganda & Brainwashing', both publicly funded & privately funded, have started to decay, rather than improve & enlighten the easily influenced minds of the young.

What do you think?

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #54
Let's make sure to use a state-run, government funded Russian ragsheet to criticize US colleges, which typically are bastions of free-speech. I have to agree with none other than Glenn Beck himself. It's the new Pravda. It's a shame you lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the irony. 

Colleges and universities  typically have no political leanings at all, but when they do it's just as likely to be conservative as liberal (if not more so, with all the religiously affiliated campuses and such)

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #55
Also, just because something's in the first amendment doesn't mean it's about free speech, and a university campus is probably some kind of privately owned public space.  Should the same rules apply to privately owned public spaces as they do to public spaces? I don't know, probably, but I imagine it means the first amendment is quite unaffected by whatever goes on in one of them.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #56
I tend to think the First Amendment applies to public universities, although private ones are free to make their own rules. The article itself seems to be reaching for things to complain about. "Longwood University in Virginia limits speeches, demonstrations and literature distribution to one location, and requires the area to be reserved five days in advance. " Yes, you do normally need to reserve a public space in advance to avoid scheduling conflicts and such :p

I checked out that FIRE site mentioned in the article, and it didn't seem to know my university exists, despite being one the largest and THE fastest growing in the state and officially recognized as a center for excellent in both creative arts and biology and being around since 1927. I searched by name, and then by state

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #57
Around here almost all universities are public, although I don't know how precisely that affects freedom of assembly and protest, but for better or worse, in the US there are rather a lot of private institutions of higher education.

Anyway, not to say movements to curtail freedoms aren't relevant, but what we're talking about here tends to be about university administrations trying to take away freedoms we've only had for a few decades or so, if even that long. Or quite possibly we're not even talking about taking away anything at all, but simply about challenging the status quo. The fact that I don't have a clue says a lot about the article. The fact that it's funded by the Russian feds somehow doesn't inspire the relative amount of confidence I have in the likes of the NOS, VRT, ARD/ZDF, BBC, and NPR.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #58
Here's a little twist. I was able to locate the original FIRE report. In the report, the organization notes the percentage of campuses practising what they consider censorship actually fell quite a bit.

They note the 59% figure mentioned above but also:

Quote
This represents a nearly 17-point decline in red light schools from six years ago (PDF), when policies at 75% of schools seriously restricted student speech.


and further:

Quote
“We are heartened to see another drop in the percentage of campuses maintaining restrictive speech codes,” FIRE’s Director of Policy Research Samantha Harris said. “There is much more work to be done, however, particularly in light of the confusing messages coming from the federal government about the relationship between harassment and free speech. 
Note the word "another."

The full report can be found here . Obviously feel free to peruse it. I personally found the interface annoying because it seems to change based on user's behaviour and I thought you could click on the table of contents to get to certain section but instead it only magnifies the document. :p

I still question if some of the polices really constitute censorship, such having the reserve a space to hold your rally. That's obviously note saying you can't hold it, just that somebody needs the space during that time period, so another time slot is available. They also complain about harassment and  anti-bullying policies. The First Amendment is about having the ability to offer criticism to the administration and far less about a bully's ability to harass somebody based on race, sex, gender identification, sexual orientation , or even the stereotypical jocks vs geeks/nerds situation. Now it is possible for some of the regulations to go overboard and need correction, however the recent tendency of the Right to excuse such behaviour under the First Amendment makes a mockery the Founding Fathers intent.

Finally, Smiley, Berkely 1968 has been over for a while. Today's colleges are primarily institutions to learn a profession or trade, in face increasing so with a large numbers of older people going back to school and hardly "'Institutions of Propaganda & Brainwashing." We'll be waiting for you here in the 21st century if you ever get here. The trouble with bombastic statements like that is that even a whole lot of basically conservative people know better than that now.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #59
"genuine harassment"
Why does that make me think of legitimate rape? :right:

Anyway, this report is horrible. Couldn't they just have made a PDF file available? I can't be bothered to suffer through this interface.

Quote
This represents a nearly 17-point decline in red light schools from six years ago (PDF), when policies at 75% of schools seriously restricted student speech.

So from the report's point of view the situation has actually improved. So much for the disappearing freedoms spin.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #60
Couldn't they just have made a PDF file available?

Because more people would read it closely and find serious flaws in the methodology? Anyway, I wasn't surprised to see psuedo-conservatives nodding  like bobble-headed dolls on various forums including RT itself that their freedoms supposedly are disappearing. That's a problem with today's "conservative" movement, too quick to claim their freedoms are disappearing without checking the facts. Again, 30 seconds and Google could save them a whole lot of embarrassment.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #61

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?


I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #62

I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.

What if it's the court itself limiting free speech? Where will you take their arse?


Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #64



I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.

What if it's the court itself limiting free speech? Where will you take their arse?


Outside for a whipping, of course. :P


And if an ass woopin' don't get the message across, then as a last resort there's always armed insurrection to permanently eradicate their tyrannical asses.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #65
I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.

Well certainly. The thing is, you're more likely to find censorship from private organisations (even though the above examples of censorship from universities are still very poor.) This will take the form of your letters to the editor being "edited" , statement to the press taken out of context, certain words and discussions being prohibited in the workplace, etc.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #66
I don't understand this thread, blasphemy in Portuguese means an expression against what is sacred.
Joining together blasphemy and free speech doesn't make any sense.
Neither subsequent  posts do.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #67
......blasphemy in Portuguese means an expression against what is sacred. Joining together blasphemy and free speech doesn't make any sense.


Really ......



                                                                                                                             ................................... Nothing is sacred.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #68
If I curse something or someone I consider holy or sacred, I will have blasphemed,
If I curse something or someone that another person considers holy or sacred, I will have  needlessly and childishly been offensive.
I don't see where the concept of free speech comes into it either way.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #69

If I curse something or someone I consider holy or sacred, I will have blasphemed,
If I curse something or someone that another person considers holy or sacred, I will have  needlessly and childishly been offensive.
I don't see where the concept of free speech comes into it either way.


Your blasphemous spoken word either way is speech.

The subject matter being considered holy/sacred or not by anyone is totally irrelevant, except to those that consider it holy/sacred. 

Being able to speak the words you choose, irregardless of the connotations or consequences, is your exercise of the freedom of speech.

The speech itself needn't be friendly, popular, or reverent in any way, manner, or form.

The level of offensive speech that can be tolerated by the listeners can usually determine how much they respect freedom in general.

The less tolerant, the more closed -- less free -- the society.

If you're still confused read the Original Post, & maybe the poster can enlighten you as to why he coupled both.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #70
Let's talk about poops, dicks and urine?[abbr=:idea:][/abbr]
Are you having breakfast? It's your problem.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #71
Being able to speak the words you choose, irregardless of the connotations or consequences, is your exercise of the freedom of speech.

Almost that. Opinions are allowed. Lies are not.

Re: Blasphemy and Free Speech

Reply #72
Almost that. Opinions are allowed. Lies are not.


Lies are free to be spoken about......politicians do it all the time.

The content of the speech isn't as important as the ability to speak about it is.

If you lie about someone, they can take you to court, where you might be found guilty, by a jury of your peers, of libel, defamation, or slander.

While not protected speech, nevertheless you are free to speak it.

You still had the freedom of speech to say what you did in the first place, just that sometimes there are consequences.

Will those consequences keep you from repeating your slander, defamation, or libel?

If it does  --- you & only you --- curtailed your own right to the freedom of speech, not any government, not any person or institution.

If the consequences don't bother you, then by all means you have the right to express yourself in that libelous & slanderous way again, but be fore-warned you'll probably end up in court again.

So, in the end lies are covered under the freedom of speech --- just not protected.

They might not be acceptable, & they might not be liked, but  as long as you are willing to pay the consequences, you are free to speak them.

Hate speech, malicious expression towards a particular group based on their gender, age, race, sexual orientation, etc, is considered constitutional in the United States, reiterating that while the government or courts may not like what is being said, they must support the right of an individual to say it.


The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence --- In essence, the speech immediately insights others to violently break the law.

Other countries, like Brittian & Denmark for example, don't embrace the Freedom of Speech in this regard as vigorously as America does.

So in the end, it depends on where you live, how "free" you actually are --- especially when it comes to your right to free speech.