Defamation of Religion Banned? (Is Now Banned)

[PipeBox]

http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/13/top10.htm

According to that story, the banning of any dissent towards religion may not be as unthinkably unlikely as we'd hope.   I can't imagine a world where certain ideas are placed above contempt.  Such a measure would bode badly for the world .  .  .

What would you do if it became illegal to speak ill of any religion?

[rlrose328]

That can't happen!  I'd go to jail for sure.  How can ANYONE justify placing an entire belief system above everything else like that?  Ugh.

[Kyuuketsuki]

What would you do if it became illegal to speak ill of any religion?

I think I and many others on the internet would get loud, proud and right in their faces! I'm not absolutely sure but I think (at least I'd like to think) I would be prepared to go to jail in defence of a principle like that.

Kyu

[Sophus]

A double standard. Lord knows they will continue atheist bashing long after we can longer speak ill of them It goes against freedom of speech in every way. As Voltaire said:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

You should be able to speak ill of religion so long as you do not assassinate the character of the religious in general during the process.

[Jolly Sapper]

I wonder what is meant, specifically, by defamation?

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

While I won't be surprised if groups would try to abuse this type of rule, this doesn't seem like anything really all that new.  If I were to say that a church was all about molesting children without being able to prove it (because I was lying) , should not that group deserve the same protection that I would expect?

[karadan]

http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/13/top10.htm

According to that story, the banning of any dissent towards religion may not be as unthinkably unlikely as we'd hope.   I can't imagine a world where certain ideas are placed above contempt.  Such a measure would bode badly for the world .  .  .

What would you do if it became illegal to speak ill of any religion?

That will NEVER happen. Certainly not in Europe. There would be war if they even tried it.

That is a freedom i'm definitely happy to fight for.

[PipeBox]

I wonder what is meant, specifically, by defamation?

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

While I won't be surprised if groups would try to abuse this type of rule, this doesn't seem like anything really all that new.  If I were to say that a church was all about molesting children without being able to prove it (because I was lying) , should not that group deserve the same protection that I would expect?

I don't like the language, at all.  I believe churches are already protected by any laws regarding slander and libel.  At least in the US, I highly doubt anyone could write a slanderous news article on one.

And in reading what Brockmann actually said, "We should respect all religions," and in seeing his vague use of defamation, I am worried.  I have a hard time believing that churches are excluded from slander and libel laws, as you seem to imply.  Religions, however, should be excluded.  It should never be against the law to attack an idea, or else we'll eventually reach a point where it's against the law to tell a person that they are wrong.  What happens when a religion conflicts directly with reality, and calling that religion wrong is to slander it?

The language is too vague, and ideas have never been protected by law.  I won't stand for it if even if they are.  This line of thinking in the U.N. is dangerous.

[Stoicheion]

This is disgusting. I hate how religion tries to justify itself as more honorable and thus above law. It's insulting beyond any belief that they could even THINK of TRYING to go here. If they do pass it into law in the US- which would be near impossible to enforce - it would be revoked, as it is unconstitutional. Even if it takes time, it would be.

[Titan]

I agree, this is bad news. Silencing people creates more problems, but if this is coming from the U.N. I think it has a lot to do with the Muslim nations' votes. Either way, silencing dissent is bad. Although I think that slander and liable are more along the lines of necessary censorship.

[Whitney]

Well...this is definately a reason to be glad the US hasn't been too good at keeping with the wishes of the UN.

Even if I were not the type of person to speak poorly of religious beliefs, I'd still think this was a horrible idea.  It is a direct violation of our freedom of speech...we don't even ban KKK speech as long as they aren't directly encouraging violence.

It appears that some people are looking to blame the world's problems on something and they found an easy scape goat.

Anyway, if it became illegal to defame religions I would fight that ruling through protests and keep the site going till they made me stop (technically this site still wouldn't be against the law unless they wanted to interpret being an athiest as defaming religion...and that would be an even bigger issue).  I don't even think it would be possible for me to go the rest of my life without saying something  illegal if you were not allowed to say anything bad about religion.

[Titan]

The UN also has 0 enforcement power anyway so it doesn't even matter. Israel has disobeyed what...70+ UN resolutions?

[Stoicheion]

The UN also has 0 enforcement power anyway so it doesn't even matter. Israel has disobeyed what...70+ UN resolutions?

true true

[DennisK]

I would think most theists would view this as a good idea.  However, once they realized it also meant they could not speak ill of another's religion, the appeal would disintegrate.

[PipeBox]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm

<expletive><expletive><expletive>

WHAT THE HELL, WORLD!?!  I thought they were crazy for suggesting it, I never thought it would happen this quickly.
If this was passed with so little resistance, I fear the future is dark . . .

At least Denmark has threatened to walk out on the drafting of the declaration if they're listed in specific provisions to the defamation of Islam.

I'm going to go rant at someone who thinks this a good idea.  They're clearly out there.  I will find them.  

[rlrose328]

This is a sad day indeed.  This will succeed in propagating the Islamic throttle on the rest of the world.  I don't believe at all that all Muslims or anyone who is a part of Islam is a terrorist.  But this silencing of any negative voices is an act of psychological terrorism.  It will drive atheism underground.  I can't imagine what the world will be like.  This is disgusting.

 :brick:  :hmm:  :brick: