Posted by
chrisd
on from the one-nation-under-god dept.
ross.w writes "Italian authorities have shut down five Internet sites which reportedly carried blasphemies against God and the Virgin Mary, following a complaint by the Vatican's newspaper.
The story is in this item on Australia's ABC News."
Vatican authorities complain to Italian police. The act is
reported in an Australian paper, and referred to in a U.S.
site (./). I read about it in Denmark, after the story has
already gone once around the whole world.
Seriously, this really shows how the net is international
indeed, and local authorities will have to adjust a lot.
Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?
--
In Murphy We Turst
And they didn't delete the whole site
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Re:well... i'm american...
by
rjw57
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
FUCK AMERICA...
Seriously... how long would you last wearing a 'FUCK AMERICA - UBL FOR PRESIDENT' T-shirt in the US? Its the same with 'blasphemous' T-shirts in the Vatican -- except the Vatican doens't kill people who try that anymore.
-- Rich
Re:Disagree with censorship
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Educate?
God, Religion et al has not been proven.
Until then, each person has their own opinion
My opinion is that religion is just a comfort blanket for people.
Re:MSNBC are also running the story
by
dtosti
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
well...the exact translation of the italian blasphemy should be "Mary is a bitch", not "pig Madonna"..
sometimes babelfish is more blasphemous than those censored sites...
Offensive speech
by
pubjames
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In this case, I believe these sites were deliberately trying to cause offense to Catholics. I don't have any problem with the Italians having laws against speech that deliberately incites hated or deliberately tries to offend. It's a very different situation to say, having laws against speech that criticises the Catholic Church or supports other religions.
There have to be limits, and I think it is sensible to have laws against deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. To those that say it is bad to have this type of law, I say, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for me to put a billboard next to a hospital that says "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!" Is that ok?
Re:Offensive speech
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
" don't have any problem with the Italians having laws against speech that deliberately incites hated or deliberately tries to offend."
Why? Whats wrong with offending people? Who gives a fuck?
"There have to be limits"
You offer no evidence to justify this statement.
Much art is created with the sole intention of provoking a response. Is that bad? I think Catholicism is a crock of shite. That goes for all religions. If i`d said this in Italy, should I be punished? Why? How would that use of money (and possibly prison time) be worthwhile?
If you want to believe that fucking retarded shite, then go for it, but leave me the fuck alone, ok?
Even more interesting quote: (I didn't notice it at first.)
The officers were involved in an international operation to catch the website operators because, although they were created in Italy, the internet service providers were based in Washington DC and California.
--
I doubt, therefore I may be.
Re:Disagree with censorship
by
loply
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The Italians are also in the news today because they stole an important (and huge) religious monument from Ethiopia when they occupied it under Mossulinis (spelling?) reign. When the Italians became civilized (/ducks) a few years later they promised to give it back... The was 50 years ago, and their government now refuses to talk to the Ethiopian government about the issue.
Nobody has asked this yet?
by
Linux+Freak
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I have been reading the past 50 some odd comments, and I find it odd that nobody has asked the question: "How the _HELL_ did Italian authorities get the jurisdiction to put up a block on a site located in the U.S.?"
The fact that the material was offensive, or even illegal _in Italy_ should be immaterial. The real issue is how this censorship could have even taken place, and anybody who runs a web site should have their cackles up over this issue.
Religion and free speech
by
Arkan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I wonder how any monotheist religion can consider blasphem as a problem, as their very own existence is blasphemous to any polytheist religion. I wonder how any religion can consider blasphem as a problem, as their very own existence is blasphemous to any atheist. Let me say that all this affair is a blasphem, as it goes against my very own belief that humans are intelligent beings.
Begone all you blasphemous f...wit, for you're tempering with my reality!
Re:Disagree with censorship
by
scaryman
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
there is something I have never understood about this argument, could someone please explain how god existed before the creation of man, when there was noone in existance that could have faith in god, so how can could god be based on faith and unable to prove his/her/its existance?
Yes, it's good to be offensive
by
abbamouse
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's a truism that you can't talk about politics or religion without offending people. Offensiveness is not just a necessary evil in a free society, it can also be an important social good. If people aren't deeply moved by speech, it is unlikely to have much effect. That's why actions like wearing an anti-Catholic T-shirt, burning a flag (American, Israeli, Palestinian, etc), or holding a Black Power march through a rich white neighborhood are so effective at getting attention -- they strike at the core of what people believe about society and the world.
Saying "I oppose this or that bit of Catholic doctrine" is just pecking at the surface if your real problem is with the fundamental tenets of Catholicism -- the role of the Vrigin Mary, for example. Those T-shirts are important because they let other doubters in an overwhelmingly Catholic country know that you're not only against Catholicism but you're brave enough to flaunt it in the face of censure (not the same thing as censorship) by the majority.
Censoring offensiveness is therefore not only repressive (and heavily biased in favor of the status quo and the majority), but also an attack on the most important socio-political speech there is. It also shows deep insecurity about one's ability to defend one's own beliefs, and a bizarrely vague approach to "slander," but it would be wrong even if it could be applied consistently.
-- Make cheese not war 8:)
Exactly what I was wondering...
by
Liberal+Mafia
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Okay, so the "offenders" were in Italy and subject to Italian jurisdiction. I can think of two ways the Italian police found them:
1. They were dumb enough to put their real names on the site.
2. Italian authorities actually managed to persuade the American ISP's to give them the names of the account holders.
Does anyone know which one it was? I find number 2 even more disturbing. If it's true, what happens if Chinese dissidents put up a website on an American server, and the Chinese authorities ask the ISP for names and information?
At the very least, there should be limits to how much information an ISP can give a foreign government about an account holder.
And another thing: how much money and man-hours did the Italian authorities put into busting these guys for putting up websites they didn't like? The VNUnet article says the investigation lasted two years. Is crime in Italy so scarce that the police have to investigate thought crime to justify their budget?
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
cje
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Rest assured that the same Church that teaches the African people the moral dangers of using condoms..
The "moral dangers" you speak of are your moral dangers; they are not my moral dangers and they are certainly not the moral dangers of the African people. You have the "benefit" of having been raised in an environment where sex is considered to be dirty and condoms are evil, though this is not part of the African culture. You have an arbitrary set of restrictions that you choose to impose upon yourself, you expect an entire continent to do the same, and when they fail to do so, you wring your hands in despair and pronounce that the people of this continent are getting what they deserve.
Pardon me for not considering this to be a particularly useful attitude. Condoms are extraordinarily effective in reducing rates of HIV transmission, and no amount of Catholic dogma can change that fact.
they know why their people are dying, and they know how they can stop it, the same way it is in the US.
The "same way it is in the US?" Are you seriously suggesting that sex in the US is rare outside of marriage, and that condoms are never used here? You are shooting yourself in the foot -- badly.
-- We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Blasphemy could be considered religious expression
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Especially in Italy where the Vatican has, in the past, attempted to put people on trial for criticising Church corruption (and there's plenty of that).
Look at what they tried to do to the authors of _Shroud_of_Turin_. That was legitimate criticism of the Church by insiders.
My view of the Church after experiencing several abuses (I happen to be a craddle Catholic) is that it was basically a deal between the wealthy (European black aristocracy, mob, South American plantation owners) who make donations to the Little Sisters of the Power to get their children made bishop. Then they use these political positions to try to screw their enemies/competitors. Years ago they had the Spanish Inquisition too, so they couldn't just preach against how bad X is this (this year the liberals were bad because they support abortion so vote conservative, last year corporations were bad because they aren't for the people, so vote liberal, &c).
The Church is basically a POLITICAL organization that uses superstition to control its members on behalf of its wealthy and powerful patrons.
Blashemy could be considered a form of political protest against an organization that does these types of things.
That's why this type of censorship should not be supported on grounds of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The EU should file a protest.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, this really shows how the net is international indeed, and local authorities will have to adjust a lot. Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?
In Murphy We Turst
The main page
FUCK AMERICA...
Seriously... how long would you last wearing a 'FUCK AMERICA - UBL FOR PRESIDENT' T-shirt in the US? Its the same with 'blasphemous' T-shirts in the Vatican -- except the Vatican doens't kill people who try that anymore.
Rich
Educate?
God, Religion et al has not been proven.
Until then, each person has their own opinion
My opinion is that religion is just a comfort blanket for people.
well...the exact translation of the italian
blasphemy should be "Mary is a bitch", not "pig Madonna"..
sometimes babelfish is more blasphemous than those censored sites...
In this case, I believe these sites were deliberately trying to cause offense to Catholics. I don't have any problem with the Italians having laws against speech that deliberately incites hated or deliberately tries to offend. It's a very different situation to say, having laws against speech that criticises the Catholic Church or supports other religions.
There have to be limits, and I think it is sensible to have laws against deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. To those that say it is bad to have this type of law, I say, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for me to put a billboard next to a hospital that says "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!" Is that ok?
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133397
Even more interesting quote: (I didn't notice it at first.)
The officers were involved in an international operation to catch the website operators because, although they were created in Italy, the internet service providers were based in Washington DC and California.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
The Italians are also in the news today because they stole an important (and huge) religious monument from Ethiopia when they occupied it under Mossulinis (spelling?) reign.
When the Italians became civilized (/ducks) a few years later they promised to give it back... The was 50 years ago, and their government now refuses to talk to the Ethiopian government about the issue.
loply.com
I have been reading the past 50 some odd comments, and I find it odd that nobody has asked the question: "How the _HELL_ did Italian authorities get the jurisdiction to put up a block on a site located in the U.S.?"
The fact that the material was offensive, or even illegal _in Italy_ should be immaterial. The real issue is how this censorship could have even taken place, and anybody who runs a web site should have their cackles up over this issue.
I wonder how any monotheist religion can consider blasphem as a problem, as their very own existence is blasphemous to any polytheist religion.
I wonder how any religion can consider blasphem as a problem, as their very own existence is blasphemous to any atheist.
Let me say that all this affair is a blasphem, as it goes against my very own belief that humans are intelligent beings.
Begone all you blasphemous f...wit, for you're tempering with my reality!
there is something I have never understood about this argument, could someone please explain how god existed before the creation of man, when there was noone in existance that could have faith in god, so how can could god be based on faith and unable to prove his/her/its existance?
It's a truism that you can't talk about politics or religion without offending people. Offensiveness is not just a necessary evil in a free society, it can also be an important social good. If people aren't deeply moved by speech, it is unlikely to have much effect. That's why actions like wearing an anti-Catholic T-shirt, burning a flag (American, Israeli, Palestinian, etc), or holding a Black Power march through a rich white neighborhood are so effective at getting attention -- they strike at the core of what people believe about society and the world.
Saying "I oppose this or that bit of Catholic doctrine" is just pecking at the surface if your real problem is with the fundamental tenets of Catholicism -- the role of the Vrigin Mary, for example. Those T-shirts are important because they let other doubters in an overwhelmingly Catholic country know that you're not only against Catholicism but you're brave enough to flaunt it in the face of censure (not the same thing as censorship) by the majority.
Censoring offensiveness is therefore not only repressive (and heavily biased in favor of the status quo and the majority), but also an attack on the most important socio-political speech there is. It also shows deep insecurity about one's ability to defend one's own beliefs, and a bizarrely vague approach to "slander," but it would be wrong even if it could be applied consistently.
Make cheese not war 8:)
Okay, so the "offenders" were in Italy and subject to Italian jurisdiction. I can think of two ways the Italian police found them:
1. They were dumb enough to put their real names on the site.
2. Italian authorities actually managed to persuade the American ISP's to give them the names of the account holders.
Does anyone know which one it was? I find number 2 even more disturbing. If it's true, what happens if Chinese dissidents put up a website on an American server, and the Chinese authorities ask the ISP for names and information?
At the very least, there should be limits to how much information an ISP can give a foreign government about an account holder.
And another thing: how much money and man-hours did the Italian authorities put into busting these guys for putting up websites they didn't like? The VNUnet article says the investigation lasted two years. Is crime in Italy so scarce that the police have to investigate thought crime to justify their budget?
Rest assured that the same Church that teaches the African people the moral dangers of using condoms ..
The "moral dangers" you speak of are your moral dangers; they are not my moral dangers and they are certainly not the moral dangers of the African people. You have the "benefit" of having been raised in an environment where sex is considered to be dirty and condoms are evil, though this is not part of the African culture. You have an arbitrary set of restrictions that you choose to impose upon yourself, you expect an entire continent to do the same, and when they fail to do so, you wring your hands in despair and pronounce that the people of this continent are getting what they deserve.
Pardon me for not considering this to be a particularly useful attitude. Condoms are extraordinarily effective in reducing rates of HIV transmission, and no amount of Catholic dogma can change that fact.
they know why their people are dying, and they know how they can stop it, the same way it is in the US.
The "same way it is in the US?" Are you seriously suggesting that sex in the US is rare outside of marriage, and that condoms are never used here? You are shooting yourself in the foot -- badly.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Especially in Italy where the Vatican has, in the past, attempted to put people on trial for criticising Church corruption (and there's plenty of that).
Look at what they tried to do to the authors of _Shroud_of_Turin_. That was legitimate criticism of the Church by insiders.
My view of the Church after experiencing several abuses (I happen to be a craddle Catholic) is that it was basically a deal between the wealthy (European black aristocracy, mob, South American plantation owners) who make donations to the Little Sisters of the Power to get their children made bishop. Then they use these political positions to try to screw their enemies/competitors. Years ago they had the Spanish Inquisition too, so they couldn't just preach against how bad X is this (this year the liberals were bad because they support abortion so vote conservative, last year corporations were bad because they aren't for the people, so vote liberal, &c).
The Church is basically a POLITICAL organization that uses superstition to control its members on behalf of its wealthy and powerful patrons.
Blashemy could be considered a form of political protest against an organization that does these types of things.
That's why this type of censorship should not be supported on grounds of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The EU should file a protest.