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."
Re:Correct link
by
Abstrakt
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Thanks for the correct link!
What that brief article fails to mention, however, is that blasphemy has always been illegal here in Italy. Believe it or not, you could theoretically be arrested for yelling "Porco Dio" (the equivalent of "Goddamnit") on the street!
The irony is that using extremely blasphemous language is very common in Italy -- much more so than anywhere else in the world. We have some of the most colorful blasphemies known to man; most of which involve the virgin Mary and various sexual acts that would make the other Madonna blush.
Sadly, we seem to have a very different definition of "free speech" in this country. There have been many similar instances of government intervention in the past, as well as privacy violations that would have everyone up in arms if this were another country -- like America for example.
Cheers.
Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story
by
f0dder
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Wednesday, July 10, 2002. Posted: 10:21:15 (AEDT)
Italian police black out 'blasphemous' websites
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 paper says a special police unit has taken over the sites due to what it has termed unrepeatable words which accompanied the name of the Madonna.
The police have since blacked out pages on the sites, so that surfers can now only find the words: "Site seized by the Head of Rome's Special Police Force, on the orders of Rome's Chief Prosecutor."
The paper says the police have also discovered a commercial network which sells t-shirts carrying the same blasphemous logos that appeared on the sites.
Print Email
Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story
by
Simon+Kongshoj
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And that story doesn't even say that "deep" linking is illegal in Denmark. All that happened in that court was that Newsbooster was prohibited from gathering and providing news using them. The ruling didn't state anything else about the use of "deep" linking, ie. it doesn't consider anything about whether it should be prohibited to make a "deep" link to some story on, say, a blog or discussion forum. The ruling regards a specific entity (Newsbooster) and its specific practice (automatically gathering news on Danish newspapers' www sites, and linking to stories)
Besides, what in hell is a "deep" link? It's so fucking pathetic to see politicians trying to legislate a technology they seem to refuse to even try to understand.
... from the same country that brought you incompetant fascism (*cough*Mussolini*cough*).
I'm actually very offended that the Vatican itself gets its own top-level domain name.
Disagree with censorship
by
JGoo
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I disagree with censorship in all instances. I wouldn't seek to take down sites which choose to blasphem, perhaps I would try and educate them. But if they are a lost cause, then they can burn in hell.
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.
Re:Disagree with censorship
by
Abstrakt
·
· Score: 2, Informative
When the Italians became civilized (/ducks)
No need to duck... I just wanted to add that we have not become fully civilized just yet.;)
The evil fascist dictator's name was Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, btw. Or "il Duce" for short. Unfortunately, he still has many admirers in this country.
Cheers.
Re:Disagree with censorship
by
junkgrep
·
· Score: 2
Begs the question...
I can prove anything to you... as long as you accept as proof what I say is proof!
But in fact, I don't need to even do that, because deep down in your heart, you know that the truth I am claiming is true, is true. You are just trying to find a way to deny it.
See: anyone can play such dishonest word games.
Re:Disagree with censorship
by
junkgrep
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
---Christianity is founded on tolerance. We do not oppose any other religion or movement---
Wait, first you know nothing of Christianity being a religion... and now you're speaking for all Christians about what you do or do not do to "other religions or movements"?
That Chritianity is founded on tolerance is your particular take on it. But there is nothing inevitable about this interpretation: other believers see things differently, and non-believers see lots of both tolerance and intolerance in even just the Bible passages.
---Christianity is the oppressed and the intollerated.---
Come on: this is an off the wall claim. All sorts of groups are oppressed and intollerated at various times. Christianity was born during a time when it (being a minority, though this didn't stop inter-sect persecution) was, but when it became a majority, turnabout became fair play. Sometimes Christians are persecuted, sometimes Muslims are persecuted, sometimes atheists are persecuted. Christianity has no special claim on being singled out for persecution, especially not when for most of the last two centuries in the West, it's been doing the persecution. This doesn't mean that Christianity is, in every form, bad, but having been persecuted also doesn't prove that it, in any form, is specially good.
---we just show the truth.---
That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? You think your claims about Christ and so forth are true: others aren't convinced. So, here we are.
Re:Disagree with censorship
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps the education they need is in common decency. The combination of pornography and the Virgin Mary is intended to hurt and inflame passion. While hurtful speech shouldn't normally be illegal, it should generally be condemned.
Educate is quite the right word whether or not Christianity is correct (as I believe it to be so).
Some of us belive because we have experianced. At this point it's not simple faith anymore.
Unfortunatly the problem comes in trying to convince someone else of my experiances since that person now has to accept what I say as true even though that person has no reason to trust what I say.
As it seems speaking your mind is less and less accepted. Ones again the church is at the frontier of squelzing ideas and expressions they don't like. And more and more I get the idea the world is on a one-way road to new dark-ages..
-- Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
Thank God for Landover
by
GothChip
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I saw this news last night on teletext. So far I haven't heard what sites have been blocked and it appears to be restricted to Italian sites only.
At least Landover Babtist is still up and running. Warning: This site is very funny.
And you can still get your Cradle of Filth T-shirts here.
Re:Thank God for Landover
by
fishbowl
·
· Score: 2
I don't think "They" understand that Landover Baptist is supposed to be humorous. Sad, but it's way under the radar. Kinda like a Beijing newspaper would print an Onion story as news, and not realize it.
-- -fb
Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Is Linux Illegal in Italy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Hello,
Recently I've been introduced to an operating system known as Linux.
Lured by its low cost, I replaced Windows 98 on my computer with Linux. Unfortunately the more I use it the more I fear that this "Linux" may be an insidious way for the Dark One to gain a stronger foothold here on Earth. I know this may be a shocking claim, but I have evidence to back it up!
To begin with, Linux is based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork. This OS -- and its Linux offspring -- extensively use what are unsettingly called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a computer running Linux then you probably have these "demons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! Furthermore in order to start or stop these "demons" a user must execute a command called "finger". By "fingering" a "demon" one excercises an unholy power, much the same way that the Lord of Flies controls his black minions.
Linux contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?
Consider some of these other Linux commands: "sleep", "mount", "unzip", "strip" and "touch". All highly suggestive in a sexual nature. I know that our Lord cannot approve of these, and I urge them to be renamed to something appropriate to the Christian community. Interestingly "CONTROL-G" (the sixth key from the left of the keyboard) does an abort. To write files a "VI" editor is included. All these are to ensnare the unsuspecting christian who could get tempted by typing "VIVIVI" all day long.
Fourth, Linux uses a flavor of DOS known as Bash. Bash is an acronym for "Bourne Again Shell". On the surface this would appear to be supportive of the Lord. However, remember that even Satan can quote the bible for his own purposes! While I believe Linux may be born-again, its obvious by the misspelling of "born" that its not born-again in an Christian church. Will the lies ever cease?
Additionally, one of the main long-haired hippies involved with the GNU Free Software Foundation supports communism, contraception and abortion. He has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values", and his web site even advocates government support of contraception. He also wears fake halos, and has quips about his made-up church that relates to his free software. I find such blasphemy to be extremely unsettling.
One must also remember that the creator of Linux, a college student named Linux Torvaldis, comes from Finland. I'm sure all the followers of Christ are aware of the heritical nature of the Finnish: from necrophilia to human sacrifice, Finnish culture is awash in sin. I find little reason to believe anything good and holy could arise from this evil land.
Finally, let us remember that there is an alternative to using the Satan-powered Linux. I think history has shown us that Microsoft is quite holy. I'm told that its founder, William Gates is a strong supporter of our Lord and I encourage my fellow Christians to buy only his products to help keep the Devil at bay.
I wish I had more time to expound upon my findings. Unfortunately a family of Jews has moved in across the street and I must go speak to them of Jesus Christ before they are condemned to eternal hellfire.
Please investigate this as you see fit and I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusions that I have.
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy?
by
Broccolist
·
· Score: 2
Mocking fundamentalist Christians is not bigotry, no more than laughing at believers in astrology or alien conspiracies. Ridiculous ideas shouldn't go unopposed for the sake of political correctness. Nobody's suggesting we censor or discriminate against them, but we're certainly entitled to discredit their absurd beliefs.
Besides, some Christians really are that crazy. Ever see this guy? Check especially his hilarious South Park review.
(Note: I'm agnostic, myself, but I still can't stand fundamentalists who take every word in the Bible literally.)
.. signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [coe.int], which should protect 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' as well as 'freedom of expression'.
well, Italian government has signed a special convention with the Catholic Church (in the 1920s) long time before signing the Council of Europe Convention (in the 1950s).
This agreement with the Church is written in the Italian Constitution (dated 1947) and it obliges Italy to act against people who dare to slander the common religious sentiments.
Note that "freedom of expression" != "freedom of slandering" !!!
The real fact is: that guy who sold t-shirt with anti-religious sentences will probably be accused not only of slandering common religious sentiments, but of having evaded tax and VAT too, because the "special police force" mentioned in the article is the Italian equivalent of the american ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) plus the duty of hunting tax evasors.
So, as an Italian, I'm not worried at all for the freedom of expression question, because those policemen works for the Treasury Minister and they receive a percentual on the tax recovered...:)
"Note that "freedom of expression" != "freedom of slandering" !!!"
Unfortunately according to law Jesus and the Virgin Mary are both dead, and therefore can not actually be slandered.
The other point is that freedom of religion does not also cover freedom of lack of religion. Atheism is not classified as a religion, and is not protected under the human rights convention in the same way that a religion is. Odd but true.
I wonder why the last post get moderated down to -1, given that it's a perfectly reasonable and sensible post. I wonder if it was because it was a little rude about scientologists.
Strangely enough, that's how I became a Druid. You see there was this college that had this rule that you had to attend religious ceremonies, but didn't say which kind. So this guy called Fisher put together this group of friends and they became the Reformed Druids of North America. The group lasted long after the college dropped the religion requirement, though it has splintered into other groups in the last few decades.
Whatever. Eventually I became a Druid with all attendant rites and obilgations. (The main obligation is that I can't resign, and I must agree that Nature is Good [which I usually parapharase as, if it weren't for nature we wouldn't be here, or sometimes it's nice to breathe].) But it got them out of other religions!
This organization was deliberately designed to fall apart, and it still hung together for several decades. People like organizations, as long as they aren't too much bother.
I suppose that the nearest I could think of coming to blasphemy would be a speech in favor of clear cutting. But I don't think anyone would pay me enough to even seriously consider that. So I guess it suits me.
Now I don't like clear cutting. I don't like advocates of clear cutting. I consider them to be intent not only on personal suicide, but on racial suicide (special would be a better word, but that gets pronounced as if it means set apart rather than having to do with a species). In other words I really dislike what they are proposing.
But I also consider that keeping them from being able to say what they think is important is even worse.
The shutting down of web sites just because you disagree with them is, in my book, evil. This doesn't have anything to do with gods or demons or daemons. This is a personal judgement. But I think that this is the kind of act that "justifies" all the jokes that have been being made recently about priests and their "celebicy". The actions may have been performed by the Italian police, but the instigation came from the Vatican.
I suppose that this is sort of like the bad jokes about MS that keep cropping up here. If you don't like what someone does, you look for appropriate unpleasant associations to attach to them. As long as the associations are appropriate, there really isn't much wrong with the approach. It's dangerous because it's easy for unscrupulous persons to lie about the appropriateness of the association, and since it's an association rather than a chain of logic, it's difficult to trace back.
But this is another example of authoritarian evil-doers acting to suppress individual expression of divergent beliefs. I don't think anyone could argue with that. Except perhaps to claim that the police were "only following oders", to use the famous phrase. True, I suppose, but hardly an excuse. Still, if someone didn't want to operate in that mode, why would they remain a policeman. You may *become* a policeman out of a desire to protect the civilization, or the citizenry. But when you see what the job entails, if you choose to remain one, you have choosen to operate as a reciever and distributor of orders in a chain of command. This is true at all levels of the job, except for some narrowly specialized technicians. Possibly under some organizational structures there would also be clerical workers who weren't distributors of orders. So I can't excuse the police from the general condemnation of this activity.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So does the American Legion. They do them the 'proper way'. Actually, burning a flag is the only way to respectfully destroy a flag that is 'past its prime' so to speak. This doesn't mean throwing it in a 10 gallon metal drum in the back yard, pouring lighter fluid on it and torching it. They fold it some way and light it from a certain end, etc. There's quite an ordeal to it.
Thus said, if you do plan on getting rid of an old flag that is a bit weathered (which you should do, flying a weather beaten worn out flag is considered disrespectful as well, actually.) you should take it to the American Legion or other such organization for proper disposal.
Investigators first learned about the sites, with names that translate into phrases including "Pig Madonna" and "Blasphemy," in 2000.
Sooo, if any Italian-speaking Slashdotters can tell us what "Pig Madonna" is in Italian, we can google for it, since it's been up for two years, and find out what the site was.
old index: http://www.porcamadonna.com/index2f.html
Re:MSNBC are also running the story
by
iapetus
·
· Score: 2
Just took a quick look at the site, and perhaps those people who are squealing about this being like the Catholic church attempting to stifle Copernicus might like to do the same thing.:)
-- ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Re:MSNBC are also running the story
by
Peyna
·
· Score: 2
Not unless 'Madonna' in German means Mary the mother of Jesus.
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?
Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?
A parched post-apocalyptic wasteland, where the only things not in short supply are ammo, cosmetics, and very revealing clothes made primarily out of leather and bits of tyres, of course.
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
yatest5
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Snipped rant saying everything should be allowed apart from this one thing you find offensive
Have you thought that maybe the Vatican finds these sites as offensive as you find those with child porn?
On the other hand, they might want to keep quiet about paedophilia;-). Uh oh, maybe the vatican will take down this post...
--
Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
SerpentMage
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And yet again another reason why the Founding Fathers of the US knew what they were talking about when they created the constitution. I am not American, but I keep seeing the "old establishment" trying to take over.
This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.
I am not saying that the websites are in good taste or even right. But to say the sites are blasphemous and restrict the right to make up one's own mind is thinking straight from 1200's.
--
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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:If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy
by
h4mmer5tein
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually they wouldnt. They'd just prosecute you under whatever blasphemy laws applied. The existance of god is moot in this instance. It was a legal issue not a religeous one.
However the fact that the Vatican is seemingly able to lean on the Italian police sufficiently to get them to take such drastic action tells us something about the power of religeon in an otherwise secular society.
In a word: "NO"
by
Hektor_Troy
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Make that a "HELL NO!"
The danish constitution has a very interesting paragraph:
" 77 Enhver er berettiget til på tryk, i skrift og tale at offentliggøre sine tanker, dog under ansvar for domstolene. Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingen sinde på ny indføres. "
And in English: " 77 Anyone is at liberty to publish his thought, be it printed, in writing or speech, but are accountable to a court of law. Censureship and other preventative meassures can never again be introduced."
Or something to that effect.
The Danish police have no right to shut down any web-sites - to do so you need a court order (freedom of speech with personal responsibility). This includes hate-speech, blasphemy, propaganda and otherwise.
You are obviously not a lawyer, and you had better try to back up your wild claims with relevant quotes next time around.
-- We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Re:In a word: "NO"
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 3, Funny
The Danish police have no right to shut down any web-sites
So this means that my website about muffins is safe???
None, but that's not the point. The point is, that the original poster claimed, that blasphemy is illegal in Denmark, which in all likelyhood is 100% wrong.
Should a Danish court issue a court order against a site like the one in question, they can appeal that decision to a higher court, and probably stay the closure of the site. But, given the usual "so?" attitude of Danish courts, they would probably throw the request for a court order out so fast, it'd break the sound barrier.
-- We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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 Tiger Lillies said it best...
by
JimPooley
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm crucifying Jesus, banging in the nails, And I am so happy, because old Jesus failed. I'm crucifying Jesus, nail him to the cross, The poor old bastard bleeds to death and I don't give a toss.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm crucifying Jesus, in my piss he bathes. I think I am a pervert, I think I am depraved I'm crucifying Jesus, beat him to a pulp, I stick my organ in his mouth and on it he must gulp.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
You see that crown of thorns upon his head? Well that was my idea. I think I might be going to hell, Oh dear!
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, banging in the nails.
---- All Text By Martyn Jacques Copyright Misery Guts Music http://www.tigerlillies.com
--
"Information wants to be paid"
Re:The Tiger Lillies said it best...
by
osgeek
·
· Score: 2
I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty sure that you're going to hell for quoting that. Good luck in the fires of perdition.
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?
So I guess now Catholic websites are illegal as they are clearly meant to offend people who don't believe in such things. Get a fucking clue...anything can be agrued to be offensive to anyone. You probably only complain when it affects you though. Sensible indeed...sensible to the senseless.
Just for the record, I am not Catholic. In fact I don't believe in God. Your suggestion that "anything can be argued to be offensive to anyone" is plainly not true and is not a rational argument.
Re:Offensive speech
by
Silverhammer
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Your suggestion that "anything can be argued to be offensive to anyone" is plainly not true
You, sir, apparently have not yet encountered the American tort system...
Re:Offensive speech
by
2g3-598hX
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
1. website != billboard.
2. offensive to you == interesting to me
I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science, their anti-contraceptive stance and their denial of female reproductive rights. But I wouldn't ever want to censor them. Voltaire always sez it best...
"I might not agree with what you say, but I'll die defending your right to say it."
No, of course not! But none of those things are examples of deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. They are religious beliefs.
Your attempt to distinguish between the two is intellectually incoherent. For instance, it is a common religious belief that anyone outside the fold of one's own sect is en route to the eternal bonfires. Every so often, somebody puts up a billboard stating this more or less directly. Now, tell the class whether "You [heretics|papists|infidels|whatever] are going to Hell!" is "a religious belief" or "deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke".
-- /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Now, tell the class whether "You [heretics|papists|infidels|whatever] are going to Hell!" is "a religious belief" or "deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke".
The whole basis of law is definitions - defining where the line is drawn. Sometimes that's easy ("you must be over 18") sometimes it's difficult ("make reasonable efforts", "due care and attention") but that's what the law does, it draws lines.
Anti-abortionists in the USA probably send that type of letter and are protected against any legal action by your noble constitution.
I hate to break it to you, but sending such letters is probably not constitutionally protected. They're most likely libelous - you can be sued for maliciously accusing a specific individual of a crime they did not commit. Thus, while one can say "abortion is murder", one cannot say "she is a murderer" to a woman who had an abortion.
then that too is deliberately offensive and upsetting speech.
But so is telling a devout Christian that there is no god, or telling an atheist that he or she must repent or go to hell. It's arguably "deliberately upsetting" when you explain post-1775 economics to libertarians. Take a look at Ann Coulter, who says things that I find very disturbing, but many people find quite compelling and eloquent.
So you think you have some right to be protected from people and words that offend and upset you? I'll tell you what, dumb ideas like that offend and upset me. Therefore you and your post need to be censored.
Heay! CmdrTaco! I DEMAND you immediately delete the parent post! It is OFFENSIVE! Delete his account and ban his IP address! If he contines to post offensive messages anyway, have him ARRESTED!
-
-- - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If I get mail attributed to them, that I find offensive,...
If missionaries show up on my doorstep and won't leave...
I find christian religions to be generally abhorrent. I was coerced into studying the Bible when I was a child, but I did study it. Their god loves recommending murder, torture, rape, etc. Yes, on formal occasions he also makes more restrained statements recommending tolerance, but when push comes to shove he's a viscious as they come. Kali isn't in the same league.
I do not favor censorship even of these unmentionables. But I sure do find them offensive. And rarely more so than when they are recommending that someone else, who usually has relatively sensible views, be censored. (But then I consider most other views to be more sensible.)
When an organization with political power uses that to silence opposition, then I consider that to be a grosser and uglier equivalent to shouting profanity and blasphemy in peoples ears. Actually, I consider it worse than that. If someone shouts in your ears, you can turn around and slug him. If someone keeps you from being able to hear opposing views, he is doing the equivalent, but hiding the fact so that you can't (and aren't inspired to) retaliate.
So I consider the catholic church to be a much worse offender than the web sites, this without even being moved to find out what the web sites said. And I consider the Italian government and the police to be confederates in the crime. (It may be legal, but it's still a crime. I don't give other people the power to determine what I consider to be evil, good, or criminal. Legal, I grant them, mainly because I don't have much choice.)
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You couldn't be more wrong. To some people, the simple statement "god does not exist" is highly offensive. Who decides? When you allow the government to censor, the government will do it to server its own purpose, regardless of the original intent. For ANY law, not just speech/press laws, always ask the questiong, "How can this be abused?", because it will be abused.
I did read the 10 commandments. I also read the rest of the chapter. For example, the section right before that where Moses has "the idolators" killed. I found it quite an enlightening justraposition.
Or consider the fate of the people peacefully living in Jerico. Or consider.... too many.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The idea of not use contraception isn't so much as a dislike of contraception but more of the idea that intercourse with a partner is for the purpose of reproduction and not getting off. Mohandus Gandhi believed it was wrong for him to sleep with his wife without the intent of having children, (although admitted to falling from this many times. I read a very interesting interview with Gandhi and Margaret Sanger that discussed his views on the subject.) I think the issue is more of whether it is okay to have sexual intercourse for its own purposes rather than reproduction. Female circumcision is along similar lines as this. Turns intercourse into a purely reproductive process.
If it isn't pleasurable for the woman she is going to be much less likely to submit to intercourse with her husband. Regardless of whether or not he wants it, he's probably not going to get it unless it's for making a baby or she wants to please him.
"I might not agree with what you say, but I'll die defending your right to say it."
But... Was Voltaire volunteering to defend your rights, or was he speaking in protest against a system that could conscript him to fight, forcing him to die in your defense?
-- -fb
Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Next thing you know they'll be shutting down sites which contain sexually-explicit stuff, like describing what the priests have been doing with the alterboys...
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
Diabolical
·
· Score: 2
Child Pornography isn't just offensive but it's a crime against innocent children who are all too often abused or murdered. Whereas blasphemie isn't a crime against humanity, kiddie porn is.
Re:well... i'm american...
by
edrugtrader
·
· Score: 2
i would hope any american could wear a FUCK AMERICA tshirt every day of their lives and live free.
Depending on whatever century you (still) live in, Blashemy could be here, here, or even here.
Fortunately, we live in a country which protects individuals from charges of blas... oh, never mind.
-- Mod Karma -1:I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
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.
Re:Nobody has asked this yet?
by
BCoates
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"How the _HELL_ did Italian authorities get the jurisdiction to put up a block on a site located in the U.S.?"
Police said they used the same computer from which the Web sites were uploaded to remove the offensive material and replace it with the crest of the special police unit involved.
They did not say whether they informed the Internet providers that hosted the sites. Nor did they name the providers.
-- Benjamin Coates
Re:Nobody has asked this yet?
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 2
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.?"
For the same reason an american could see his Germany-based DECSS site blocked. DECSS is legal in Germany (where Macrovision isn't), but the american whodunit is subject to american laws.
Re:Nobody has asked this yet?
by
tommck
·
· Score: 2
The site was modded from the guy's own PC. They didn't get anyone's permission... they probably just used his cached passwords in Frontpage or whatever product he uses to edit it.
T
-- ----
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Nobody has asked this yet?
by
alexburke
·
· Score: 2
That's what you get when you let your FTP client save the password to your provider's FTP server. Tsk tsk...
The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
First, you won't get killed in America for wearing such a T-shirt either (unless you go out of your way to get out to some obscure redneck bar on the ass of the world, somewhere in the deep south or Texas, but then, you're endangering yourself if you go hang out with such yahoos regardless, where people have been hassled for wearing a FreeBSD T-shirt because "it has the devil on it." Kind of like going to South-Central LA dressed as a Klansman, and I would warrant that if you go looking for trouble deliberately like this, you'll have similiar results in just about any country in the world. Try wearing Nazi regalia into a bar in Germany, or France, or the Netherlands, or a T-shirt with a pakistani flag on it in Delhi, etc.).
And don't be so sure and self righteous in making the claim that the vatican isn't killing people. If you talk someone into jumping off a cliff, and they reluctantly take your advice, you are most certainly a party to murder (Dr. Kavorkian in contrast never talked anyone into suicide, he just lent a hand to those who'd already decided, but I digress). The Vatican has actively been discouraging suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H believers in Africa not to use condoms, even to prevent the spread of AIDS (with the Vatican knowing full well that without condoms the disease would spread faster and wider than otherwise), threatening those poor men and women with an eternity of torment by fire if they take that small precaution against the spread of AIDS (and those poor people believe that nonsense and take the Vatican's admonitions to heart). This influence, with the full weight and authority of the church behind it, has helped fuel an epidemic which has killed millions, and as far as I'm concerned much of that blood is on the Vatican's hands. I won't go into the racial component of this atrocity, except to say that it wouldn't surprise me if some of the old, white men in the upper echelons of the Vatican weren't secretly pleased with the results of their policies.
So the Vatican may not kill you for beshmirching the name of a legendary, likely never-having-existed woman who sired the bastard Christian demigod Jesus (though they do apparently think nothing of violating your basic right of free expression for doing so), but they'll certainly encourage you to kill yourself via unsafe sex, especially if you're an African.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
TheAJofOZ
·
· Score: 2
though they do apparently think nothing of violating your basic right of free expression for doing so
erm, you don't have a basic right of free expression. *If* you live in America then your society has decided that you should be given the right of free speech/expression, however this is not a granted thing. It is possible for American society to change the constitution and revoke the right to free speech (not probable, but possible).
In Italy, society has most likely decided that you have a right to free speech within the bounds of society's guidelines. ie: they have chosen to give society the right of sensorship and for them it works and most of the people there are happy with it.
There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).
Having said that, it should be noted that I am not arguing either for or against free speech just noting that you shouldn't be forcing your values upon the poor Italians - they can make (and have made) their own decisions on these matters.
The rest of your argument I tend to agree with though I see both sides of the matter a little more. I'd also note (for the general populous not so much FreeUser himself) that the no contraception policy is a Catholic thing and not a general Christian trait. Many churches fully support the use of contraception.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
TheAJofOZ
·
· Score: 2
brilliant post and reply... all this from my 'troll'.
Thank you. Your attempted troll was pathetic though - it was actually a very insightful comment.:)
if you don't like what anyone says, just ignore it and live a much happier life.
That's my general policy - unless there's a good argument in it....
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
edrugtrader
·
· Score: 2
i meant it to be insightful... with every intent that it be moderated -1 troll because people don't agree with it.
most slashdot readers have never served for our country or understand the power of freedom.
moderators need something that serves this purpose.... (+1 disagree, well stated)
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
RobinH
·
· Score: 2
There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).
You can't be serious. You think that there's no such thing as free speech outside of the USA? What about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In particular, check out the section titled "Fundamental Freedoms". I guess I probably have to remind you that Canada is, in fact, outside of the USA.
Anyone else live outside the USA and have freedom of speech? Speak up!
-- "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
smashr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow! I am impressed, you really managed to distort the truth on that one. What the vatican says is, "Don't have premarital sex" which is what would cause the MASSIVE spread of AIDS in africa. You managed to twist "dont have premartial sex, and dont use contraceptives" into "the vatican is making people get AIDS by forbidding contraceptives" Ummm.... i think you missed a few things in between. If these people werent having premartial sex in the FIRST place, then they wouldnt get AIDS, now would they, and you couldnt accuse the vatican of killing people. Doesnt anyone else think it is more than a tad absurd that the vatican is being accused of killing people? I mean, sure censoring web sites is questionable. I am not 100% familiar with the laws in Italy and the content and activities of the site, so I cant make a judgement... but killing people?
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
praedor
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
Trying to tell people not to have sex is like telling them to stop eating. It IS necessary - no matter what you think. It is necessary and driven on an instinctual, biological imperative level. How else do you explain the "need" to murder men and women (most particularly and predominantly women) for having sex or sexual affairs in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc? They are NEVER short of people to murder because they had sex (or even held hands for that matter). If the clear and present threat of being stoned to death post haste isn't enough to prevent the activity, simply admonishing against it on the false BELIEF that it is truly a open "choice" rather than a very powerful, basic DRIVE isn't going to work. Period.
Since "Just say no" DOESN'T WORK/CANNOT WORK (no matter what, there will be many, many people- the normal ones at that - who do it anyway). If you must, admonish against it but keep in mind that it is nonetheless a total and absolute right for people to have sex (a "choice" guided by biological imperative) and accept that reality. Thus teach birthcontrol because no matter what, there will always be a significant number of people who will do it no matter what you say. They have a right to do it and they have a right not be be murdered, directly or by proxy of WRONG and Dark Age nonsensical beliefs about the "evils" of birthcontrol and REAL disease prevention.
To conclude, the Vatican takes advantage of the ignorance and fear of many in the 3rd World by warning them of nonexistent hellfire and damnation if they use condoms, take a bc pill, etc. This is tantamount to murder. They KNOWINGLY use the ignorance and fear of the uneducated for the sake of "sexless" old white men (yeah right...boy-toy alterboys and homosexual priestly encounters have ALWAYS been a large part of the Catholic hierarcy "tradition").
-- In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans
by
rossz
·
· Score: 2
Wrong. The Constitution does not grant free speech. It is considered an inherent right and can not be revoked. The Constitution merely enforces that the government can not interfere with your free speech.
-- --
Will program for bandwidth
Re:well... i'm american...
by
TheAJofOZ
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
i would hope any american could wear a FUCK AMERICA tshirt every day of their lives and live free
You would hope that but it only happens to an extent. Yes they can live "free" but they sure as heck would be persecuted at every opportunity.
Also note that if you'd gone around New York on Sept 11 supporting Allah, you probably would have been locked up just to keep the peace. There are limits to free speech and just because it's in the constitution in America doesn't mean it's a sure thing there.
Whether all this is good and bad is left to your right to free choice - something notably absent in the American constitution, directly anyhow.
NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMORE
by
bwoodring
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Please, show some decency here. This is about as far from funny as imaginable.
Yes, except Percy was 'the prostitute dressed up in leather'
-- Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
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:Religion and free speech
by
fishbowl
·
· Score: 2
>their very own existence is blasphemous to any >polytheist religion....
As soon as such a religion controls the seat of government of a Western nation from an independent city-state, historically entrenched in its means with billions of followers, we might just have to get back to you on that.
-- -fb
Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Freedom of Speech
by
Innomi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Freedom of speech is not the right to say whatever you want as long as you don't bother anyone, Freedom of speech is the right to say something ESPECIALLY if it offends someone.
It's not ok to put up that billboard, but if you really want to put up the money to do it, you have every right to.
It's not ok to put up that billboard, but if you really want to put up the money to do it, you have every right to.
So then, you are saying no line, no limit when it comes to free speech?
You Americans are really confused. Your own legal system defines lots of instances where the line is drawn with regards to "speech". Libel, for instance. If you think libel laws are ok, but that there shouldn't be a law that covers someone putting a billboard in front of a hostipal with "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!", then you are confused.
Libel is deliberately lying about someone in a public forum in order to defame them.
Like the line in Wayne's World "This man blows goats, I have proof."
That kind of statement, when listened to and believed by people, can cause damage to ones reputation, loss of buisiness, or other real problems. The libel laws give people a protection from that kind of speech by giving them some way to recoup losses in a court of law. Otherwise you'd have to find your own way to get back at them, like beating the tar out of them.
However, putting up that billboard is not Libel. Its just offensive.
Is America confused? Possibly. Our laws pretend that we are all children and we can't control ourselve or know right from wrong without being told what is right and what is wrong in every specific detail. Yet our Constitution and Bill of Rights treat us like mature adults who can all get along with a basic set of rights.
Someone once said it best. "America's system is horrible, but its the best one out there".
Libel is not a criminal offense. One may sue for libel and collect damages based on harm to one's reputation. Our standards for libel are pretty high compared to many European states.
Besides defamation, perjury and terroristic threats are about the only things that are illegal non-commercial speech in the US. False advertising and other such things are punishable not because of the speech aspect but because of the commercial aspect.
But you're welcome to convey any true message you want. I like it, because the most offensive ideas have a habit of becoming common sense in a few decades.
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 2
Blasphemy isn't just offensive, but it's a crime against definitely not innocent saints and martys who all were abused and murdered (and deserved it, too - don't mess with us pagans/wiccans/atheists/jews/christ scientists!) Whereas blasphemy is a crime against humanity, child molesting by catholic priests isn't.
Many religions take the bible, the ideas of Jesus, and twist them, Krishnas and Jehovas witnesses for example
Don't forget the Catholics... they're just as bad as JW and Krishnas, and there are more of them!
Seriously, if you believe any major (or even minor) religion hasn't taken liberties with religious texts, then you're naieve in the extreme. If you believe that Catholics are 'above' the other religions in this regard, try doing some (non-Church-supported) reading about the Council of Nicea (you know, the guys who edited the bible and the 'ideas of Jesus' that get accepted as doctrine today)
Of course, I probably just fed a troll..
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
RandomPeon
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the parent's parent:
The only exception is child pornography
And in the US even that exception applies only to actual child pornography, which inherently involve child abuse. You are free to write erotic fiction with children in it or to portray adults as children in a dramatic or pictorial work. These are constitutionally protected expressions.
Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too.
I wouldn't, unless a person is harmed in the making of the work. As others have pointed out, these things are incredibly subjective. The potential for abuse is quite real. The most famous example is the Canadian anti-pornography laws. Andrea Dworkin's book advocating such laws was deemed in violation and banned from Canada. And hate speech is always is in the eye of the beholder. France, Germany, and Italy have such laws, for example, but they have not been against anti-immigrant candidates.
Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does.
This is an incredibly slippery slope. If someone takes a reprehensible position and declares it to based on their religion, I'm no longer allowed to tell them that their religion is wrong or immoral? I can't tell people there is no God, because it might hurt them? Are religious people no longer allowed to tell me I should follow Jesus to be saved? This is the least justifiable one, because people choose their religion, unlike their gender or color.
Rights (Was: Offensive speech)
by
andrew+cooke
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
there have to be limits
Why? Speaking and acting are two different things. Theres an old saying "sticks and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" that makes the difference clear.
More importantly, free speech is considered a right because it is useful - because the advantages of people being able to say what they want is more important that the disadvantages. Ant the whole idea of rights is that they let you do things that would otherwise be illegal.
In other words, a right is a permission to do something without limits. This is obvious if you think about it - who needs a right to free speech to say things everyone agrees about? You can say things like that anyway, without the need for the protection from prosecution that a right gives.
Why? Speaking and acting are two different things. Theres an old saying "sticks and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" that makes the difference clear.
So libel laws shouldn't exist then? You think it's ok if I take out a full-page ad in the NYTimes saying that I believe you're a child molester?
In other words, a right is a permission to do something without limits.
Um. No it isn't. You have a right to carry a gun, but not a nuclear bomb. If you have a drivers licence then you have a right to drive on the highway, but only if you stay within the speed limit.
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech)
by
moogla
·
· Score: 2
I think the point everyone here is circling around but not touching upon is that in the US, you can say pretty much anything you want, but you have to live up to the consequences of what you say. That is, if I claim you're a child molester, and it causes you to lose your job, I'd better have evidence or you can sue. But no one can prevent me from making that claim unless they take out a gag order (and that would be after the fact).
In any case, I think the billboard is a bad example because the local authorities would never approve something so offensive being displayed in public. It would be in the municipalities interest to not insult everyone that drives by. It's bad for tourism.:-P
-- Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech)
by
Steve+B
·
· Score: 2
Remember the Supreme Court's example about screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater?
Indeed I do. It was offered by Oliver Wendell Holmes as a lame rationalization for suppression of free speech in Schenck v. United States.
The phrase, considering its source, should be understood as a metaphor for the old government scam of hyping a bogus crisis in order to justify tyrannical abuses.
-- /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech)
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 2
There do need to be limits.
Fraud is the primary one that occurs to me.
Clear and present danger would be a good choice too, but it's tricky. If you don't define it clearly enough an unscrupulous government will step through that crack and progressively widen it. (Look at what "National Security" is doing in the US today. Anyone can be held incommunicado without lawyer, bail, or scheduled trial. And without any evidence being presented to justify this, much less provide proof.)
The big problem is that you can't sue the government unless they agree to be sued. So they can do something blatently illegal, and nobody can challenge them. Currently they are just denying that anyone has legal standing, but I don't see anything to stop them from going further.
The point of free speech is to allow one to communicate things that the folk in power don't want communicated. I can see that it's reasonable to attempt to restrict lies, but any power that the government takes in one area tends to be expanded throughout it's range of actions. (Consider the recent activity of the British government wrt reading and retaining copies of e-mail. First it was the police and with lots of restrictions. The restrictions were largely dropped, and now the push is to expand it to "other government agencies" with just which ones being left undefined, presumably this will be interpreted to mean all of them.) So if you give the government the power to restrict lies, then it gets to decide what's a lie and what isn't. Not too smart an idea. Certainly not without a lot of checks and balances, and even then...
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
Greyfox
·
· Score: 2
No no no. That was the OLD Internet, before Joe Average Consumer found it. The NEW Internet belongs to the big corporation and the government. If you don't believe that, just try doing something on it that pisses either off and see how long you last. The NEW Internet is about selling you shit and protecting your IP. When was the last time you saw a significant web page that didn't have a (usually obnoxiously animated) banner ad? The goal of the NEW Internet is to be the NEW television of the NEW millenium, spoon feeding the consumer the same formulaic mixture of crap and nuclear waste that makes all that money for TV and radio stations.
Don't like the NEw Internet? Think it sucks? Long for the day when you could actually browse alt.sex and post to it without fear of getting 1500 russian live goat porn spams a day for the rest of your natural life? Maybe it's time for a "Members only" solution. It'd be pretty easy to implement an invitation only IPv4 or IPv6 virtual private network on top of the Internet. I'd want to make some changes though. I'd want to require cryptographic authentication of hosts for mail and news postings for one, so that removing any spammers that might get in could be as easy as telling your computer not to accept communications from the offending host. Perhaps an IETF like entity would be in order to deal with such issues.
It would be pretty easy to get the ball rolling on such a system, and I think it's only a matter of time before it appears.
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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:)
Actually, it's NOT the Vatican
by
Taco+Cowboy
·
· Score: 2
It's the Italians who carried out the deed.
The Vatican has NO authority over what the Italians did.
And the Italian gummint is "famous" for the intoleration of cyber-anything.
Back in the golden days of Fido-Net, the Italian gummint sent their fully-armed jackboots forcefully broke into sysops' homes in the name of "peace".
-- Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:Actually, it's NOT the Vatican
by
King+Of+Chat
·
· Score: 2
Hell, it's hard to be funny and right.
BTW RTFA "following a complaint by the Vatican's newspaper"
A good example of how things can get taken way out of context, but as to how well it pertains in this particular situation is up for debate since the pages in question seem to have been taken down. And while it seems you have a particular beef with Christians in general, I feel obligated to point out (as a Christian) that the story is about the Catholic church, which is very different in practice to the rest of Christianity. Feel converted yet?
"... and many Christians are persecuted by... Jews..."
I think someone has his facts slightly reversed.
-Erwos
-- Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:Mod this up! Re:Nobody has asked this yet?
by
WildBeast
·
· Score: 2
Borders are here for the taxpayers to pay even more taxes. Now you can't possibly subject the oh so mighty governments to the same laws.
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
TheWickedKingJeremy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Those who would take away our liberty for a little temporary safety are just fine by us! - the American majority.
Not sure I can speak for the majority, but I certainly do not feel that my liberty has been taken away...
Making it easier to approve wiretaps, etc is perfectly acceptable IMHO given the challenges imposed by our enemies... If you disagree, then you are thankfully also provided for - A new administration could easily "undo" said changes in the future should they not be needed anymore.
--
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
It's True! http://thesource.ofallevil.com/
by
Myriad
·
· Score: 2
-- "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Re:It's True! http://thesource.ofallevil.com/
by
dattaway
·
· Score: 2
I was browsing through that site you mentioned and started reading about the.NET project.
Scary.
Re:It's True! http://thesource.ofallevil.com/
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 2
Is http://thesource.ofallevil.com/ a mirror of the MS site? It sure looks like it, and it uses their copyright terms. Interesting cognitive dissonance. I was actually afraid to follow the links (though I did notice that they (many of them) ended up within thesource.ofallevil.com domain.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
the Vatican's newspaper?
by
WildBeast
·
· Score: 2
Ok so what exactly was the complaint? I mean the paper might have said that those sites are horrible. Did the article actually ask the law enforcment to intervene?
Give us a link to the article will ya?
It would be kinda ironic that a country without an army wants to use force.
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:Exactly what I was wondering...
by
Riskable
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
At the very least, there should be limits to how much information an ISP can give a foreign government about an account holder.
I've been pushing for this for a long time now (yes, I've written my representatives). It has less to do with governments, but anyone in general.
Who can call up and ISP and ask for information on one of their customers? ANYONE. Who decides whether or not to give them the information? THE ISP.
If the government REALLY wants to push laws about the Internet, this should be one of their top priorities. They could make a great anti-spam law and at the same time protect the privacy of their citizens in the same bill!
A warrant should be required for information from an ISP, period. The same should go for accusations of abuse, copyright violation, etc. There's no excuse for terminating an account just because it was ACCUSED of violating some law, somewhere. Due process needs to take place. The current setup of various coporations shutting down websites works because, to the ISP (to avoid getting into a legal battle), you're guilty until proven innocent.
This needs to change
-- -Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) Mod parent up
by
delcielo
·
· Score: 2
Somebody mod the parent of this post up. There are no rights without some limit. In fact, limits are used to guarantee the very rights you value. We have not come far enough as people to allow total and unconditional freedom for everybody. We're too selfish, predatory, and violent to allow society to exist without any limits at all.
Ideals are great; but not many of them can be applied successfully in the world without chipping away at them first.
Geez, if this continues, Italy might become a Catholic nation.
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
uncoveror
·
· Score: 2
Galileo said, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." and that was blasphemy. They even killed Giordono Bruno. I wonder what the websites said that was so awful. Might it have been that the Pope is not infallible?
-- The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:Maybe it's just me but....
by
@madeus
·
· Score: 2
I'm not an American (I'm British) but it most certainly is their business and ours whenever other human beings are being oppressed without due cause.
Europe still remembers what happens when you let other countries get away with doing whatever they like unchecked. Italy in particular should remember this after the part the Italian army played in oppressing citizens of other countries in the last century. This, against the background of what the Israeli's are doing to Palestinians (and vice versa), and to what the Chinese and North Koreans are doing to their citizens is still relevant today.
On a separate point the entire idea is (almost) laughable as Italy still suffers from a corrupt government and business culture also prevalent throughout the judicial system. Admittedly it's a bit better that in was in the 90's but the Italian police would do better to spend more time focusing on there own corrupt judges, politicians, civil servants and police officers rather than concentration on futile and nasty, oppressive action like this (for which Italian culture has an particular tolerance for).
Time and again Italian judges, policemen and politicians have had formal charges of serious fraud, murder and of colliding with the Mafia laid against them - as an key example crooks like Giulio Andreotti (7 time prime mister of Italy) as devout Roman Catholic has been continually and repeatedly supported and defended by the Christian Democrat's in government and by the the Church.
Italy was the same country that imprisoned Galileo under house arrest for life and refused him all medical treatment for daring to suggest that Copernicus had been right and that the Earth went around the Sun - because it was deemed blasphemous. It is of note that the Vatican only admitted it was wrong in 1992, 350 years after his death. Quite frankly it's about time Italy stopped living in the middle ages and stopped persecuting it citizens for not following a decreed religion.
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
RandomPeon
·
· Score: 2
But who gets to judge whether my means are harmful? Presumably it depends largely on the supposed victims. Such rules would have a chilling effect on all speech on controversial issues.
And then there's the problem that offensive speech is a vital part of public discourse. Sometimes the best way to convince people of your position is to let them have it full bore. Some of the most compelling arguments ever made did not mince words. The Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King's speeches, and the pamphlets of the anti-slavery revolution did not mince words. Sometimes one must make judgements and criticize harshly.
BTW, child pornography might not be a good reference point, because it is such a brutal and disgusting act of violence, and I do not think that any sane person would promote it as a "form of expression"
Child pornography actually illustrates the problem with your position very well. Cameron's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet depicts two children having sex as explicitly as one can in US film. (The actors are of course adults). IMHO it adds to the film substantially; it is a story of passionate love after all. But critics of anti-child porn measures cite this movie as a prime example of the dangers in banning representations of child pornography (as opposed to pornography actually involving children). Should those involved in the film be sent to prison? What about written works that describe sexual activities among minors? Of course, actual sexual depictions of actual minors are and should be illegal but beyond that we enter a dangerous zone.
Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR
by
BobNET
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I prefer to read THOUGHTFUL comments
and posts, not stupid one liners that just repeat
what has been said a million times
over.
Then you came to the wrong place...
One nation under god
by
tomdarch
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Claro?
Would your prefer informative?
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 2
I suppose it could be rated insightful.
Perhaps it should just be called generally underrated, without any reasons.
Some people just really despise MS, and look at negative associations as a way to express this. I agree, that nothing more sensible is being expressed here, but that is something felt quite intensely by many people.
And I got a brief smile from the question. And a brief though that went "Well, I guess he isn't *really* the devil."
It's not that much, but I think that it's enough to justify rating it funny. If you don't feel that way about MS, it's probably because you aren't forced to work with their products. Until I had to deal with them I didn't despise them as much either. Of course, their new license agreements help. They're alienating even many long-time friends.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1814
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
osgeek
·
· Score: 2
Right. Even the US courts have said that the problem with child pornography isn't its offensiveness. Virtual kiddie porn, such as cartoons or calling "of age" models "minors" is legal. The problem occurs when you use real minors to create the porn. In that case, you have a helpless victim -- a child.
"Common religious sentiments?"
by
Fencepost
·
· Score: 2
Hm. It's probably written much that way in the actual law.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Roman Catholics are no longer the dominant religion in Italy. Apparently the birth rate among native Italians has dropped (how are those Catholics managing it?), but the Muslim population has been continuing to grow.
This comment holds weight if and only if people *must* have sex. *Must* they? No, sex is never a necessity for individual survival.
I don't know about you, but I consider sex to be a very important part of being a human being, whether it be solitary (ie. masturbation) or with one or more partners. As well as the obvious mechanism of reproduction, it's part of how we pair-bond with romantic partners, as well as being a simple source of physical pleasure. I can "survive" in a concrete cell, wearing a burlap sack and eating a slurry of proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates and fiber, but life is more than survival. *This* life is more than just a morality test to see if we're going to be allowed into heaven. At least that's what I believe. As for you, have fun praying and cowering in your "cell".
-- Freedom: "I won't!"
see why HavenCo has a good business idea?
by
Indy1
·
· Score: 2
They are perfect for sites like this. After all, if the royal family of Sealand takes pot shots at unauthorized boats in their water, what do you think they'd do to a boat filled with scumbag lawyers in their waters ?:)
-- Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
I think your logic and some of your facts are just plain wrong.
Firstly, Africa is not dominated by the Catholic church. Most countries in Africa are listed between 30-60 percent Catholic, and in my experience these numbers have been inflated. Most tribes have indigenous beliefs that supercede Christian/Muslim doctrine; you've been there and you should know this.
Secondly, let's assume your premise is correct, that Catholicism is dominant. If the people of Africa wouldn't use condoms for fear of eternal damnation, why ON EARTH would they have premarital sex with multiple partners? If they have such strong religious beliefs in terms of sexual practice, who left out this latter core belief in their indoctrination? It just doesn't add up. If this logic was consistent, the Republic of Ireland would have 99% of their population infected.
Lastly, don't forget that the church pours big time and money into African AIDS relief efforts. And unlike many other religions, Catholic relief efforts do not necessarily mean proselytizing missions.
I respect your opinion that Catholics have a job ahead of them in terms of reform, but you're just making some mean, inaccurate conjectures to support an anti-religion stance.
Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR
by
Enonu
·
· Score: 2
I'll probably get modded as flaimbait, but this is honest opinion here.
Anti-Microsoft/Bill Gates jokes on Slashdot are trendy. It's like teenagers getting the latest Gap jeans and thinking all the sudden that they're hip the in-crowd. The worst part is that this type of behavior is self-reaffirming. It's funny to them because they think it's funny to others. In reality, it's all quite lame.
Christian Reply: WAS (Re:The Tiger Lillies...)
by
oobeleck
·
· Score: 2
Nice troll.
As a "fundamentalist" Christian I must say I do find that quite offensive. BUT I would rather you be able to say it. Cause if you have the right to say that, then I have the right to say this:
Romans 5:6-8 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
A sys admin who loves Jesus, WHAT is the world coming too???
Jesus loves you, you stinky little troll...
Re:Christian Reply: WAS (Re:The Tiger Lillies...)
by
Graspee_Leemoor
·
· Score: 2
" And I can say that you're posting of that quote from Romans is also quite offensive."
And I can say that your inability to distinguish between "your" and "you're" is also quite offensive.
graspee
I hope I don't lose my Italian Visa over this, but
by
Zen+Mastuh
·
· Score: 2
Morte a'lla Vaticana!! Dio cane!
--
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Solution: be your own God!
by
alienmole
·
· Score: 2
Being your own God seems to work for many charismatic or just plain rich business, political and of course religious leaders in the US. I don't think I need to name names...
What most people don't realize is all the advantages of being your own God: first, you know God exists, so the tricky theological questions are minimized. All doubt evaporates, when you realize that your word is law, and thus you cannot possible ever be wrong, even in theory. You can communicate with God easily, and in fact, you always know what God is thinking. In any case, even the Christians say things like "God is in your heart", so really this "meotheism" is actually consistent with Christianity in that respect. Self-godhood is also, of course, fully consistent with general everday American self-centeredness.
So when I take my citizenship oath, if I have to mention the word God, I'll be thinking of yours truly. USA: one nation under me! Bwahahaha!
Re:Solution: be your own God!
by
Bitsy+Boffin
·
· Score: 2
But being your own god brings it's own little problem, as demonstrated by H2G2
-------- Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. ------
Censorship alert! Censorship alert!!
by
alienmole
·
· Score: 2
Hey, are you trying to censor the guy because you think he blasphemed? If so, and you are a US resident/citizen, please turn yourself in at the nearest ACLU or EFF offices for corrective brain surgery. Don't worry, a frontal lobotomy will not seriously reduce your ability to believe in imaginary entities.
Well, for someone that believe in a god believing in a virgin giving birth shouldn't exactly be that much of a stretch...
Re:Maybe it's just me but....
by
@madeus
·
· Score: 2
Yes that's true but I'd say that's a insignificant minor technicality in the same way that the United Kingdom was only 'created' in 1801 and it's perfectly resonable to refer to that area as "Italy" even when refering to events in the middle ages - the Romans themeselves called the area "Italia" over 2000 years ago.
PS: This is not intended to be an attack on the Cathloic religion, as a disclaimer I am a rather militant atheist and dislike them all for the same reasons, but I'm more trying make a point about (a) the idea of seperation between state and religion is a good thing and (b) people being responsible for the behaviour of each other.
In Europe we are still not very good at keeping tabs on each other (witness the American intervention that was required in Bosnia because we were all sitting around bickering and arguing over what to do while atrocities and mass genocide was being commited), but with the help of the EU we are improving....
Sadly I live in one of the more isloated parts of the Union (Britian) where the Moronic Majority still remain skeptical of the whole EU idea (thanks partly to our historial isolation, and in no small part to News International who control the press over here and are constantly publishing the notion that the whole European intergration idea is a bad thing and trying to convince people that everybody else thinks that do, when in reality the journalists disagree with that viewpoint but are being told to take that line by Rupert Murdoch who personally does like it because he's liable to (a) be forced to pay taxes again in the UK and (b) come under fire from anti-monopoly legislation).
Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR
by
Danse
·
· Score: 2
Nope. It was trendy a couple years ago I suppose. Now it's just part of the culture. Sometimes it's done as a sort of in-joke. Slashdot is supposed to hate Microsoft, so someone will post these kinds of things all the time. Kind of a game to see how anything in the world can be tied to the evilness of Bill and Microsoft. In a way it's funny. Some of them are so absurd that it's hard not to laugh at them.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is what you get...
by
Brian+Knotts
·
· Score: 2
...when you head down the slippery slope of "thoughtcrime."
The Europeans thought they were being "compassionate" by outlawing "racism" and "xenophobia," even in countries (like Britain) where the citizens' representatives had not voted on the matter.
Now, the tables have been turned, and the leftists are whining now that the precedent they set has been used against them.
I am a Catholic, and, yes, this stuff is offensive to me, but I would not wish for the State to criminalize it. When you use the State, and its implication of force, to control any speech, even the most offensive, you are playing with fire.
However, the same crowd would be outraged if I said that "Bin Laden is a hero" or that "the WTC people deserved to die for being ignorant/arrogant americans."
So? Very few here would call for removal of your Website if it said things like that, and anyone who did demand that your pro-binLaden site be taken down would be eyeballs deep in flames. Those of us capable of outrage expect to be outraged by some of what we see on the Net. If we don't like something, we click another URL like an adult can be expected to.
whenever we're discussing social issues (as opposed to tech. ones) I can't help feeling disgusted by some of the expressed opinions.
My problem with social-technological issues here is that most of the opinions here on matters of greater social importance than P4 vs Athlon are usually based on willful ignorance and that offends me. However, while I might have that problem with you, I don't have that problem with the slashdot population in this case.
Everybody here knows what censorship issues are and I agree with the consensus that those would tell us what we can read on the Net or think or see need to be destroyed. Perhaps if you ever advance beyond the wannabe category in censorship, we will be expressing a wish for your destruction.
Your opinion disgusts me, but I don't suggest that you be removed from slashdot.
Downhill from the Roman Empire
by
alizard
·
· Score: 2
The Romans had a saying about situations like this: "Let the Gods avenge Themselves"
We know that apparently, Madonna hasn't done anything about the site in person. The site was closed down by armed thugs working for a government, not with a lightning bolt directed against either the server or the owners.
This means Madonna doesn't exist, is not offended, or doesn't have the power to do anything about the site content.
If She doesn't exist, there's no cause for action and the Italian government has brought shame upon itself for nothing.
If She doesn't have the power to do anything about it without the help of armed government thugs, why is anyone worshipping Her?
If She does exist and either is not offended or likes the site, where is there a cause for action?
The Roman attitude expressed in "Let the Gods avenge themselves" is wise and based on common sense. The action of the Italian government is based on simple superstition of the sort that should have been left behind when our ancestors climbed down from the trees.
Of course, that last sentence would have put slashdot's existence in danger if its servers and owners were in a primitive country.
Re:Downhill from the Roman Empire
by
radja
·
· Score: 2
a picture of my mother falls under copyright. my mother has a say in it if someone publishes that. The copyright on the characters Jezus, Mary and god have long since disappeared, since the authors died more than 1000 years ago. Now if the bible was written by Walt Disney, copyright would have been extended several times by now, and we'd see cases of unlicenced christianity.//rdj
--
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
---In the near future (not next year, but in two-three year from today) government will setup a plan for increasing birth rate. The government is heavily influenced by conservative parties ("conservative" as in "preserve our traditions!")---
Heh. That's always an amusing sort of campaign: social conservatives trying to encourage people to fuck more: Conservative fucking coach: That's it, right... no, take that condom off... okay... wait, no! Not in that orfice! God damnit! (is dragged off to jail for blasphemy)
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
junkgrep
·
· Score: 2
I'm getting a little tired of this argument. Just because there was something called "Dogma" that was instituted by the church, doesn't mean that it couldn't have had, and didn't have dogmas beforehand, particularlly in thinking that the church is infaliable. That it wasn't officially declared in one of the gazillion letters the church sends out is irrelevant: the church refused to even consider the truth of Galileo's claims before censoring them, because to them there was no need to: they were right, he was wrong, end of story. And he wasn't even the worst: the poor guy who suggested that the universe was infinate was put to death. His dying words were something to the effect of "I think you who sit in judgement of me are more afraid of me than I am of you."
---"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."---
It is both possible and common for two people to respect each other, even while openly acknowledging that they each think the other's beliefs are a load of crap...I have every right to insult the beliefs of whomever I see fit
Do you see the contradiction inherent here? No, evidently not.
"Respecting each other" is at least partly about recognising a person's beliefs are important to that individual, and hence deliberately avoiding judgemental and hatred-laden phrases such as "your beliefs are a load of crap".
I am sick and tired of self-righteous bigots like you proclaiming their imagined "rights" to allow them to be as rude, crude, and offensive as possible and then hypocritically pouring scorn on anyone whose actions you despise or disdain. You demand respect and blind obedience to your belief system, and yet refuse to extend the same courtesy to those from whom you demand this supplication.
Ironically enough, a verse in the Bible instructs readers to remove the plank from their own eye before attempting to remove the speck from their brother's eye. Think about it.
Re:Another example of ignorance
by
junkgrep
·
· Score: 2
---When such ambiguity exists, an argument is resolved by appealing to Church Tradition, and that reports to us that she remained a virgin.---
Where does Church Tradition come from, and how can it be in any way distinguished from just more opinions (albiet older ones) about the exact same ambiguity?
Re:Only for obscure definitions of faith
by
junkgrep
·
· Score: 2
---In the end, something must be an axiom, unquestionable.---
Axioms are not really truths: they are simply common assumptions. I don't think that it is TRUE that I exist, but it doesn't get me anywhere to deny it, and for most things, most discussions, no one is interested in questioning the matter.
So, in other words, don't confuse the fact that we need axioms to underly all truth with the idea that there must be "true" axioms out there somewhere: there is no such assurance. Axioms aren't true OR false in that way.
The problem with this sort of declaration is that it falls prey to the True Scotsman fallacy. sure, you think the Catholic Church is an agent of Satan: but that's only the case if we assume beforehand that you've got it right, and they're mistaken. So criticisms of this sort simply beg the question of what interpretation IS right to begin with.
I'd also note that the modern Catholic Church is far more tolerant with regards to religious ideas than you are. Does this demonstrate that they are closer to what you believe to be the foundations of Christianity than you?
nobody has to look at a website. If it offends you then dont look at it.
Usually religions bitching about "being offended" are just putting on a PR to cover up their attempts to control speach.
Like the muslims that offered a price for the head of salmon Rushdie and then they said it is ok because he offended islam on purpose.
Being offended is part of living in a society with free speach. Half the times i post on slashdot some idiot offends me. So what.
And the great thing about the internet is that you dont have to be offended. There is nothing on the internet, that you are required to see. You dont have to look at anything that offends you.
Anybody that attempts to cencor the internet because they were offended is a liar. They just want to limit other people's ability to reach information.
You confuse rationality with reality
by
brokeninside
·
· Score: 2
All properly formulated axioms are true or false.
Whether we can know if a given axiom is true or false is another issue entirely.
Re: it is not about disagreement
by
RandomPeon
·
· Score: 2
You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist.
I suppose I have in examples. And I agree words have power. The pen truly is often mightier than the sword. And I agree hate speech is not a good thing. But I think we give too much credit to blatant hate speech by banning it.
Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.
But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough to rule for the plaintiff in ACLU v Reno and strike down the COPA, which theoretically banned all such works.
Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.
Agreed. Laws have to consider certain non-mechanical standards all the time. Due dilligence, reasonable person, probable cause, you name it. It's not a crime to throw away an incriminating document because you don't need it anymore, but it is a crime to do so to conceal a crime - tricky ground. Sometimes, as is the case with objectionable speech, the ground is too tricky and a civillized justice system also rejects laws which are vague, arbitray, capricious, or overbroad. Consider this piece by George Carlin. Is it hate speech? I think it's insightful and witty, and it makes a compelling argument against religion IMHO, while being incredibly blunt. A friend thought it should be banned as promoting anti-Catholic bigotry. The "reasonable person" test falls apart pretty fast when we start talking about speech.
We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to.
Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors who must come up with sensational cases to gain reelection. (I infer from your spelling you are not an American). Consider this example of a man prosecuted for writing stories which involved sexual acts with children. While actual child pornography is a horrible thing, the child pornography boogeyman is used to justify the prohibition of anything distateful to the majority.
Condoms considered a worse sin than Sex
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 2
Secondly, let's assume your premise is correct, that Catholicism is dominant. If the people of Africa wouldn't use condoms for fear of eternal damnation, why ON EARTH would they have premarital sex with multiple partners? If they have such strong religious beliefs in terms of sexual practice, who left out this latter core belief in their indoctrination? It just doesn't add up. If this logic was consistent, the Republic of Ireland would have 99% of their population infected.
Premarital sex is not considered nearly as serious a sin in current Catholic doctrine as using a condom, or taking birth control. The former is a minor picadello (even in the extreme case, if you are a priest molesting a child entrusted to your care. And no, this isn't a gratuitious stab at the obvious hypocracy of that particular religious order, it exemplifies the difference in severity of the "sin" as defined by that religion. Priests, and lay persons, are routinely forgiven of extreme sexual acts that even mainstream, relatively hedonistic non-religious people would balk at, and allowed to continue their church functions virtually uninterrupted, in stark contrast to using a condom), whereas using birth control is roughly eqauted with having an abortion, which in turn is roughly equated to murder.
As for your naive assumption that conditions in Ireland are in any way analogous to conditions in Africa, your entire premise falls apart. Ireland enjoys a much higher level of education than the African nations in question, and as we all know, the best, indeed the only true innoculant against religion is education.
It is not surprising that most Irish, or for that matter most American, Catholics tell their church to stuff it when told not to use condoms (though even in well-educated America there are a lot of Catholic youth scared to use condoms). To expect the same level of sophistication from countries whos populations are impoverished and largely uneducated is utterly unrelialistic.
Lastly, don't forget that the church pours big time and money into African AIDS relief efforts. And unlike many other religions, Catholic relief efforts do not necessarily mean proselytizing missions.
And I'm sure that is a great comfort to the thousands of Africans (and others) who have unnecissarilly contracted AIDS because they made the lethal mistake of taking their churche's doctrine to heart, rather than dismissing it as the foolish nonsense that it is and protecting themselves.
I respect your opinion that Catholics have a job ahead of them in terms of reform, but you're just making some mean, inaccurate conjectures to support an anti-religion stance.
Nonsense. Nothing I have said is conjecture, it is all publicly available information. You may not believe that the 30% - 60% estimates of Catholic population of these countries is accurate (though I suspect when the church is touting the "good" it does, those numbers suddenly are considered much more reliable). Having spent time in Kenya, Tanzania, and elsewhere I can tell you that the estimates are not inaccurate... Christianity is pretty dominant everywhere except along the coast (where Islam is more dominant, or at least as dominant) and in the bush (where the old Masai ways tend to be adhered to at least to some degree, though even there there is a great deal of Christian influence), and the impact on those cultures is anything but "good."
As with most places where Christianity is pushing the old culture aside, there is a mix (going to mass on Sunday and doing some pagan rituals at other times, etc., with the Christian beliefs taking on more dominance with each generation).
One thing is absolutely certain, however.
With the exception of a well educated elite, none of the normal people in these places, whether living in an old Masai village and practicing Christianity only occasionally, or living in the city and attending mass every sunday, are in any way equipped to dismiss the full authority of the church when it tells them, with all the authority it can bring to bear, that wearing condoms is a terrible sin.
We in the west take our high education, critical thinking skills, skepticism, and our resultant (relative) freedom from religious oppression for granted... most people in the world, unfortunately, lack this luxury and, as believers, are profoundly vulnerable to the depridations these sorts of idiotic policies, like the Vatican's condemnation of condoms and birth control, result in.
And, unfortunately, the number of people dying as a result reflect this ugly and unpleasant fact.
It isn't I being cruel toward the Catholic church, it is the Catholic church which is being unspeakably cruel to the poorest, most vulnerable people on the Earth, and they, and that church, and its advocates, should feel nothing but deep shame for what they are doing.
Re: it is not about disagreement
by
RandomPeon
·
· Score: 2
Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors...
Why do you elect them in the first place?:-)
Short answer: We made a stupid mistake and overreacted to a problem that's now long gone. Societies have an annoying tendency to do this, and the United States is no exception.
Long answer: Originally, it was to deal with astounding corruption, especially at the lower levels of government. The Progressive Movement felt that if you elect every official they would be accountable and the crooked ones would be voted out, which worked suprisingly well. What they neglected is that elected officials in administrative posts can be too responsive to public opinion, and lack the ability to do necessary but unpopular things, or to refuse to do unjust but popular things. Elected judges are worse, I assure you.
The Progressives did a pretty good job of cleaning up our government, but they also made those charged with executing laws hyper-responsive to popular passions of the moment. It's one thing to have a legislature that is extremely responsive to public opinion, they have to debate, agree, and compromise to take any action. It is entirely different to have a single person who has both the authority to act and must answer to the public, often only about the most sensational issues. Incumbents only lose such elections if they have "screwed up", i.e. done something controversial. Otherwise, no one gives a damn. This also means a few extremists from the left or right can get their candidate elected to these minor offices just by caring enough to vote. (Such elections are often held in odd-numbered years, when neither the President, Congress, the governor, or the state legsislature stands for election.)
Re:Maybe it's just me but....
by
@madeus
·
· Score: 2
For reference to your defense of the imprisonment of Galileo (as in "who was responsible"), see my previously post about the United Kingdom only coming into existence in 1801, in much the same way as Italy only "came into existence" in the 1860's
As I've also already said above in a previous post, the Romans referred the area known as "Italy" as "Italia" over 2000 years ago! Italian culture is not a culture that suddenly popped ino existence, it is a region that has shared a common culture for over two thousands years, like all culture it has continued to evolve and change, but it is still a shared culture as it was 2000 years ago.
Obviously I'm not suggesting *your* responsible, but your region's earlier religion dominated culture was and that dominance of religion in that culture still survives today. We all have responsibility for the actions of others in our society and if we do or say nothing then we are complicit in those actions. This recent action is clearly and example of the church exerting undue influence on the government on a police force that would do better to concentrate on other areas and so thusly to the detriment of your country (and so to the detriment of Europe as a whole which most certainly is my business!).
I was not surprised by your response, but was pleased to see that, as I suspect, Europeans are apparently less touchy than Americans on the subject of critisizim as you were the only person agitated enough by my comments to reply in such a defensive fashion (although given recent events, the Americans might be excused).
But to be clear, my post was not Flamebait nor a Troll - *EVERY* country has very serious social problems that needs to be addressed and we *must* admit to our own societies failings or they will not be addressed. It's of extreme importance now that Europe is pulling closer together, as any country not advancing itself culturally and reforming bad legislation quick enough is not seen to be pulling it's weight and is acting as a drag on the other nations.
As you point out, in the last century, film censorship was one of ours. Numerous films were banned and deemed unfit and shocking thanks to the 'Mary Whitehouse' mentality (sorry you'll have to look that reference up yourself:) that prevailed in film censorship long after the next generation had ceased to be shocked or even care about the films in question, but that's an act of typical British reservation for you, we have the same lingering attitudes towards sex and pornography censorship for the same reasons.
In the same way, Italy has serious issues with the separation of church and state and a separate more serious issue with corrupt officials. It needs to address these issues are reform it's legislation. If it doesn't do it in a timely enough fashion, it may discover that Europe will reform it for them (as the EU has done for many countries already in more pedestrian matters). I won't list all the failings of both our countries, we all know what our own societies cultural failings are and Europeans tend to have a pretty good grasp of our neighbors cultural failings;).
Which brings me neatly on to the next issue, you took offense at my use of Stereotypes. Well clearly stereotypes exist for a reason - they stem from truth and we are all the better for not hiding from them. I'm a Scotsman who, quite frankly, is a bit of a fat bastard and like's to drink. Should I ignore that and take offense at that stereotype, or should it trouble me and cause me to address that fact that Scotland has the worst instances of deaths from heart disease in Europe?
I would say that you need to turn round and address your own region's issues and admit to it's failings rather than being defensive about them.
Re:Maybe it's just me but....
by
@madeus
·
· Score: 2
You clearly are extremely hypersensitive to the entire subject.
I see you persist in denying that there is a common Italian culture.
There is such a thing as French, British and American cultures (and even separate Scottish and English cultures, which make up British Identity) but you think Italy is unique and assert that it does not have one. Well, it has a common culture whether you realise it or not and a bit of traveling to several different countries in Europe and to different parts of the US (East coast vrs. West coast) has made that clear to me.
Studying a regions laws, the way they do business and life styles of it's citizens is something that everyone who has access to a library or an uncensored internet connection can do and so ignorance is a poor excuse.
Your comments lead me to wonder how much time you actually spend studying your own politics and looking at other cultures as your responses seem knee jerk and poorly thought out, and are the sort of thing I'd expect to read in News International Tabloid.
The Italian populous let their government get away with being corrupt (taking bribes) colliding with organized crime (which the police have been too afraid and corrupt to tackle properly) and covertly murdering each other, journalists and case prosecution witness for years, you've been a poorer country because of it and religion most definitely interferes with the state despite what you think.
Italy has away from addressing this, which is why Italy has had to face many of the problems it has had in the recent past, particularly with reference so some of the scandals of the 90's. The fact the Italy did not address these problems is the reason it lags behind economically behind other European countries like France, the UK and Germany. Italy has a well educate populace with good infrastructure. If it can escape some of it's cultural pitfalls (white collar crime, corruption and the tolerance of it) then there is no reason it could not continue to grow has it has done in the late 90's.
However unless it persists in cleaning up it's act then it has little hope and I can't help but feel the election of it's current Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (the countries richest man who owns the majority of Italy's news, radio and newspapers and has faced numerous corruption allegations) is a shot in the foot for good governance, and Italy's future development. In fact, his election was act of downright stupidity (IMHO) by the populous and was criticized by main stream press the world over.
You can ignore that (and the fact that is is a legacy of a common Italian culture) and you can attest that the Church and state are separate all that all you like, but exactly how do you explain not only all the scandal's of the 90's and your government shutting down web sites on charges of "blasphemous" web sites? Certainly police charges of Blasphemy would never be brought against a web site UK, nor can I see such a thing happening in other countries (like Germany, France, Denmark, Austria, the USA, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand....) - it's the sort of thing that goes on in fundamentalist religious countries like Iraq, and does NOT belong in Europe!
The entire religion of Hinduism disconnected all Burger King websites from the internet. Their claim that BK Deluxe with Cheese blasphemed their most holy sacred cows was accepted by the EU as "Good enough for us, yeah".
Don't mess with the Pope
by
Aqua+OS+X
·
· Score: 2
Hey, don't mess with the Pope. He'll take down your site... and then shoot you.
-- "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Re:Only for obscure definitions of faith
by
Catbeller
·
· Score: 2
You are using the word "faith" with entirely different meanings.
Your children exist: faith in them is appropriate. They also need your faith, or you would spend your life making them miserable with your monitoring.
Your faith in their existence is caused by requests for money, medical bills, and the fact you had them in your house. Your faith in their existence is based on observation, cross-checked with the observations of others hat, yes, they went to school, were seen frequently, exist.
Faith in theological terms means that you believe, without possiblity of denial given whatever argument, that whatever your parents told you is true.
The fact that "faith" around the world means that God/Jesus exists, Mohammed went to heaven with the face of a woman, Xenu the galactic overlord really did send billions of drugged bodies to Earth to convert them to thetans, spirits really do exist in animals and trees, crystals create quantum doorways into mystical dimensions, tax cuts really do reduce our debt load, Emperor Hirohito really is descended from the gods of Japan, Joe Smith really did talk to an angel and created Utah, Atlantis existed, sacrificing virgins and wearing their skins really do keep the drought away, witches should be killed, gays should be killed, calico cats really are Satan's minions...
Faith, o mighty faith.
The difference is between faith in a person, meaning trust and understanding, and in other cases, believe without observation or reason, merely because someone told you so, usually when you were three feet tall. And said lesson applied with a stick or a hand if you were a smart ass.
Hacked in, possibly illegally
by
billstewart
·
· Score: 2
According to the article, the police used the offenders' PC and password to log in to the web site and change it. It didn't say how they got the password - was it saved on the PC, written on a yellow sticky note, or did they beat it out of the suspects? In any case, they didn't contact the US site or order them to take it down, so they didn't apply any jurisdiction over them, they just took direct action.
The catch is - Does this violate US laws against cracking into computers? Can it be construed as using illegally obtained passwords, and can the Italian police be charged under US law as illegal hackers? Would the US actually prosecute? Could it enforce a judgement if it succeeded? Would the ISP enjoy taking this to the World Court or some similar body? It appears from the news article that the accused blasphemers haven't been convicted of any crime yet, only accused, and this was part of the police investigation; don't know if that makes it legal under Italian law.
The one US datapoint I have for similar laws is that blasphemy was illegal in Delaware until 1968, when a court threw out both the blasphemy law (for violating the First Amendment) and the prescribed punishment ( N lashes at the whipping post, as cruel and unusual). The blasphemy laws hadn't actually been applied in ages until that case; don't know how often whipping was still used before then.
--
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Slashdot Mirror
Try this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s603070.htm
Wednesday, July 10, 2002. Posted: 10:21:15 (AEDT) Italian police black out 'blasphemous' websites 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 paper says a special police unit has taken over the sites due to what it has termed unrepeatable words which accompanied the name of the Madonna. The police have since blacked out pages on the sites, so that surfers can now only find the words: "Site seized by the Head of Rome's Special Police Force, on the orders of Rome's Chief Prosecutor." The paper says the police have also discovered a commercial network which sells t-shirts carrying the same blasphemous logos that appeared on the sites. Print Email
1. Aren't there any mirrors? :-)
2. Where can I buy the 'blasphemious T-shirts'? They must be worth a fortune now!
Ciryon
I disagree with censorship in all instances. I wouldn't seek to take down sites which choose to blasphem, perhaps I would try and educate them. But if they are a lost cause, then they can burn in hell.
The URL doesn't seem to work. this one does.
As it seems speaking your mind is less and less accepted. Ones again the church is at the frontier of squelzing ideas and expressions they don't like.
And more and more I get the idea the world is on a one-way road to new dark-ages..
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
I saw this news last night on teletext. So far I haven't heard what sites have been blocked and it appears to be restricted to Italian sites only. At least Landover Babtist is still up and running. Warning: This site is very funny. And you can still get your Cradle of Filth T-shirts here.
Hello,
Recently I've been introduced to an operating system known as Linux.
Lured by its low cost, I replaced Windows 98 on my computer with Linux. Unfortunately the more I use it the more I fear that this "Linux" may be an insidious way for the Dark One to gain a stronger foothold here on Earth. I know this may be a shocking claim, but I have evidence to back it up!
To begin with, Linux is based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork. This OS -- and its Linux offspring -- extensively use what are unsettingly called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a computer running Linux then you probably have these "demons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! Furthermore in order to start or stop these "demons" a user must execute a command called "finger". By "fingering" a "demon" one excercises an unholy power, much the same way that the Lord of Flies controls his black minions.
Linux contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?
Consider some of these other Linux commands: "sleep", "mount", "unzip", "strip" and "touch". All highly suggestive in a sexual nature. I know that our Lord cannot approve of these, and I urge them to be renamed to something appropriate to the Christian community. Interestingly "CONTROL-G" (the sixth key from the left of the keyboard) does an abort. To write files a "VI" editor is included. All these are to ensnare the unsuspecting christian who could get tempted by typing "VIVIVI" all day long.
Fourth, Linux uses a flavor of DOS known as Bash. Bash is an acronym for "Bourne Again Shell". On the surface this would appear to be supportive of the Lord. However, remember that even Satan can quote the bible for his own purposes! While I believe Linux may be born-again, its obvious by the misspelling of "born" that its not born-again in an Christian church. Will the lies ever cease?
Additionally, one of the main long-haired hippies involved with the GNU Free Software Foundation supports communism, contraception and abortion. He has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values", and his web site even advocates government support of contraception. He also wears fake halos, and has quips about his made-up church that relates to his free software. I find such blasphemy to be extremely unsettling.
One must also remember that the creator of Linux, a college student named Linux Torvaldis, comes from Finland. I'm sure all the followers of Christ are aware of the heritical nature of the Finnish: from necrophilia to human sacrifice, Finnish culture is awash in sin. I find little reason to believe anything good and holy could arise from this evil land.
Finally, let us remember that there is an alternative to using the Satan-powered Linux. I think history has shown us that Microsoft is quite holy. I'm told that its founder, William Gates is a strong supporter of our Lord and I encourage my fellow Christians to buy only his products to help keep the Devil at bay.
I wish I had more time to expound upon my findings. Unfortunately a family of Jews has moved in across the street and I must go speak to them of Jesus Christ before they are condemned to eternal hellfire.
Please investigate this as you see fit and I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusions that I have.
Wonder how Italy squares this with the fact that they are a signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which should protect 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' as well as 'freedom of expression'.
ho hum.
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>
In short: Results 1 - 10 of about 9,260
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
They should have sent the 'Spanish Inquisition'
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
I guess they're tired of hearing this one...
Apologies to Python(Monty) Ltd.
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
Since Bill is the devil is microsoft.com next?
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
I hope none of these Roman Prosecutors ever try browsing Slashdot at -1... going by the posts so far on this article we'd be censored in no time :).
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
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
Snipped rant saying everything should be allowed apart from this one thing you find offensive
;-). Uh oh, maybe the vatican will take down this post...
Have you thought that maybe the Vatican finds these sites as offensive as you find those with child porn?
On the other hand, they might want to keep quiet about paedophilia
And yet again another reason why the Founding Fathers of the US knew what they were talking about when they created the constitution. I am not American, but I keep seeing the "old establishment" trying to take over.
This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.
I am not saying that the websites are in good taste or even right. But to say the sites are blasphemous and restrict the right to make up one's own mind is thinking straight from 1200's.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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
However the fact that the Vatican is seemingly able to lean on the Italian police sufficiently to get them to take such drastic action tells us something about the power of religeon in an otherwise secular society.
Make that a "HELL NO!"
The danish constitution has a very interesting paragraph:
" 77
Enhver er berettiget til på tryk, i skrift og tale at offentliggøre sine tanker, dog under ansvar for domstolene. Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingen sinde på ny indføres. "
And in English:
" 77
Anyone is at liberty to publish his thought, be it printed, in writing or speech, but are accountable to a court of law. Censureship and other preventative meassures can never again be introduced."
Or something to that effect.
The Danish police have no right to shut down any web-sites - to do so you need a court order (freedom of speech with personal responsibility). This includes hate-speech, blasphemy, propaganda and otherwise.
You are obviously not a lawyer, and you had better try to back up your wild claims with relevant quotes next time around.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Found searching Google:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133397
More info, according to it they have been mixing pornography with religion.
"They then went on to show a nun in suggestive clothes [and] other things in poor taste."
I doubt, therefore I may be.
I'm crucifying Jesus, banging in the nails,
And I am so happy, because old Jesus failed.
I'm crucifying Jesus, nail him to the cross,
The poor old bastard bleeds to death and I don't give a toss.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm crucifying Jesus, in my piss he bathes.
I think I am a pervert, I think I am depraved
I'm crucifying Jesus, beat him to a pulp,
I stick my organ in his mouth and on it he must gulp.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
You see that crown of thorns upon his head?
Well that was my idea.
I think I might be going to hell,
Oh dear!
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.
----
All Text By Martyn Jacques
Copyright Misery Guts Music
http://www.tigerlillies.com
"Information wants to be paid"
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?
Next thing you know they'll be shutting down sites which contain sexually-explicit stuff, like describing what the priests have been doing with the alterboys...
Child Pornography isn't just offensive but it's a crime against innocent children who are all too often abused or murdered. Whereas blasphemie isn't a crime against humanity, kiddie porn is.
i would hope any american could wear a FUCK AMERICA tshirt every day of their lives and live free.
that is the entire point of america.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Depending on whatever century you (still) live in, Blashemy could be here, here, or even here.
Fortunately, we live in a country which protects individuals from charges of blas... oh,
never mind.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
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.
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.
First, you won't get killed in America for wearing such a T-shirt either (unless you go out of your way to get out to some obscure redneck bar on the ass of the world, somewhere in the deep south or Texas, but then, you're endangering yourself if you go hang out with such yahoos regardless, where people have been hassled for wearing a FreeBSD T-shirt because "it has the devil on it." Kind of like going to South-Central LA dressed as a Klansman, and I would warrant that if you go looking for trouble deliberately like this, you'll have similiar results in just about any country in the world. Try wearing Nazi regalia into a bar in Germany, or France, or the Netherlands, or a T-shirt with a pakistani flag on it in Delhi, etc.).
And don't be so sure and self righteous in making the claim that the vatican isn't killing people. If you talk someone into jumping off a cliff, and they reluctantly take your advice, you are most certainly a party to murder (Dr. Kavorkian in contrast never talked anyone into suicide, he just lent a hand to those who'd already decided, but I digress). The Vatican has actively been discouraging suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H believers in Africa not to use condoms, even to prevent the spread of AIDS (with the Vatican knowing full well that without condoms the disease would spread faster and wider than otherwise), threatening those poor men and women with an eternity of torment by fire if they take that small precaution against the spread of AIDS (and those poor people believe that nonsense and take the Vatican's admonitions to heart). This influence, with the full weight and authority of the church behind it, has helped fuel an epidemic which has killed millions, and as far as I'm concerned much of that blood is on the Vatican's hands. I won't go into the racial component of this atrocity, except to say that it wouldn't surprise me if some of the old, white men in the upper echelons of the Vatican weren't secretly pleased with the results of their policies.
So the Vatican may not kill you for beshmirching the name of a legendary, likely never-having-existed woman who sired the bastard Christian demigod Jesus (though they do apparently think nothing of violating your basic right of free expression for doing so), but they'll certainly encourage you to kill yourself via unsafe sex, especially if you're an African.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You would hope that but it only happens to an extent. Yes they can live "free" but they sure as heck would be persecuted at every opportunity.
Also note that if you'd gone around New York on Sept 11 supporting Allah, you probably would have been locked up just to keep the peace. There are limits to free speech and just because it's in the constitution in America doesn't mean it's a sure thing there.
Whether all this is good and bad is left to your right to free choice - something notably absent in the American constitution, directly anyhow.
Please, show some decency here. This is about as far from funny as imaginable.
I hope they haven't watched the Black Adder TV show recently.
Who can forget the baby eating bishiop of Bath & Wells
and I distintly rember an episode where a nun confesses to liking the 'hesen under things'
Of cause they may not complain as this was all CofE
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
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!
Freedom of speech is not the right to say whatever you want as long as you don't bother anyone, Freedom of speech is the right to say something ESPECIALLY if it offends someone. It's not ok to put up that billboard, but if you really want to put up the money to do it, you have every right to.
Blasphemy isn't just offensive, but it's a crime against definitely not innocent saints and martys who all were abused and murdered (and deserved it, too - don't mess with us pagans/wiccans/atheists/jews/christ scientists!) Whereas blasphemy is a crime against humanity, child molesting by catholic priests isn't.
Many religions take the bible, the ideas of Jesus, and twist them, Krishnas and Jehovas witnesses for example
Don't forget the Catholics... they're just as bad as JW and Krishnas, and there are more of them!
Seriously, if you believe any major (or even minor) religion hasn't taken liberties with religious texts, then you're naieve in the extreme. If you believe that Catholics are 'above' the other religions in this regard, try doing some (non-Church-supported) reading about the Council of Nicea (you know, the guys who edited the bible and the 'ideas of Jesus' that get accepted as doctrine today)
Of course, I probably just fed a troll..
Blockquoth the parent's parent:
The only exception is child pornography
And in the US even that exception applies only to actual child pornography, which inherently involve child abuse. You are free to write erotic fiction with children in it or to portray adults as children in a dramatic or pictorial work. These are constitutionally protected expressions.
Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too.
I wouldn't, unless a person is harmed in the making of the work. As others have pointed out, these things are incredibly subjective. The potential for abuse is quite real. The most famous example is the Canadian anti-pornography laws. Andrea Dworkin's book advocating such laws was deemed in violation and banned from Canada. And hate speech is always is in the eye of the beholder. France, Germany, and Italy have such laws, for example, but they have not been against anti-immigrant candidates.
Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does.
This is an incredibly slippery slope. If someone takes a reprehensible position and declares it to based on their religion, I'm no longer allowed to tell them that their religion is wrong or immoral? I can't tell people there is no God, because it might hurt them? Are religious people no longer allowed to tell me I should follow Jesus to be saved? This is the least justifiable one, because people choose their religion, unlike their gender or color.
there have to be limits
Why? Speaking and acting are two different things. Theres an old saying "sticks and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" that makes the difference clear.
More importantly, free speech is considered a right because it is useful - because the advantages of people being able to say what they want is more important that the disadvantages. Ant the whole idea of rights is that they let you do things that would otherwise be illegal.
In other words, a right is a permission to do something without limits. This is obvious if you think about it - who needs a right to free speech to say things everyone agrees about? You can say things like that anyway, without the need for the protection from prosecution that a right gives.
http://www.acooke.org
Don't like the NEw Internet? Think it sucks? Long for the day when you could actually browse alt.sex and post to it without fear of getting 1500 russian live goat porn spams a day for the rest of your natural life? Maybe it's time for a "Members only" solution. It'd be pretty easy to implement an invitation only IPv4 or IPv6 virtual private network on top of the Internet. I'd want to make some changes though. I'd want to require cryptographic authentication of hosts for mail and news postings for one, so that removing any spammers that might get in could be as easy as telling your computer not to accept communications from the offending host. Perhaps an IETF like entity would be in order to deal with such issues.
It would be pretty easy to get the ball rolling on such a system, and I think it's only a matter of time before it appears.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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:)
It's the Italians who carried out the deed.
The Vatican has NO authority over what the Italians did.
And the Italian gummint is "famous" for the intoleration of cyber-anything.
Back in the golden days of Fido-Net, the Italian gummint sent their fully-armed jackboots forcefully broke into sysops' homes in the name of "peace".
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
A good example of how things can get taken way out of context, but as to how well it pertains in this particular situation is up for debate since the pages in question seem to have been taken down. And while it seems you have a particular beef with Christians in general, I feel obligated to point out (as a Christian) that the story is about the Catholic church, which is very different in practice to the rest of Christianity. Feel converted yet?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
"... and many Christians are persecuted by ... Jews ..."
I think someone has his facts slightly reversed.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Borders are here for the taxpayers to pay even more taxes. Now you can't possibly subject the oh so mighty governments to the same laws.
Those who would take away our liberty for a little temporary safety are just fine by us! - the American majority.
Not sure I can speak for the majority, but I certainly do not feel that my liberty has been taken away...
Making it easier to approve wiretaps, etc is perfectly acceptable IMHO given the challenges imposed by our enemies... If you disagree, then you are thankfully also provided for - A new administration could easily "undo" said changes in the future should they not be needed anymore.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
It's true! Don't believe me? Try it: thesource.ofallevil.com
We knew it wsa true all along!
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Ok so what exactly was the complaint? I mean the paper might have said that those sites are horrible. Did the article actually ask the law enforcment to intervene?
Give us a link to the article will ya?
It would be kinda ironic that a country without an army wants to use force.
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?
Somebody mod the parent of this post up. There are no rights without some limit. In fact, limits are used to guarantee the very rights you value. We have not come far enough as people to allow total and unconditional freedom for everybody. We're too selfish, predatory, and violent to allow society to exist without any limits at all.
Ideals are great; but not many of them can be applied successfully in the world without chipping away at them first.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Come get him you italians.
Bathe with Jesus
I think that this is just a clever way to get young women.
Way to go Jesus!
WWJD? Make a website that gets him play.
It's all good.
Geez, if this continues, Italy might become a Catholic nation.
Galileo said, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." and that was blasphemy. They even killed Giordono Bruno. I wonder what the websites said that was so awful. Might it have been that the Pope is not infallible?
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
I'm not an American (I'm British) but it most certainly is their business and ours whenever other human beings are being oppressed without due cause.
Europe still remembers what happens when you let other countries get away with doing whatever they like unchecked. Italy in particular should remember this after the part the Italian army played in oppressing citizens of other countries in the last century. This, against the background of what the Israeli's are doing to Palestinians (and vice versa), and to what the Chinese and North Koreans are doing to their citizens is still relevant today.
On a separate point the entire idea is (almost) laughable as Italy still suffers from a corrupt government and business culture also prevalent throughout the judicial system. Admittedly it's a bit better that in was in the 90's but the Italian police would do better to spend more time focusing on there own corrupt judges, politicians, civil servants and police officers rather than concentration on futile and nasty, oppressive action like this (for which Italian culture has an particular tolerance for).
Time and again Italian judges, policemen and politicians have had formal charges of serious fraud, murder and of colliding with the Mafia laid against them - as an key example crooks like Giulio Andreotti (7 time prime mister of Italy) as devout Roman Catholic has been continually and repeatedly supported and defended by the Christian Democrat's in government and by the the Church.
Italy was the same country that imprisoned Galileo under house arrest for life and refused him all medical treatment for daring to suggest that Copernicus had been right and that the Earth went around the Sun - because it was deemed blasphemous. It is of note that the Vatican only admitted it was wrong in 1992, 350 years after his death. Quite frankly it's about time Italy stopped living in the middle ages and stopped persecuting it citizens for not following a decreed religion.
But who gets to judge whether my means are harmful? Presumably it depends largely on the supposed victims. Such rules would have a chilling effect on all speech on controversial issues.
And then there's the problem that offensive speech is a vital part of public discourse. Sometimes the best way to convince people of your position is to let them have it full bore. Some of the most compelling arguments ever made did not mince words. The Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King's speeches, and the pamphlets of the anti-slavery revolution did not mince words. Sometimes one must make judgements and criticize harshly.
BTW, child pornography might not be a good reference point, because it is such a brutal and disgusting act of violence, and I do not think that any sane person would promote it as a "form of expression"
Child pornography actually illustrates the problem with your position very well. Cameron's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet depicts two children having sex as explicitly as one can in US film. (The actors are of course adults). IMHO it adds to the film substantially; it is a story of passionate love after all. But critics of anti-child porn measures cite this movie as a prime example of the dangers in banning representations of child pornography (as opposed to pornography actually involving children). Should those involved in the film be sent to prison? What about written works that describe sexual activities among minors? Of course, actual sexual depictions of actual minors are and should be illegal but beyond that we enter a dangerous zone.
Then you came to the wrong place...
Claro?
I suppose it could be rated insightful.
Perhaps it should just be called generally underrated, without any reasons.
Some people just really despise MS, and look at negative associations as a way to express this. I agree, that nothing more sensible is being expressed here, but that is something felt quite intensely by many people.
And I got a brief smile from the question. And a brief though that went "Well, I guess he isn't *really* the devil."
It's not that much, but I think that it's enough to justify rating it funny. If you don't feel that way about MS, it's probably because you aren't forced to work with their products. Until I had to deal with them I didn't despise them as much either. Of course, their new license agreements help. They're alienating even many long-time friends.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1814
Right. Even the US courts have said that the problem with child pornography isn't its offensiveness. Virtual kiddie porn, such as cartoons or calling "of age" models "minors" is legal. The problem occurs when you use real minors to create the porn. In that case, you have a helpless victim -- a child.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Roman Catholics are no longer the dominant religion in Italy. Apparently the birth rate among native Italians has dropped (how are those Catholics managing it?), but the Muslim population has been continuing to grow.
fencepost
just a little off
This comment holds weight if and only if people *must* have sex. *Must* they? No, sex is never a necessity for individual survival.
I don't know about you, but I consider sex to be a very important part of being a human being, whether it be solitary (ie. masturbation) or with one or more partners. As well as the obvious mechanism of reproduction, it's part of how we pair-bond with romantic partners, as well as being a simple source of physical pleasure. I can "survive" in a concrete cell, wearing a burlap sack and eating a slurry of proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates and fiber, but life is more than survival. *This* life is more than just a morality test to see if we're going to be allowed into heaven. At least that's what I believe. As for you, have fun praying and cowering in your "cell".
Freedom: "I won't!"
They are perfect for sites like this. After all, if the royal family of Sealand takes pot shots at unauthorized boats in their water, what do you think they'd do to a boat filled with scumbag lawyers in their waters ? :)
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
I think your logic and some of your facts are just plain wrong.
Firstly, Africa is not dominated by the Catholic church. Most countries in Africa are listed between 30-60 percent Catholic, and in my experience these numbers have been inflated. Most tribes have indigenous beliefs that supercede Christian/Muslim doctrine; you've been there and you should know this.
Secondly, let's assume your premise is correct, that Catholicism is dominant. If the people of Africa wouldn't use condoms for fear of eternal damnation, why ON EARTH would they have premarital sex with multiple partners? If they have such strong religious beliefs in terms of sexual practice, who left out this latter core belief in their indoctrination? It just doesn't add up. If this logic was consistent, the Republic of Ireland would have 99% of their population infected.
Lastly, don't forget that the church pours big time and money into African AIDS relief efforts. And unlike many other religions, Catholic relief efforts do not necessarily mean proselytizing missions.
I respect your opinion that Catholics have a job ahead of them in terms of reform, but you're just making some mean, inaccurate conjectures to support an anti-religion stance.
I'll probably get modded as flaimbait, but this is honest opinion here.
Anti-Microsoft/Bill Gates jokes on Slashdot are trendy. It's like teenagers getting the latest Gap jeans and thinking all the sudden that they're hip the in-crowd. The worst part is that this type of behavior is self-reaffirming. It's funny to them because they think it's funny to others. In reality, it's all quite lame.
As a "fundamentalist" Christian I must say I do find that quite offensive. BUT I would rather you be able to say it. Cause if you have the right to say that, then I have the right to say this:
Romans 5:6-8
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
A sys admin who loves Jesus, WHAT is the world coming too???
Jesus loves you, you stinky little troll...
Morte a'lla Vaticana!! Dio cane!
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
What most people don't realize is all the advantages of being your own God: first, you know God exists, so the tricky theological questions are minimized. All doubt evaporates, when you realize that your word is law, and thus you cannot possible ever be wrong, even in theory. You can communicate with God easily, and in fact, you always know what God is thinking. In any case, even the Christians say things like "God is in your heart", so really this "meotheism" is actually consistent with Christianity in that respect. Self-godhood is also, of course, fully consistent with general everday American self-centeredness.
So when I take my citizenship oath, if I have to mention the word God, I'll be thinking of yours truly. USA: one nation under me ! Bwahahaha!
Hey, are you trying to censor the guy because you think he blasphemed? If so, and you are a US resident/citizen, please turn yourself in at the nearest ACLU or EFF offices for corrective brain surgery. Don't worry, a frontal lobotomy will not seriously reduce your ability to believe in imaginary entities.
Well, for someone that believe in a god believing in a virgin giving birth shouldn't exactly be that much of a stretch...
Yes that's true but I'd say that's a insignificant minor technicality in the same way that the United Kingdom was only 'created' in 1801 and it's perfectly resonable to refer to that area as "Italy" even when refering to events in the middle ages - the Romans themeselves called the area "Italia" over 2000 years ago.
;)
PS: This is not intended to be an attack on the Cathloic religion, as a disclaimer I am a rather militant atheist and dislike them all for the same reasons, but I'm more trying make a point about (a) the idea of seperation between state and religion is a good thing and (b) people being responsible for the behaviour of each other.
In Europe we are still not very good at keeping tabs on each other (witness the American intervention that was required in Bosnia because we were all sitting around bickering and arguing over what to do while atrocities and mass genocide was being commited), but with the help of the EU we are improving....
Sadly I live in one of the more isloated parts of the Union (Britian) where the Moronic Majority still remain skeptical of the whole EU idea (thanks partly to our historial isolation, and in no small part to News International who control the press over here and are constantly publishing the notion that the whole European intergration idea is a bad thing and trying to convince people that everybody else thinks that do, when in reality the journalists disagree with that viewpoint but are being told to take that line by Rupert Murdoch who personally does like it because he's liable to (a) be forced to pay taxes again in the UK and (b) come under fire from anti-monopoly legislation).
But *ahem* that's another rant..
the Church Of Reverse Engineering. See if this could be used to overturn DMCA for violating our religous freedoms.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Nope. It was trendy a couple years ago I suppose. Now it's just part of the culture. Sometimes it's done as a sort of in-joke. Slashdot is supposed to hate Microsoft, so someone will post these kinds of things all the time. Kind of a game to see how anything in the world can be tied to the evilness of Bill and Microsoft. In a way it's funny. Some of them are so absurd that it's hard not to laugh at them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The Europeans thought they were being "compassionate" by outlawing "racism" and "xenophobia," even in countries (like Britain) where the citizens' representatives had not voted on the matter.
Now, the tables have been turned, and the leftists are whining now that the precedent they set has been used against them.
I am a Catholic, and, yes, this stuff is offensive to me, but I would not wish for the State to criminalize it. When you use the State, and its implication of force, to control any speech, even the most offensive, you are playing with fire.
So? Very few here would call for removal of your Website if it said things like that, and anyone who did demand that your pro-binLaden site be taken down would be eyeballs deep in flames. Those of us capable of outrage expect to be outraged by some of what we see on the Net. If we don't like something, we click another URL like an adult can be expected to.
whenever we're discussing social issues (as opposed to tech. ones) I can't help feeling disgusted by some of the expressed opinions.
My problem with social-technological issues here is that most of the opinions here on matters of greater social importance than P4 vs Athlon are usually based on willful ignorance and that offends me. However, while I might have that problem with you, I don't have that problem with the slashdot population in this case.
Everybody here knows what censorship issues are and I agree with the consensus that those would tell us what we can read on the Net or think or see need to be destroyed. Perhaps if you ever advance beyond the wannabe category in censorship, we will be expressing a wish for your destruction.
Your opinion disgusts me, but I don't suggest that you be removed from slashdot.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Let the Gods avenge Themselves"
We know that apparently, Madonna hasn't done anything about the site in person. The site was closed down by armed thugs working for a government, not with a lightning bolt directed against either the server or the owners.
This means Madonna doesn't exist, is not offended, or doesn't have the power to do anything about the site content.
If She doesn't exist, there's no cause for action and the Italian government has brought shame upon itself for nothing.
If She doesn't have the power to do anything about it without the help of armed government thugs, why is anyone worshipping Her?
If She does exist and either is not offended or likes the site, where is there a cause for action?
The Roman attitude expressed in "Let the Gods avenge themselves" is wise and based on common sense. The action of the Italian government is based on simple superstition of the sort that should have been left behind when our ancestors climbed down from the trees.
Of course, that last sentence would have put slashdot's existence in danger if its servers and owners were in a primitive country.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Let's find out.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
---In the near future (not next year, but in two-three year from today) government will setup a plan for increasing birth rate. The government is heavily influenced by conservative parties ("conservative" as in "preserve our traditions!")---
Heh. That's always an amusing sort of campaign: social conservatives trying to encourage people to fuck more: Conservative fucking coach: That's it, right... no, take that condom off... okay... wait, no! Not in that orfice! God damnit! (is dragged off to jail for blasphemy)
I'm getting a little tired of this argument. Just because there was something called "Dogma" that was instituted by the church, doesn't mean that it couldn't have had, and didn't have dogmas beforehand, particularlly in thinking that the church is infaliable. That it wasn't officially declared in one of the gazillion letters the church sends out is irrelevant: the church refused to even consider the truth of Galileo's claims before censoring them, because to them there was no need to: they were right, he was wrong, end of story.
And he wasn't even the worst: the poor guy who suggested that the universe was infinate was put to death. His dying words were something to the effect of "I think you who sit in judgement of me are more afraid of me than I am of you."
---"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."---
Kind of a self-sealing argument, isn't it?
It is both possible and common for two people to respect each other, even while openly acknowledging that they each think the other's beliefs are a load of crap...I have every right to insult the beliefs of whomever I see fit
Do you see the contradiction inherent here? No, evidently not.
"Respecting each other" is at least partly about recognising a person's beliefs are important to that individual, and hence deliberately avoiding judgemental and hatred-laden phrases such as "your beliefs are a load of crap".
I am sick and tired of self-righteous bigots like you proclaiming their imagined "rights" to allow them to be as rude, crude, and offensive as possible and then hypocritically pouring scorn on anyone whose actions you despise or disdain. You demand respect and blind obedience to your belief system, and yet refuse to extend the same courtesy to those from whom you demand this supplication.
Ironically enough, a verse in the Bible instructs readers to remove the plank from their own eye before attempting to remove the speck from their brother's eye. Think about it.
---When such ambiguity exists, an argument is resolved by appealing to Church Tradition, and that reports to us that she remained a virgin.---
Where does Church Tradition come from, and how can it be in any way distinguished from just more opinions (albiet older ones) about the exact same ambiguity?
---In the end, something must be an axiom, unquestionable.---
Axioms are not really truths: they are simply common assumptions. I don't think that it is TRUE that I exist, but it doesn't get me anywhere to deny it, and for most things, most discussions, no one is interested in questioning the matter.
So, in other words, don't confuse the fact that we need axioms to underly all truth with the idea that there must be "true" axioms out there somewhere: there is no such assurance. Axioms aren't true OR false in that way.
The problem with this sort of declaration is that it falls prey to the True Scotsman fallacy. sure, you think the Catholic Church is an agent of Satan: but that's only the case if we assume beforehand that you've got it right, and they're mistaken. So criticisms of this sort simply beg the question of what interpretation IS right to begin with.
I'd also note that the modern Catholic Church is far more tolerant with regards to religious ideas than you are. Does this demonstrate that they are closer to what you believe to be the foundations of Christianity than you?
nobody has to look at a website. If it offends you then dont look at it.
Usually religions bitching about "being offended" are just putting on a PR to cover up their attempts to control speach.
Like the muslims that offered a price for the head of salmon Rushdie and then they said it is ok because he offended islam on purpose.
Being offended is part of living in a society with free speach. Half the times i post on slashdot some idiot offends me. So what.
And the great thing about the internet is that you dont have to be offended. There is nothing on the internet, that you are required to see. You dont have to look at anything that offends you.
Anybody that attempts to cencor the internet because they were offended is a liar. They just want to limit other people's ability to reach information.
Whether we can know if a given axiom is true or false is another issue entirely.
You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist.
I suppose I have in examples. And I agree words have power. The pen truly is often mightier than the sword. And I agree hate speech is not a good thing. But I think we give too much credit to blatant hate speech by banning it.
Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.
But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough to rule for the plaintiff in ACLU v Reno and strike down the COPA, which theoretically banned all such works.
Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.
Agreed. Laws have to consider certain non-mechanical standards all the time. Due dilligence, reasonable person, probable cause, you name it. It's not a crime to throw away an incriminating document because you don't need it anymore, but it is a crime to do so to conceal a crime - tricky ground. Sometimes, as is the case with objectionable speech, the ground is too tricky and a civillized justice system also rejects laws which are vague, arbitray, capricious, or overbroad. Consider this piece by George Carlin. Is it hate speech? I think it's insightful and witty, and it makes a compelling argument against religion IMHO, while being incredibly blunt. A friend thought it should be banned as promoting anti-Catholic bigotry. The "reasonable person" test falls apart pretty fast when we start talking about speech.
We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to.
Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors who must come up with sensational cases to gain reelection. (I infer from your spelling you are not an American). Consider this example of a man prosecuted for writing stories which involved sexual acts with children. While actual child pornography is a horrible thing, the child pornography boogeyman is used to justify the prohibition of anything distateful to the majority.
Secondly, let's assume your premise is correct, that Catholicism is dominant. If the people of Africa wouldn't use condoms for fear of eternal damnation, why ON EARTH would they have premarital sex with multiple partners? If they have such strong religious beliefs in terms of sexual practice, who left out this latter core belief in their indoctrination? It just doesn't add up. If this logic was consistent, the Republic of Ireland would have 99% of their population infected.
... Christianity is pretty dominant everywhere except along the coast (where Islam is more dominant, or at least as dominant) and in the bush (where the old Masai ways tend to be adhered to at least to some degree, though even there there is a great deal of Christian influence), and the impact on those cultures is anything but "good."
... most people in the world, unfortunately, lack this luxury and, as believers, are profoundly vulnerable to the depridations these sorts of idiotic policies, like the Vatican's condemnation of condoms and birth control, result in.
Premarital sex is not considered nearly as serious a sin in current Catholic doctrine as using a condom, or taking birth control. The former is a minor picadello (even in the extreme case, if you are a priest molesting a child entrusted to your care. And no, this isn't a gratuitious stab at the obvious hypocracy of that particular religious order, it exemplifies the difference in severity of the "sin" as defined by that religion. Priests, and lay persons, are routinely forgiven of extreme sexual acts that even mainstream, relatively hedonistic non-religious people would balk at, and allowed to continue their church functions virtually uninterrupted, in stark contrast to using a condom), whereas using birth control is roughly eqauted with having an abortion, which in turn is roughly equated to murder.
As for your naive assumption that conditions in Ireland are in any way analogous to conditions in Africa, your entire premise falls apart. Ireland enjoys a much higher level of education than the African nations in question, and as we all know, the best, indeed the only true innoculant against religion is education.
It is not surprising that most Irish, or for that matter most American, Catholics tell their church to stuff it when told not to use condoms (though even in well-educated America there are a lot of Catholic youth scared to use condoms). To expect the same level of sophistication from countries whos populations are impoverished and largely uneducated is utterly unrelialistic.
Lastly, don't forget that the church pours big time and money into African AIDS relief efforts. And unlike many other religions, Catholic relief efforts do not necessarily mean proselytizing missions.
And I'm sure that is a great comfort to the thousands of Africans (and others) who have unnecissarilly contracted AIDS because they made the lethal mistake of taking their churche's doctrine to heart, rather than dismissing it as the foolish nonsense that it is and protecting themselves.
I respect your opinion that Catholics have a job ahead of them in terms of reform, but you're just making some mean, inaccurate conjectures to support an anti-religion stance.
Nonsense. Nothing I have said is conjecture, it is all publicly available information. You may not believe that the 30% - 60% estimates of Catholic population of these countries is accurate (though I suspect when the church is touting the "good" it does, those numbers suddenly are considered much more reliable). Having spent time in Kenya, Tanzania, and elsewhere I can tell you that the estimates are not inaccurate
As with most places where Christianity is pushing the old culture aside, there is a mix (going to mass on Sunday and doing some pagan rituals at other times, etc., with the Christian beliefs taking on more dominance with each generation).
One thing is absolutely certain, however.
With the exception of a well educated elite, none of the normal people in these places, whether living in an old Masai village and practicing Christianity only occasionally, or living in the city and attending mass every sunday, are in any way equipped to dismiss the full authority of the church when it tells them, with all the authority it can bring to bear, that wearing condoms is a terrible sin.
We in the west take our high education, critical thinking skills, skepticism, and our resultant (relative) freedom from religious oppression for granted
And, unfortunately, the number of people dying as a result reflect this ugly and unpleasant fact.
It isn't I being cruel toward the Catholic church, it is the Catholic church which is being unspeakably cruel to the poorest, most vulnerable people on the Earth, and they, and that church, and its advocates, should feel nothing but deep shame for what they are doing.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors...
:-)
Why do you elect them in the first place?
Short answer: We made a stupid mistake and overreacted to a problem that's now long gone. Societies have an annoying tendency to do this, and the United States is no exception.
Long answer: Originally, it was to deal with astounding corruption, especially at the lower levels of government. The Progressive Movement felt that if you elect every official they would be accountable and the crooked ones would be voted out, which worked suprisingly well. What they neglected is that elected officials in administrative posts can be too responsive to public opinion, and lack the ability to do necessary but unpopular things, or to refuse to do unjust but popular things. Elected judges are worse, I assure you.
The Progressives did a pretty good job of cleaning up our government, but they also made those charged with executing laws hyper-responsive to popular passions of the moment. It's one thing to have a legislature that is extremely responsive to public opinion, they have to debate, agree, and compromise to take any action. It is entirely different to have a single person who has both the authority to act and must answer to the public, often only about the most sensational issues. Incumbents only lose such elections if they have "screwed up", i.e. done something controversial. Otherwise, no one gives a damn. This also means a few extremists from the left or right can get their candidate elected to these minor offices just by caring enough to vote. (Such elections are often held in odd-numbered years, when neither the President, Congress, the governor, or the state legsislature stands for election.)
For reference to your defense of the imprisonment of Galileo (as in "who was responsible"), see my previously post about the United Kingdom only coming into existence in 1801, in much the same way as Italy only "came into existence" in the 1860's
;).
As I've also already said above in a previous post, the Romans referred the area known as "Italy" as "Italia" over 2000 years ago! Italian culture is not a culture that suddenly popped ino existence, it is a region that has shared a common culture for over two thousands years, like all culture it has continued to evolve and change, but it is still a shared culture as it was 2000 years ago.
Obviously I'm not suggesting *your* responsible, but your region's earlier religion dominated culture was and that dominance of religion in that culture still survives today. We all have responsibility for the actions of others in our society and if we do or say nothing then we are complicit in those actions. This recent action is clearly and example of the church exerting undue influence on the government on a police force that would do better to concentrate on other areas and so thusly to the detriment of your country (and so to the detriment of Europe as a whole which most certainly is my business!).
I was not surprised by your response, but was pleased to see that, as I suspect, Europeans are apparently less touchy than Americans on the subject of critisizim as you were the only person agitated enough by my comments to reply in such a defensive fashion (although given recent events, the Americans might be excused).
But to be clear, my post was not Flamebait nor a Troll - *EVERY* country has very serious social problems that needs to be addressed and we *must* admit to our own societies failings or they will not be addressed. It's of extreme importance now that Europe is pulling closer together, as any country not advancing itself culturally and reforming bad legislation quick enough is not seen to be pulling it's weight and is acting as a drag on the other nations.
As you point out, in the last century, film censorship was one of ours. Numerous films were banned and deemed unfit and shocking thanks to the 'Mary Whitehouse' mentality (sorry you'll have to look that reference up yourself:) that prevailed in film censorship long after the next generation had ceased to be shocked or even care about the films in question, but that's an act of typical British reservation for you, we have the same lingering attitudes towards sex and pornography censorship for the same reasons.
In the same way, Italy has serious issues with the separation of church and state and a separate more serious issue with corrupt officials. It needs to address these issues are reform it's legislation. If it doesn't do it in a timely enough fashion, it may discover that Europe will reform it for them (as the EU has done for many countries already in more pedestrian matters). I won't list all the failings of both our countries, we all know what our own societies cultural failings are and Europeans tend to have a pretty good grasp of our neighbors cultural failings
Which brings me neatly on to the next issue, you took offense at my use of Stereotypes. Well clearly stereotypes exist for a reason - they stem from truth and we are all the better for not hiding from them. I'm a Scotsman who, quite frankly, is a bit of a fat bastard and like's to drink. Should I ignore that and take offense at that stereotype, or should it trouble me and cause me to address that fact that Scotland has the worst instances of deaths from heart disease in Europe?
I would say that you need to turn round and address your own region's issues and admit to it's failings rather than being defensive about them.
You clearly are extremely hypersensitive to the entire subject.
I see you persist in denying that there is a common Italian culture.
There is such a thing as French, British and American cultures (and even separate Scottish and English cultures, which make up British Identity) but you think Italy is unique and assert that it does not have one. Well, it has a common culture whether you realise it or not and a bit of traveling to several different countries in Europe and to different parts of the US (East coast vrs. West coast) has made that clear to me.
Studying a regions laws, the way they do business and life styles of it's citizens is something that everyone who has access to a library or an uncensored internet connection can do and so ignorance is a poor excuse.
Your comments lead me to wonder how much time you actually spend studying your own politics and looking at other cultures as your responses seem knee jerk and poorly thought out, and are the sort of thing I'd expect to read in News International Tabloid.
The Italian populous let their government get away with being corrupt (taking bribes) colliding with organized crime (which the police have been too afraid and corrupt to tackle properly) and covertly murdering each other, journalists and case prosecution witness for years, you've been a poorer country because of it and religion most definitely interferes with the state despite what you think.
Italy has away from addressing this, which is why Italy has had to face many of the problems it has had in the recent past, particularly with reference so some of the scandals of the 90's. The fact the Italy did not address these problems is the reason it lags behind economically behind other European countries like France, the UK and Germany. Italy has a well educate populace with good infrastructure. If it can escape some of it's cultural pitfalls (white collar crime, corruption and the tolerance of it) then there is no reason it could not continue to grow has it has done in the late 90's.
However unless it persists in cleaning up it's act then it has little hope and I can't help but feel the election of it's current Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (the countries richest man who owns the majority of Italy's news, radio and newspapers and has faced numerous corruption allegations) is a shot in the foot for good governance, and Italy's future development. In fact, his election was act of downright stupidity (IMHO) by the populous and was criticized by main stream press the world over.
You can ignore that (and the fact that is is a legacy of a common Italian culture) and you can attest that the Church and state are separate all that all you like, but exactly how do you explain not only all the scandal's of the 90's and your government shutting down web sites on charges of "blasphemous" web sites? Certainly police charges of Blasphemy would never be brought against a web site UK, nor can I see such a thing happening in other countries (like Germany, France, Denmark, Austria, the USA, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand....) - it's the sort of thing that goes on in fundamentalist religious countries like Iraq, and does NOT belong in Europe!
The entire religion of Hinduism disconnected all Burger King websites from the internet. Their claim that BK Deluxe with Cheese blasphemed their most holy sacred cows was accepted by the EU as "Good enough for us, yeah".
Hey, don't mess with the Pope. He'll take down your site... and then shoot you.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
You are using the word "faith" with entirely different meanings.
Your children exist: faith in them is appropriate. They also need your faith, or you would spend your life making them miserable with your monitoring.
Your faith in their existence is caused by requests for money, medical bills, and the fact you had them in your house. Your faith in their existence is based on observation, cross-checked with the observations of others hat, yes, they went to school, were seen frequently, exist.
Faith in theological terms means that you believe, without possiblity of denial given whatever argument, that whatever your parents told you is true.
The fact that "faith" around the world means that God/Jesus exists, Mohammed went to heaven with the face of a woman, Xenu the galactic overlord really did send billions of drugged bodies to Earth to convert them to thetans, spirits really do exist in animals and trees, crystals create quantum doorways into mystical dimensions, tax cuts really do reduce our debt load, Emperor Hirohito really is descended from the gods of Japan, Joe Smith really did talk to an angel and created Utah, Atlantis existed, sacrificing virgins and wearing their skins really do keep the drought away, witches should be killed, gays should be killed, calico cats really are Satan's minions...
Faith, o mighty faith.
The difference is between faith in a person, meaning trust and understanding, and in other cases, believe without observation or reason, merely because someone told you so, usually when you were three feet tall. And said lesson applied with a stick or a hand if you were a smart ass.
The catch is - Does this violate US laws against cracking into computers? Can it be construed as using illegally obtained passwords, and can the Italian police be charged under US law as illegal hackers? Would the US actually prosecute? Could it enforce a judgement if it succeeded? Would the ISP enjoy taking this to the World Court or some similar body? It appears from the news article that the accused blasphemers haven't been convicted of any crime yet, only accused, and this was part of the police investigation; don't know if that makes it legal under Italian law.
The one US datapoint I have for similar laws is that blasphemy was illegal in Delaware until 1968, when a court threw out both the blasphemy law (for violating the First Amendment) and the prescribed punishment ( N lashes at the whipping post, as cruel and unusual). The blasphemy laws hadn't actually been applied in ages until that case; don't know how often whipping was still used before then.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks