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.
1. Aren't there any mirrors?:-) 2. Where can I buy the 'blasphemious T-shirts'? They must be worth a fortune now!
Ciryon
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.
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.
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.
.. 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.
Phil
Re:Confusion at the Vatican.
by
tunah
·
· Score: 3, Funny
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.
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?
one big shopping mall
-- There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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
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???
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.
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
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
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: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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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: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
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Try this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s603070.htm
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.
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
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
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.
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133397
Even more interesting quote: (I didn't notice it at first.)
The officers were involved in an international operation to catch the website operators because, although they were created in Italy, the internet service providers were based in Washington DC and California.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
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.
You, sir, apparently have not yet encountered the American tort system...
Please, show some decency here. This is about as far from funny as imaginable.
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."
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.
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
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:)
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
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!"
Then you came to the wrong place...
Claro?
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.