This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Italian Police Censor "Blasphemous" Websites
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys
Correct link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correct link (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Gimme! (Score:5, Funny)
2. Where can I buy the 'blasphemious T-shirts'? They must be worth a fortune now!
Ciryon
URL (Score:2, Insightful)
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..
Thank God for Landover (Score:3, Informative)
Is Linux Illegal in Italy? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Cute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
ho hum.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
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:Hmm (Score:2)
Phil
The Spanish Inquisition (Score:2, Funny)
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
I guess they're tired of hearing this one...
Apologies to Python(Monty) Ltd.
While your at it (Score:2, Funny)
Since Bill is the devil is microsoft.com next?
NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMORE (Score:5, Funny)
Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR (Score:3, Funny)
Then you came to the wrong place...
It's True! http://thesource.ofallevil.com/ (Score:2)
It's true! Don't believe me? Try it: thesource.ofallevil.com
We knew it wsa true all along!
MSNBC are also running the story (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MSNBC are also running the story (Score:2, Interesting)
blasphemy should be "Mary is a bitch", not "pig Madonna"..
sometimes babelfish is more blasphemous than those censored sites...
Re:MSNBC are also running the story (Score:3, Informative)
censored site:
http://www.porcamadonna.com/
old index:
http://www.porcamadonna.com/index2f.html
Re:MSNBC are also running the story (Score:2)
Heck... (Score:3, Funny)
Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
one big shopping mall
For italian speaking only (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.punto-informatico.it/p.asp?i=408
italian only sorry...
I'm starting to be a bit scared living here...
the new spanish inquisition is starting...
More info (Score:2)
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133397 [vnunet.com]
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."
Re:More info (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Black Adder (Score:2)
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
The Tiger Lillies said it best... (Score:2, Informative)
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
Offensive speech (Score:2, Interesting)
There have to be limits, and I think it is sensible to have laws against deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. To those that say it is bad to have this type of law, I say, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for me to put a billboard next to a hospital that says "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!" Is that ok?
Re:Offensive speech (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."
Re:Offensive speech (Score:2)
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".
Re:Offensive speech (Score:2)
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.
Re:Offensive speech (Score:2)
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.
Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
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.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
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".
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
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.
Rights (Was: Offensive speech) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) (Score:5, Insightful)
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) Mod parent up (Score:2)
Ideals are great; but not many of them can be applied successfully in the world without chipping away at them first.
Yes, it's good to be offensive (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Offensive speech (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
You, sir, apparently have not yet encountered the American tort system...
What next? (Score:2, Funny)
Define Your Blashemy (Score:2)
Fortunately, we live in a country which protects individuals from charges of blas... oh,
never mind [cornell.edu].
Nobody has asked this yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Informative)
From the MSNBC article [msnbc.com]: --
Benjamin Coates
Re:Nobody has asked this yet? (Score:2)
Exactly what I was wondering... (Score:2, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Mod this up! Re:Nobody has asked this yet? (Score:2)
Religion and free speech (Score:2, Interesting)
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!
Oh God Damn (Score:2, Insightful)
Religion is the scourge of the world. Whether it be Catholic, protestant, Islamic or *any* type.
I just read on CNN where two Southern Baptist preachers beat an 11 year old boy bloody for not taking his Bible (book of lies) study seriously.
I say to the fabled Hell with all religion!
Let the faith harping bigots and haters of freedom of thought and expression burn!
My religion is education and the scientific method, and it works God damnit!
Have you guys ever seen a man walk on water? No, me neither. Why don't we all get together on a boat in the deepest part of the ocean and do a little experiment and see if this BS is true. We could use Osama as the subject or perhaps a couple of Southern Baptist preachers.
Re:Oh God Damn (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, lots of times. Haven't you ever watched a game of ice hockey?
Google to the rescue... (Score:2)
Re:Google to the rescue... (Score:2, Informative)
Italian Police are hackers (Score:2, Insightful)
-asb
Offbeat News? (Score:2)
Gotta play the Devil's(?) Advocate here (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there ever an expiration date on any of these sins of the father? How long must the US and Western Europe kowtow to the slave trade or Germany to National Socialism? "Gee I'm sorry that someone I never met but who has some tenuous link to me did something that you never experienced but have to give me grief for anyway."
I hate to say it, guy, but there is a point where you just have to let something go. Sure the Catholic Church is being a bit... parochial in it's outlook but then also remember that the Catholic Church endorses and teaches Evolution [newadvent.org] while many people are still throwing around the same Intelligent Design crap.
Geez. Just argue the facts instead of going of on some tangent back into history. At a certain point we become no better than those we deride.
Re:Gotta play the Devil's(?) Advocate here (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that's an especially bad reference to make, considering that the Church never attacked Copernicus [nasa.gov]. In fact, he was on the Catholic payroll while he was writing the heliocentric theory.
You should be referring to Galileo [msu.edu]. John Paul II apologized 300 years later [curriculumunits.com].
The Catholic Church is a slow-witted bureaucracy, and an 800 million pound gorilla, but it's a generally better about science than the major protestant denominations.
p.s. Pope Pius XII endorsed evolution in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.
the Vatican's newspaper? (Score:2)
Give us a link to the article will ya?
It would be kinda ironic that a country without an army wants to use force.
www.jesus.com (Score:2, Funny)
Bathe with Jesus [jesus.com]
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.
who'd o' thunk it? (Score:2)
One nation under god (Score:4, Funny)
Re:FIX THE LINK (Score:3, Informative)
Disagree with censorship (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Disagree with censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
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:A thought... (Score:2)
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:A thought... (Score:2)
I think someone has his facts slightly reversed.
-Erwos
Re:Confusion at the Vatican. (Score:3, Funny)
In short: Results 1 - 10 of about 9,260
Actually, it's NOT the Vatican (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".
Re:Actually, it's NOT the Vatican (Score:2)
BTW RTFA "following a complaint by the Vatican's newspaper"
Re:Another example of ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Another example of ignorance (Score:2)
Re:Another example of ignorance (Score:2)
Re:Another example of ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Another example of ignorance (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Another example of ignorance (Score:2)
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.
Re:Another example of ignorance (Score:2)
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.
Re:well... i'm american... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:well... i'm american... (Score:2)
that is the entire point of america.
Re:well... i'm american... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Um
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans (Score:2)
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? [justice.gc.ca] In particular, check out the section titled "Fundamental Freedoms". I guess I probably have to remind you that Canada [worldatlas.com] is, in fact, outside [worldatlas.com] of the USA. [worldatlas.com]
Anyone else live outside the USA and have freedom of speech? Speak up!
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans (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").
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy (Score:2, Insightful)
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" (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:In a word: "NO" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In a word: "NO" (Score:2)
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.
Re:Compared to the US (Score:3)
Er, why?
You said yourself that such things were a matter of local custom, by defending the action on the grounds that that's how things are done in Italy. By taking that position, you forfeit any standing to complain if someone else's local custom is to roast the Church over the coals for the pedophilia scandal.