Should blasphemy be a ciminal offence?Follow

That's some funny shi[u][/u]t. Is blasphemy prosecutable in Britain? I know it wouldn't fly in the States.

Sheeeesh. And here I never thought I'd be rooting for Jerry Springer.

That's so gay.... kind of a little bit like Jesus






































Will I be sued now too?

Maybe Jesus will sue the BBC for slander?

Three cheers for theocracy

Hooray!!

I swear to god if thats not the stupidest thing i've ever heard

/The Anglican church casts excommunicate on Trickybeck
/The Anglican church casts wrath of God on Trickybeck
/Trickybeck goes back to playing WoW with little to no consequences

^^^
I think tarv's question was rhetorical.

That's probably not entirly true. Considering far more people have a problem with the bible which was written by man then by naked women. Which is the coolest thing on earth.
Actually I'm pretty sure no one's ever died as a result of Hustler. And I'm thinking the only violence ever due to it was the shooting of Larry Flint. Except the occasional domestic violence caused by a wife finding her husband's copy or outing his obsession. In which case the magazine is just the fuel for an already disturbed person.
But the bible? Well we'll not get into how many people have died or been harmed because of that book. Did I mention the bible was written by man and not some divine being? Ok.

You guys missed my point.

What I mean is that the First Amendment protects speech you find objectionable first and foremost- not to a greater extent than it does speech you have no problem with, true, but it is the dissent which must be protected.

I'm not touching the references to the Bible. You guys want to go down that road you do so without me. I used it and Hustler as examples of protected speech at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.

Why are people always trying to act for their Gods? Why should such be forbidden? Why do you want to enforce the rules of your God in the first place? You live by it so anyone can see that you do so willingly and for the love your God. You don't swear because youse you don't want to rather than being afraid of a human penalty. There is nothing wrong in telling and asking people to stop, but any kind of enforcement and making people afraid of earthly consequences is not a good idea. Besides denying ppl their freedom of expression all you do is make false believers who just keep up appearances rather than anything else. Why give your God such a hard time selecting the good believers from the fake ones while you have the oppertunity to expose them?

And if such is broadcasted you can decide to change the channel to something else, if such is done massively out of conviction the next time advertisers are not interested in buying time in that block.

The only weapon against blasphemy is by totally ignoring it. Rather than persuing against it and giving it free exposure.

You do understand that the entire Bill of Rights was a direct reaction to conditions imposed by British rulers acting under the aegis of British law, yes?

US law is constitutional.
UK law is 'book law', those laws held and maintained by a millenia of recorded lawmaking.

Both subscribe to judges decrees (they become law also)

US and US laws have some similarities because the US law was formed by those who had lived under UK law and had actually respected most of it. They had fundamental issues with certain taxations and the lack of freedom to regulate themselves fairly. The british king was remote, mad as a hatter, and showed no understanding or compassion for his subjects.
We, the British failed the US in that respect, but monarchy is not about choice. We once had to chop of the kings heads to ensure the people had a say (in parliament being given real power) and the US had to become a nation unto itself to make a point


I pray the case is thrown out. I cannot beleive we would try that. It is blatent satire, not to be taken seriously. Based on a poor quality TV show from America to simply sensationalise issues and amuse the public. The people who would sue over that are the type that would sue because coffee from MacDonalds did not have a warning that it was *hot*. Oh ... someone did sue for that once This is more a statement of the ability of people to sue for anything they see fit, than it is a statement of blasphemy.

I may sue Smasharoo for vanishing and not posting anything new and readable for me

I wonder when the film "Dogma" will be screened on British TV ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

There you go...