Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a pretty good definition of "blasphemy" for you: to knowingly utter false statements about God.

---

quote:

---

Originall posted by Ley Druid:
But please tell, was I wronged?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
How can one know something to be false about an entity whose existence cannot be proven?

---

You are not helping your case by being blasphemous yourself, see "de fide" no. 1).

More seriously though, my question 'Who gets to define "false"?' stands, since it includes the question "Who gets to define the methods and sources allowed in a proof?" Whether the existence of God can be proven from nature by rational means is debatable (unless you are RC...), but His existence is entirely obvious from the bible. Further, one can derive at least some true statements about God by some theological methods. Thus if this source and these methods are accepted, one can obviously define false statements about God, and hence blasphemy.

Whenever any sort of rule is established, and we assume Ockham-free agents, it boils down to the question of who imposes his will on whom. And with Ockham-freedom whoever is on the "losing" end of things, whoever has will imposed on himself rather than imposing his will on others, will feel wronged. And whatever arguments are advanced, they will always sound hollow and contrived. This is of course also the case with "free speech" vs. "blasphemy". The obvious answer in this mode is then a power-struggle, which is what we are witnessing here. There is no peace in this, just cold war and ceasefire.

I think the crucial question to ask is not "Do I have the right to do so?" but rather "Is it right to do so? Is it the best thing to do?" That raises the obvious question - what then is right and best? The Christian answer is a surprising one: that which leads to true happiness. And the answer wherein true happiness is to be found, and how it is best achieved, is perhaps hard to swallow. So let's forget about all that. Let's simply ask whether people on both sides can honestly say of themselves: I did what I - after thoroughly thinking about it - thought was right and best. If so, well, then fair enough as far as I'm concerned.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Kinda like the way it depends on what one agrees to abide by when one wishes to join any group consisting of more people than just oneself?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Whether the existence of God can be proven from nature by rational means is debatable (unless you are RC...), but His existence is entirely obvious from the bible.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a pretty good definition of "blasphemy" for you: to knowingly utter false statements about God. Now what? Who gets to define "false"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
My first post on the ship of fools was censored. "Gratuitous racial slur" was the offense I believe.
I am also quite proud of having been suspended and and unable to express myself freely on these boards.
Was I wronged?
Should one person or a goup deny another absolute freedom of expression?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Who decides what is part of "all that is holy"? A British priest? A Sydney primate? An American fundamentalist?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
IngoB, you've got a lovely circular argument going there which only makes sense if you accept a big honkin' IF. There isn't a factually true statement about God out there and you know it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
A sincere question to all of you who advocate absolute freedom - would you want to be aprt of an absoultely unmonitered discussion board? And if not, why not? (Not deliberately stirring, rather genuinely interested.)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
would you want to be aprt of

---

hopefully you mean "a part of" and not "apart from"?
Nice to hear someone else say what I have been trying to, and more succinctly than me.

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
rather in the way English grammar and syntax are givens for English-speaking people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
No, you weren't wronged. You were not denied absolute freedom of expression. Being denied absolute freedom of expression means that you are unable to express your thoughts anywhere. Not everywhere.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A statement like yours first requires that we (as in society) believe the Bible to be true. If we don't believe the Bible is true, it carries as much weight in determining whether things really exist as The Cat in the Hat. To put it another way, in a secular legal environment you can't call on the Bible to prove your point.

---

Which was my point: there is always an explicit or implicit definition behind truth (its sources, its methods, its agents). So we have a situation where secular society does not accept Christian truth and hence sees no reason to restrict speech for it (as it does for accepted truths). But when Christians protest, it is considered by the same secular society as an attack on freedom of speech. It's really just the good old German Kulturkampf (culture war) with appropriately modernized democratic rhetorics. But for me both sides miss the point with their fight for "truth dominance".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That definition is neither good nor useful, because it really does depend on who defines "false".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In a secular society there is no possibility of defining blasphemy in a manner that makes any sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Should a public service broadcaster be used to propagate what is, to a sizable majority of UK citizens, offensive nonsense about God?

---

Very good, because actually the more religions and circumstances to consider, the clearer it becomes that an imposed set of rules (even the freedom of speech rules of current secular society) just can't be the answer. At best we get secular society as "equal opportunity blasphemer".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
IngoB, you've got a lovely circular argument going there which only makes sense if you accept a big honkin' IF. There isn't a factually true statement about God out there and you know it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That definition is neither good nor useful, because it really does depend on who defines "false".

---

I would say that this makes it a good and useful definition - because it brings out the crucial catch.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Scot wrote: It is about whether the state should be allowed to restrict the citizens' right to express their ideas, beliefs, and opinions. This is the very bedrock of democracy and of a free society. (emphasis added)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glimmer:
Marvin, I completely respect your view that 100% freedom is whatyou wish to exist. I think you have posted quite vigorous arguments to that effect.

However, I am mystified by this strange comment by you in the 'Marvin Shut Your Cakehole' Hell thread -
"Originally posted by Qlib:
So you’d rather they were locked up in their cells doing nothing other than drugs, bullying and buggery. That’s your idea, is it, of how to deter people from a life of crime?
Response from MtM -
No, I'd as soon see such things stamped out."

Drug abuse may be subject to criminal law, it may be argued. But bullying and buggery? Surely these are things are free to be indulged in, and the bullied and buggered choose to be so?
There are places where complete freedom is not beneficial.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
rather in the way English grammar and syntax are givens for English-speaking people.

---

As loose as that?

---

quote:

---

You still dodged the question though - when people differ over whether something transgresses this "given" idea of limits, who judges between them?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Well, there is a line to draw is there not.

The question is where to draw it.

---

I agree.
This thread contains posts from two viewpoints - those who believe that there are no circumstances where a line should be drawn and those who believe there are but haven't solved the ages-old problem about who draws and upholds the line.
I don't think any "restricted free speech" posts have indicated anything but the absolute minimum of restraint.
Most people, when placed in the position of one grossly offended would want some means of restraint. The example you offer would be generally thought unacceptable and few would shrug their shoulders and say "it's up them if they want to". But the danger is, if everyone does have the right to express themselves so, what is to stop it running to even more extreme subject matter? This being the corollary of the line which says any restriction is the path to complete restriction.
It is interesting to see the debate being sidelined into legalistic definitions of particular words and phrases, as though a result on that battlefield could determine the outcome of the main issue - should the JS-tO have been broadcast on BBC2 on a Saturday evening given the level of protest that it provoked beforehand?
I must admit that I have learned a LOT through this thread. And at times amused, too. Well done everyone so far for keeping the expression of views within the guidelines of Purgatory!

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear ken

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
rather in the way English grammar and syntax are givens for English-speaking people.

---

As loose as that?

---

Most of the time, neither you nor I have to think about grammar or syntax when writing or speaking; we both absorbed them from the English-speaking milieu we grew up in.

---

True, but probably quite different versions of English.

OK, between you and me it might not be such a different version of English cos you've been following me around England for 40 years - but Mousethief or Coot will have very different idiolects to us.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                      

quote:

---

The difference between a bulletin board and real life is that on a bulletin board one spammer/troll/fuckwit can make life hell for everyone. In real life you can just ignore him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Out of interest, is there any state that allows absolute freedom of speech?

---

quote:

---

According to Erin:
Being denied absolute freedom of expression means that you are unable to express your thoughts anywhere. Not everywhere.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I am afraid, further to the response you have already received from the BBC, there is little more I can add regarding this matter.

We realise that some people would argue that religion should be deemed off-limits for humorists and are conscious that many people have strong religious sensibilities. Yet we feel there can be good-natured humour in depictions of religious life, just as there is in other 'serious' areas of life. Usually such depictions are very exaggerated and far from the truth, as we would hope would be obvious to those listening or watching. We would certainly never seek to mock the pure essence of religion.

Christianity has the largest following in the UK and therefore it is the most represented both in the arts and across all television genres including comedy. Recent programmes such as 'Goodness Gracious Me' take a satirical look at the Islamic faith, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism which is a reflection of the changing face of religion in this country. I can only continue to assure you that any references in 'Jerry Springer - the Opera' were by no means a deliberate attack by the BBC upon the religious beliefs of any individual.

Thank you again for contacting BBC.

Regards

Steven Nyguist
BBC Information

---

quote:

---

I look forward to hearing what you think the "pure essence" of any religion might be. It seems a very slippery phrase for the BBC now to use in order to defend its actions.

As for "Goodness Gracious Me" ... you are not seriously contending that this is a comparable show vis-a-vis blasphemy are you?!!!!

Maybe BBC producers need a little more training in multifaith and multicultural issues.

I repeat, when do we expect to see a similar broadcast featuring Muhammad?

Fr. Gregory Hallam

---

For over the pond dwellers ... this is the BBC's own guide to "Goodness Gracious Me"

Goodness Gracious Me!

Not a single fuck or cunt in any of the series! You know what ... Ganesh is never shown as a coprophiliac nappy fetishist, Parvati does not ever swear at Shiva, Kali never has a filthy ding dong with Vishnu and Brahma is quite happy with his vocation as Creator. Satire against Islam? Never seen it. Buddhism? Nah.

Obviously we must be watching different shows in different universes ... or the BBC could simply be on a different planet.

I await with baited breath this "Essence of Religion" that the BBC will ring fence and be oh so keen to defend.

[ 13. January 2005, 16:44: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Free speech is about the individual's right to be free from restrictions on expression imposed by the state.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Ken wrote: There is nothing magic about the state that means it should be subject to different moral rules from anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Glimmer wrote: It is interesting to see the debate being sidelined into legalistic definitions of particular words and phrases, as though a result on that battlefield could determine the outcome of the main issue - should the JStO have been broadcast on BBC2 on a Saturday evening given the level of protest that it provoked beforehand?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
And Glimmer, any interest in responding to my question on the previous page: What precisely is being censored "under the guise of Patriotism and the War on Terror"?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Glimmer wrote: Why should I have any interest?

---

quote:

---

In the US under the guise of Patriotism and War on Terror there is an intolerable level of censorship....

---

quote:

---

My questions regarding the freedom to declare obedience to Osama Bin Laden, to produce toilet rolls decorated with the US flag, etc remain unanswered.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Kenwritez wrote: As for you declaring adherence to OBL? According to the Constitiution, you can, although I imagine some provisions in the Patriot Act might give you problems.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

In other words, Fr Gregory: Jesus, Mary, Satan, God, etc were not depicted in the Opera.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
The First Amendment protects speech and the narrow realm of what is called symbolic speech, defined as nonverbal expression such as burning a flag or wearing a black armband. It doesn't cover overt acts. Therefore, it's legal to declare your allegiance to OBL.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I might be persuaded of that view if it were not for the final sequence in which Jerry receives his apotheosis as the Fixer ... Jerry Eleison ... irony? Maybe ... but I think not. The characterisation of Jesus (being God of course) and Mary then acquires a more explicit comparative, and in my view, actual blasphemous character.

---

Dear Fr Gregory,

You should write comedy for the BBC. Jerry Eleison!

When Jerry was fixer, that was the final part of the fantasy.

When Jerry came round just before dying, the fixing that we'd seen, had not taken place. It was just in his mind, a fantasy.

'There is no right or wrong' was part of the fantasy too, but I do think the nature of the play was based on that thinking, and my point is: why does it always gravitate to what would be wrong, if there is such a thing? Why not gravitate to right, or in between?

I've seen many Jerry Springer shows and have watched them throughout because it is a different kind of freedom of speech, and I find it fascinating. One thing I've never seen, is lots of swearing, that's bleeped out. So why constant swearing in the play? Perhaps the show isn't bleeped out, perhaps it is bleeped for the British audience, I dont know.

I did feel that the Opera was a C4 type show, rather than BBC.

The South Park movie had lots of swearing in it, but that was central to the plot. It was about people getting so outraged by naughty words that they would start a war over it. I didn't see any point of the swearing in the Opera, not a 2-hour non-stop profanity marathon, anyway.

Christina

Posted                          

quote:

---

You should write comedy for the BBC. Jerry Eleison!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.
So when Congress makes laws abridging what may be said on television, radio, the press etc. etc. they are not abridging freedom of speech, as Erin has told us, because these things could be said elsewhere.
The Constitution makes no mention and certainly no guarantee of the legality or illegality of saying anything.
The Constitution is irrelevant.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Second, I actually explained for you the difference between the Ship, which is a private enterprise, and the state, which is not. A private enterprise can restrict your freedom of expression within areas it has control over (e.g., a privately-owned bulletin board on the Internet). The state, however, is expressly forbidden from restricting your freedom of expression.

---

quote:

---

expressly forbidden from restricting your freedom of expression

---

quote:

---

restrict your freedom of expression within areas it has control over

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marinaki:
Talking of First Amendment rights etc. Would they play Jerry Springer the Opera unchanged in "the land of the free" (supposedly), the USA?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
So, we're not so different after all ... except, perhaps, in matters pertaining to religion.

---