Heresy Trial In Greece

[Tony]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4606533.stm ...full article


A Greek art curator is set to go on trial for insulting the eastern Orthodox Church by showing a painting combining Christian and sexual imagery.
Christos Ioakimidis could be jailed for up to five years if found guilty.

The authorities removed the work from an Athens exhibition in the run-up to last year's Olympic Games, following a complaint by a far-right party leader.

I know some of the "right-wing"/religous extremists in America must salivate over the thought of sending people to jail for disrespecting religion.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4606533.stm ...full article




I know some of the "right-wing"/religous extremists in America must salivate over the thought of sending people to jail for disrespecting religion.

You know, when I read about people being prosecuted for heresy in Greece the first thing I think of is how f***ed up America is too!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You know, when I read about people being prosecuted for heresy in Greece the first thing I think of is how f***ed up America is too!

Huh? Read again, I didn't say anything about America.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony
Huh? Read again, I didn't say anything about America.

Umm.. Tony? Did you not read what you posted? Let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by Tony I know some of the "right-wing"/religous extremists in America must salivate over the thought of sending people to jail for disrespecting religion.

Grammatron is spot on: people keep complaining about what American religious nutters would LIKE to do. But that rather conveniently misses the fact that America isn't where the religious nutters keep actually DOING such stuff. You know, for real, as in not just in their dreams. Somehow, the significance of that little fact keeps missing people. But hey, you came close to figuring it out, you did post the original story.

[El Greco]

I remember that story. There are religious idiots everywhere. They sue someone, a trial has to be conducted. I suspect the same happens everywhere.

He will not be found guilty. Not one in a million.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Umm.. Tony? Did you not read what you posted? Let me refresh your memory:


I never said anything about America. I was talking about religious extremists in America. BIG difference.

Grammatron is spot on: people keep complaining about what American religious nutters would LIKE to do. But that rather conveniently misses the fact that America isn't where the religious nutters keep actually DOING such stuff.

This is a blatant lie. The religious nutters do all kinds of stuff.

You know, for real, as in not just in their dreams. Somehow, the significance of that little fact keeps missing people. But hey, you came close to figuring it out, you did post the original story.

Your lies and defenses of religious extremists are noted.

[Tony]

Originally posted by El Greco
I remember that story. There are religious idiots everywhere. They sue someone, a trial has to be conducted. I suspect the same happens everywhere.

He will not be found guilty. Not one in a million.

Why is that law even on the books?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by El Greco
He will not be found guilty. Not one in a million.

I'll take your word for it. But why on earth do you tolerate such laws existing in the first place? According to the BBC story, "Mr Iaokimidis is charged with insulting public decency and the Church." Unless the BBC just got this wrong (which I'll admit as a possibility), then Greece still has laws that would never be considered even close to constitutionally permissible here in the US. No group deserves legal protection from insult.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony
Your lies and defenses of religious extremists are noted.

Wow. I'm impressed. You NOTED it. Of course, you noting it doesn't actually make it in any way, you know, true or anything.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Huh? Read again, I didn't say anything about America.

Why even mention it? It's of no consequence to the story. If you have a problem with some actions of religious nutters in USA then make a post about it. It seems very odd to me to make a post about some laws in Greece and then be angry about people who have nothing to do with it.

[BPSCG]

Christos Ioakimidis could be jailed for up to five years if found guilty. You can't make this kind of stuff up - nobody would believe it.

Tell me again how the Europeans are so much more enlightened than us priest-ridden Americans.

Can someone tell me if Andres Serrano (http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n4/pisschrist-2.htm) was prosecuted for heresy or blasphemy in the U.S.?

[El Greco]

Do you mean that any kind of insult is legal in th US ? You can insult in any way politicians, religious leaders, policemen, etc ?

[El Greco]

I could also ask similar questions about censorship in US, which certainly looks ridiculous here.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by El Greco
Do you mean that any kind of insult is legal in th US ? You can insult in any way politicians, religious leaders, policemen, etc ?

Ahem. (No serious intent or offense is intended by the comments below.)


George "W" Bush is a douchebag.

The Pope is a Nazi who covers up for priests who diddle little boys.

Cops are pigs, and the Fraternal Order of Police is so corrupt it makes the mafia look like decent, upstanding people.


Short answer: Yes. :)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by El Greco
I could also ask similar questions about censorship in US, which certainly looks ridiculous here.

What sort of censorship do you mean?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Why even mention it?

Because, like greece, we also have religious/right-wing extremists in America whose agenda isn't much different.

It's of no consequence to the story.

So? Freedom of speech ,and the protection thereof, is an issue I care about.

It seems very odd to me to make a post about some laws in Greece and then be angry about people who have nothing to do with it.

That's a non-sequitor. I'm not angry about people who have nothing to do with it. I'm pointing out that the people responsible for these events in Greece have counterparts in this country. You need to get over your persecution complex.

It's telling that you guys interpret an attack on religious/right-wing extremists as an attack on America in general.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by El Greco
Do you mean that any kind of insult is legal in th US ? You can insult in any way politicians, religious leaders, policemen, etc ?

To a degree yes.

I am not sure what your definition of an insult is, but I pretty much can go ahead and insult people. Exceptions being slander or libel.

[Tony]

Originally posted by El Greco
Do you mean that any kind of insult is legal in th US ? You can insult in any way politicians, religious leaders, policemen, etc ?

Yes, it is legal.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Because, like greece, we also have religious/right-wing extremists in America whose agenda isn't much different.



So? Freedom of speech ,and the protection thereof, is an issue I care about.



That's a non-sequitor. I'm not angry about people who have nothing to do with it. I'm pointing out that the people responsible for these events in Greece have counterparts in this country. You need to get over your persecution complex.

It's telling that you guys interpret an attack on religious/right-wing extremists as an attack on America in general.

Then post about their actions; make a post about a case here where American right-wing/religious extremists are filing suits for herecy. That sounds like something I would be concerned about as well.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by El Greco
Do you mean that any kind of insult is legal in th US ? You can insult in any way politicians, religious leaders, policemen, etc ? Cleon's answer is a little over the top, but it's essentially correct. You can't incite to riot or other violence (notice he didn't propose killing any of the public figures he named, nor to destruction of anyone's property), and the bar for libel and defamation are higher for public figures than for individuals; in other words, Cleon could call me a douchebag in a public venue and I could sue him for libel (go ahead and try it - see if I don't!). But public figures have to prove not just reckless disregard of the facts, but actual malice on the part of the libeler/slanderer, and (I believe) have a tougher time proving actual damage, since they are so much better-known than your average person. That's one of the reasons why, despite the huge amount that is written about politicians, you so rarely hear of them suing someone.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Then post about their actions; make a post about a case here where American right-wing/religious extremists are filing suits for herecy. That sounds like something I would be concerned about as well.

So my posts on this forum should serve to please you?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Cleon's answer is a little over the top,


Well, that was kinda the point.


You can't incite to riot or other violence (notice he didn't propose killing any of the public figures he named, nor to destruction of anyone's property),


Yeah, but tell me you never had the urge to give JPII the noogie to end all noogies...



Cleon could call me a douchebag in a public venue and I could sue him for libel (go ahead and try it - see if I don't!).


Actually, libel only counts if it's printed. You may be thinking of slander, however, you'd have to establish that what I said was false, and that it was intended to damage your reputation. Since, by the very act of suing me, you would be de facto establishing yourself as a douchebag, you wouldn't have a case before it even went in front of a judge. :D

(On a quasi-serious note; libel and slander don't include namecalling--as long as I don't accuse BPSCG of anything, like beating his wife or raping small woodland creatures, there's no case for libel or slander here.)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
So my posts on this forum should serve to please you?

Well at least they should make sense or support your ascertions. I'll settle for that.

Allow me to reitirate my position:

You post on a case involing Greece and only greece, you then state your concern with this case being American religious extremists -- who I think have nothing to do with the case you post about. I then express that to you first in sarcastic and then direct post. You respond with a post that I am somehow not concerned with Free Speech in USA.

My point is then this, if you are concerned with the Greece case, let's stay on that topic. If you are concerned with the actions of religious extremists in America, then post their actions so we may discuss them. Posting about Greece and expressing concern about USA simply does not make sense to me.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
as long as I don't accuse BPSCG of anything, like beating his wife or raping small woodland creatures, there's no case for libel or slander here.) Just don't accuse me of raping bears or me and my Jew lawyers will slap crushing liens on everything you own and your children own unto the seventh generation before you can even finish saying "Holy sh..."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well at least they should make sense or support your ascertions. I'll settle for that.


My comment did make sense and there really is no assertion to support.

My point is then this, if you are concerned with the Greece case, let's stay on that topic. If you are concerned with the actions of religious extremists in America, then post their actions so we may discuss them. Posting about Greece and expressing concern about USA simply does not make sense to me.

I'm concerned about both the case in Greece and the possibility of our own religious/right wing extremists wanting to do something similar.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
My comment did make sense and there really is no assertion to support.

Well sure, if I wanted to be a prick I would say you need to prove the extremists are salivating as you asserted :p

I'm concerned about both the case in Greece and the possibility of our own religious/right wing extremists wanting to do something similar.
Sure some may want, but we don't have laws to allow it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Just don't accuse me of raping bears or me and my Jew lawyers will slap crushing liens on everything you own and your children own unto the seventh generation before you can even finish saying "Holy sh..."

Rest assured that if you were raping bears, I wouldn't mess with you at all. I do have a little survival instinct, y'know. :)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm concerned about both the case in Greece and the possibility of our own religious/right wing extremists wanting to do something similar. Who gives a #$%^ what they want to do? The issue is, are they allowed to do what they want to do? Evidently in Greece, you can be tried for heresy. You can't here. If you tried, you'd be laughed out of the D.A.'s office.

I'm with Grammatron on this. What on earth does a heresy trial in Greece have to do with fundamentalists in the U.S.? When was the last time someone was tried for heresy in the U.S.? Is there a bill before Congress that would permit it? Why should this story about Greece set off alarm bells here?

[Manny]

The actual topic of this string is entirely without merit, so we might as well talk about American libel and slander and other restrictions on speech.

Originally posted by Cleon (On a quasi-serious note; libel and slander don't include namecalling--as long as I don't accuse BPSCG of anything, like beating his wife or raping small woodland creatures, there's no case for libel or slander here.) [/B] This is important. If one were to insult someone by using a common American vulgarism for a person who has sexual relations with his mother there is no cause of action under US libel or slander law. On the other hand, if one were to actually accuse someone of having said relations, there might be a cause of action depending on other circumstances.

Note, too, that there is no criminal libel or slander law. The aggrieved person (including, in some instances, individual employees of a government) may sue in civil court for damages, but the government itself may not sue for libel or slander whether on its own behalf or on someone else's. I can say anything I want, even if it is false and malicous, about another person without fear that the government will jail me or otherwise interfere.

Actual government restrictions on speech are among the least in the world in the US. The government may punish a person if his speech is or reasonably might be immediate incitement to riot or disorder. It may prohibit the publication of (a very, very small subset of) some national security information and may punish after the fact the dissemination of a larger (but still very, very small) amount of national security information. It may prohibit and punish for the improper publication of personal information obtained in confidence, as an IRS agent or health care provider peeking into someone's file and blabbing confidential information about that person. It may punish some kinds of commercial speech which is false and a larger amount of commercial speech which is not true. It may regulate the time, place and manner of some speech (you can be arrested for disorderly conduct if you are shouting with the intent of disrupting someone else's speech and it may prohibit billboards on scenic highways, for examples). It has some ability to punish some forms of pornography. That's pretty much it.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
What sort of censorship do you mean?

Fuss about exposed boobs ? Obligatory warnings for explicit language ? Blurring two computer-generated Australopithecuses having sex in a BBC's documentary ?

[Tony]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Who gives a #$%^ what they want to do?

Anyone who loves freedom should be concerned that people exist who wish to take it away.

The issue is, are they allowed to do what they want to do?

I was under the impression that anyone/anygroup could lobby to get laws changed in America. Are you telling me that's not the case?

I'm with Grammatron on this. What on earth does a heresy trial in Greece have to do with fundamentalists in the U.S.?

You're obviously not paying attention.

When was the last time someone was tried for heresy in the U.S.? Is there a bill before Congress that would permit it? Why should this story about Greece set off alarm bells here?

You're asking irrelevant questions.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by El Greco
Fuss about exposed boobs ? Obligatory warnings for explicit language ? Blurring two computer-generated Australopithecuses having sex in a BBC's documentary ?

Yep, that's censorship. No argument with you there.

(Edited to add: And wrong. And stupid.)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleon
George "W" Bush is a douchebag.

The Pope is a Nazi who covers up for priests who diddle little boys.

Cops are pigs, and the Fraternal Order of Police is so corrupt it makes the mafia look like decent, upstanding people.


Short answer: Yes.


Excuse my ignorance, but how about more "extreme" forms of insult ? Can you stand out of the White House with a banner showing a photoshopped image of G.W.B giving a blowjob to Bin Laden ?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by El Greco
Excuse my ignorance, but how about more "extreme" forms of insult ? Can you stand out of the White House with a banner showing a photoshopped image of G.W.B giving a blowjob to Bin Laden ?

Well, only if you blur out the genatalia. Municipal "decency" laws and all that.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by El Greco
Excuse my ignorance, but how about more "extreme" forms of insult ? Can you stand out of the White House with a banner showing a photoshopped image of G.W.B giving a blowjob to Bin Laden ?

Sure why not.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, only if you blur out the genatalia. Municipal "decency" laws and all that.

Or if GW is deepthroating.

Did I gross you out? :p

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Or if GW is deepthroating.

Did I gross you out? :p

Augh! Wrong--way wrong. Augh!

[El Greco]

And just to avoid misunderstandings: I'm not defending religious extremists here. I would be the last person to do so.

It's just that I believe that in general we are a way more "liberated" society than US, so I can't easily absorb criticism about these things coming from that way. Maybe in this "heresy" stuff we're behind, but that would one of the very few things we are behind US as far as freedom of expression is concerned.

Now, if we're talking about Scandinavian countries or France, then I'm ready to admit they are way ahead of everyone else in these matters.

[Tony]

Originally posted by El Greco
Now, if we're talking about Scandinavian countries or France, then I'm ready to admit they are way ahead of everyone else in these matters.

Based on what?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, only if you blur out the genatalia. Municipal "decency" laws and all that.

Which, IMO, are against the principle of free speech.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Tony
Based on what?

I haven't lived there but have interacted with a lot of people from these countries and I've seen them in their everyday life. They have absolutely no problem with nudity and they have a much different perception of morality (as opposed to the religious perception of morality we have here). Lots of little things, I guess.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony
Which, IMO, are against the principle of free speech.

Oh, hey, I agree. Not that anybody wants or needs to see that on a banner.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by El Greco
I haven't lived there but have interacted with a lot of people from these countries and I've seen them in their everyday life. They have absolutely no problem with nudity and they have a much different perception of morality (as opposed to the religious perception of morality we have here). Lots of little things, I guess.

Just my opinion, of course.

So is nudity a deal-breaker for you in terms of being a free society?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
So is nudity a deal-breaker for you in terms of being a free society?

What? Where did you get that idea? El Greco is simply saying that Greek society is more liberated than the US on some issues (specifically, prudish American laws), but behind some other countries. How that indicates that the US isn't a "free society" is a bit beyond me.

[Manny]

Originally posted by El Greco
Maybe in this "heresy" stuff we're behind, but that would one of the very few things we are behind US as far as freedom of expression is concerned. [/B] See, now my perception is precisely the opposite -- that we overregulate TV content in the US, but other than that we're way ahead of just about all other countries.

The federal government, through the FCC, owns all of the broadcast frequencies in the US and exercises broad regulatory authority (and I agree, it's overbroad) over that medium. But all of those examples you mentioned were on free, over-the-air television. The Superbowl could have their cheerleaders naked if they stuck to cable. The explicit language warning can be removed from the DVD (though of course it's good customer service to keep it). The magazine can publish without blurs (though so could the TV if it wanted to -- some parties in the States are engaging in an abundance of overcaution and calling it censorship).

On more important stuff, we have no state secrets act, no laws mandating respect for any institution whatsoever, no government libel law. I'd say we're doing pretty OK.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, only if you blur out the genatalia. Municipal "decency" laws and all that.

Just noticed something here:

If you have to blur out the genitalia, then what happened in Greece could have very well happened in US too, since the offending image was an erect penis next to a Christian cross. If you notice the article, the artist was charged with "insulting public decency".

Am I missing something ?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by El Greco
Fuss about exposed boobs ? Obligatory warnings for explicit language ? Blurring two computer-generated Australopithecuses having sex in a BBC's documentary ?

Thanks. Let's not forget no beer-drinking in beer commercials and no cigarette commercials on TV at all.

We are indeed talking about two different sorts of censorship.

Perhaps 'you cannot show X on public airwaves' looks ridiculous to you, but it sort of pales in comparison to 'you cannot show Y anywhere'.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by El Greco
Just noticed something here:

If you have to blur out the genitalia, then what happened in Greece could have very well happened in US too, since the offending image was an erect penis next to a Christian cross. If you notice the article, the artist was charged with "insulting public decency".

Am I missing something ?

No doubt the penis would be blurred were the image to appear on most broadcast television networks. Not int he art exhibit, however, where it could hang proudly, as it were.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by El Greco
Just noticed something here:

If you have to blur out the genitalia, then what happened in Greece could have very well happened in US too, since the offending image was an erect penis next to a Christian cross. If you notice the article, the artist was charged with "insulting public decency".

Am I missing something ?

That charge, or a similar one, would stick in the US if the image was displayed in a public venue--like painted on the side of a building. In art galleries and other private places, they can't do squat.

The second charge, insulting the Church, wouldn't stick anywhere in the US.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon
What? Where did you get that idea? El Greco is simply saying that Greek society is more liberated than the US on some issues (specifically, prudish American laws), but behind some other countries. How that indicates that the US isn't a "free society" is a bit beyond me.

Sorry that was not my intention for it to come out like that.

It just seems to be he is placing nudity -- the cencorship of which I disagree with -- in the USA to a degree of importance. While I may be deprived of images of breasts and penises on billboards and network TV, it's not something I would compare to heresy laws.

[El Greco]

And what if a religious extremist would sue the artist for "insulting public decency" ? Wouldn't a trial be conducted in US ?

The fact that a trial will be conducted doesn't say anything about how people see this incident. I wish you could read this article (http://tovima.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=B&f=14475&m=C06&aa=1) but unfortunately I only found it in Greek. The title says "The Art is crucified again" and among several caustic things it also says that the judge should laugh and move on to the next case.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by El Greco
And what if a religious extremist would sue the artist for "insulting public decency" ? Wouldn't a trial be conducted in US ?

No. There's a difference between civil and criminal litigation; decency laws are criminal, and deal with "indecent exposure" (nudity), cussing, etc. The Church or extremist, at most, would be able to file a complaint with the cops. If the cops decide not to pursue it (as they often do), or if the DA declines to prosecute, nothing happens.

[El Greco]

BTW, it wasn't a private gallery, it was a public exhibition placed among the events of the parallel "Cultural Olympics".

[Cleon]

Originally posted by El Greco
BTW, it wasn't a private gallery, it was a public exhibition placed among the events of the parallel "Cultural Olympics".

If this case had happened in the US, aside from the "insulting the Church" part which couldn't be prosecuted at all, the question of whether an art exhibition is "public" or "private" would have to be hashed out in court. Even if publicly funded with free admission, it would be difficult for the DA to prove that it was truly a public gathering place. Courts tend to set a very high bar when issues of censoring content occur. (Broadcast issues, like TV and radio, are different because the FCC sets its own rules and is for all intents and purposes outside the court system.)

Which is why for something like that, only the most zealous, praise-Jebus-bible-thumping Alabama DA would even think about prosecuting it. And then, recognizing that it was a waste of time and resources, he'd decide against it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by El Greco
BTW, it wasn't a private gallery, it was a public exhibition placed among the events of the parallel "Cultural Olympics".

El Greco, allow me to introduce you to El Dildo Bandito (http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=february2002&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7810).

Ceramic penises, in a public library. Note which side the law takes.

[Manny]

Originally posted by El Greco
Now, if we're talking about Scandinavian countries or France, then I'm ready to admit they are way ahead of everyone else in these matters. Heh. Here I was all agreeing with this and it turns out to be at least partly incorrect. Turns out that until just the other day (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1052435.ece) it was legally mandatory to use a black bar to cover the naughty bits in Norwegian television broadcasts and magazines. That restriction would apply to US broadcast television, but not to magazines here. So they just caught up and passed us in one court decision on that particular issue.

Also, I know there are extensive restrictions on some forms of depiction of sexual activity in many European counties including France, including on consensual BDSM activities. There exist in the US fetish magazines which would draw a producer or distributor a lengthy jail sentence in France.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by manny
Heh. Here I was all agreeing with this and it turns out to be at least partly incorrect. Turns out that until just the other day (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1052435.ece) it was legally mandatory to use a black bar to cover the naughty bits in Norwegian television broadcasts and magazines.

That's not entirely accurate. Norwegian law prohibits the sale and distribution of pornography, which has a specific definition in legal terms (rather rough translation here) "sexual depictions that are percieved as offensive, or which is in other ways suited to degrade humans or act 'coarsening', included under this is sexual depections involving corpses, animals, violence or coercion. Not considered to be pornography is sexual depctions that must be considered defensible from an artistic, scientific, informational or similar purpose."

It has been the "rule of thumb" that "offensive" started at "kjønnsorgan i bevegelse" ("sexual organs in motion", although the description is imprecise as for instance an erect penis was considered to be in motion for this purpose,) but the actual definition of pornography has not been tried in the courts for a long while until recently. (I'm not quite sure just how long, but I think at least 15-20 years.) Recently, a court found that pictures of adults having sex are not offensive in today's society.

That said, naughty bits that weren't in motion has been shown on state-sponsored national TV since at least the early 80ties, with for instance reports from nudist camps on prime time TV. It's also worth noting that Norway has much more restrictive laws on the subject of pornography than the other Scandinavian countries do.

[Manny]

Huh. Not a very clear article then (at least in translation). Thank you for clearing that up.

[Tony]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Ceramic penises, in a public library. Note which side the law takes.

Which side does the law take? I couldn't find it.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'll take your word for it. But why on earth do you tolerate such laws existing in the first place? According to the BBC story, "Mr Iaokimidis is charged with insulting public decency and the Church." Unless the BBC just got this wrong (which I'll admit as a possibility), then Greece still has laws that would never be considered even close to constitutionally permissible here in the US. No group deserves legal protection from insult.

Where's Cleopatra? We've already had discussions on this Greek thing.

What I'd be interested to know is whether any of those 485 pages in the EU constitution allow for such "crimes" and, if so, how they justify them.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Tony
Which, IMO, are against the principle of free speech. Not IMO. Does this really infringe on one's ability to express one's opinions?

El GrecoFuss about exposed boobs ? Obligatory warnings for explicit language ? Blurring two computer-generated Australopithecuses having sex in a BBC's documentary ?I think that it should be pointed out that it is not against the law to have naked breasts or foul language. It is against the law to advertise a broadcast as being of men playing football, but have naked women instead. True, it is a restriction to have to warn one's viewers, but it's not as big a restrictions as you're making it out to be. And AFAIK, the government didn't require the blurring.

If you notice the article, the artist was charged with "insulting public decency".

Am I missing something ?AFAIK, in the US, the artist wouldn't be charged, whoever displayed would be. Also, in the US, the government can't legislate content, it can only legislate form. Even if the end result is the same, there's an important distinction, as a non-obscene display which "insulted" public decency or a religion would be allowed.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Elind
What I'd be interested to know is whether any of those 485 pages in the EU constitution allow for such "crimes" and, if so, how they justify them.

The "EU constitution" isn't meant to be the "supreme law of the land," which means that national laws do not get their legality and authority from it. So on the matter of the Greek blasphemy and obscenity laws (note that this discussion is emphatically not about heresy laws,) the EU constitution bears no weight.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
AFAIK, in the US, the artist wouldn't be charged, whoever displayed would be.

It's not the artist being charged in this case either, but the art curator who was responsible for the exhibition.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The "EU constitution" isn't meant to be the "supreme law of the land," which means that national laws do not get their legality and authority from it. So on the matter of the Greek blasphemy and obscenity laws (note that this discussion is emphatically not about heresy laws,) the EU constitution bears no weight.

I see. However the EU does require some things like no death penalty. I'm surprised that they don't weight more heavily on freedom of expression.

[Kopji]

Blasphemy and heresy laws are actually there for the good of the offender ("perp").

You see, if there weren't trials and legal punishment, religious people would get angry and violent toward them. So the laws are a civilized way of dealing with the problem of offenses to religious sensitivities.

The UK has a blasphemy law too...











The Earth? Oh, the Earth will be gone in just a few seconds.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Kopji
Blasphemy and heresy laws are actually there for the good of the offender ("perp").

You see, if there weren't trials and legal punishment, religious people would get angry and violent toward them. So the laws are a civilized way of dealing with the problem of offenses to religious sensitivities.

The UK has a blasphemy law too...


And in the Coconino Forest; what do they do? Ask people to ignore what they perceive is ignorant and behave like civilized adults?

[Kopji]

And in the Coconino Forest; what do they do? Ask people to ignore what they perceive is ignorant and behave like civilized adults?


We just hang out roasting lizards, pretending they's-a homosexuals.