Freedom of speech // Is the West falling behind?

[Anglicora]

The ECHR disagrees.

i do not give a flying shit about what the echr thinks

court rulings have no impact on my opinion

actually explain your position rather than going 'oh bbut the echr disagrees with you and they are never wrong about anything '

Sure. In Catholicism (the religion of 80%+ of Polish people), homosexual acts are a sin. They are, according to the Catechism, intrinsically disordered. The pride flag is a symbol of tolerance of these acts. By depicting the Virgin Mary, the most important woman in the entire Catholic faith, with a rainbow halo, they are depicting her as tolerant of homosexual acts. It is blasphemous. Ergo, it is hate speech (as ruled by the ECHR). You can say the ECHR doesn't matter but their rulings are legally binding in Poland whether you like it or not.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

Disrespecting her how?

By portraying the Virgin Mary as being supportive of LGBT. You cannot square modern egalitarianism with Christianity. You are right that Christians are called to love homosexuals and non-believers but we are to correct erroneous beliefs and sinful behaviour. The Pride flag accepts homosexual behaviour which is intrinsically sinful in Christianity. Depicting the Mother of God as being tolerant of sin is blasphemous. It is disrespecting the Catholic (and Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran) religion.

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted."
Galatians 6:1

"If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother."
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15

"As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."
1 Timothy 5:20

Nonsense. Otherwise all religions would be banned for being highly offensive.

No the ECHR literally ruled that freedom of speech does not protect insulting religious figures. It did not rule that "all religions would be banned for being highly offensive". So until you can show me an ECHR ruling that says what you believe to be the case, you are wrong.

you really like the echr huh.

no other interpretation is legitimate guys

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

i do not give a flying shit about what the echr thinks

court rulings have no impact on my opinion

actually explain your position rather than going 'oh bbut the echr disagrees with you and they are never wrong about anything '

Sure. In Catholicism (the religion of 80%+ of Polish people), homosexual acts are a sin. They are, according to the Catechism, intrinsically disordered. The pride flag is a symbol of tolerance of these acts. By depicting the Virgin Mary, the most important woman in the entire Catholic faith, with a rainbow halo, they are depicting her as tolerant of homosexual acts. It is blasphemous. Ergo, it is hate speech (as ruled by the ECHR). You can say the ECHR doesn't matter but their rulings are legally binding in Poland whether you like it or not.

they are legally binding that does not mean they are justified or that i support them

[Anglicora]

By portraying the Virgin Mary as being supportive of LGBT. You cannot square modern egalitarianism with Christianity. You are right that Christians are called to love homosexuals and non-believers but we are to correct erroneous beliefs and sinful behaviour. The Pride flag accepts homosexual behaviour which is intrinsically sinful in Christianity. Depicting the Mother of God as being tolerant of sin is blasphemous. It is disrespecting the Catholic (and Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran) religion.

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted."
Galatians 6:1

"If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother."
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15

"As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."
1 Timothy 5:20


No the ECHR literally ruled that freedom of speech does not protect insulting religious figures. It did not rule that "all religions would be banned for being highly offensive". So until you can show me an ECHR ruling that says what you believe to be the case, you are wrong.

So it's hate speech because you personally disagree with it. I don't buy it.

It's hate speech because Polish law that is compliant with a precedent set by the ECHR, as I cited earlier, has ruled it to be so.

[Vassenor]

i do not give a flying shit about what the echr thinks

court rulings have no impact on my opinion

actually explain your position rather than going 'oh bbut the echr disagrees with you and they are never wrong about anything '

Sure. In Catholicism (the religion of 80%+ of Polish people), homosexual acts are a sin. They are, according to the Catechism, intrinsically disordered. The pride flag is a symbol of tolerance of these acts. By depicting the Virgin Mary, the most important woman in the entire Catholic faith, with a rainbow halo, they are depicting her as tolerant of homosexual acts. It is blasphemous. Ergo, it is hate speech (as ruled by the ECHR). You can say the ECHR doesn't matter but their rulings are legally binding in Poland whether you like it or not.

So you won't mind explaining how it fits the opinion in the 2013 case, rather than just hiding behind it.

[Anglicora]

you really like the echr huh.

they are legally binding that does not mean they are justified or that i support them

Whether they are justified or not is totally subjective... it is hate speech under Polish law and is compliant with the precedent that the ECHR has set. Disrespecting religious figures is not protected by freedom of speech in any country that is a party to the ECHR.

[The Alma Mater]

The Pride flag accepts homosexual behaviour which is intrinsically sinful in Christianity. Depicting the Mother of God as being tolerant of sin is blasphemous.

I take it you disagree with the people who claim that the word "homosexual" did not appear in the Bible until less than 100 years ago; when translations suddenly decided that it should be homosexuality and not pedophilia that should be condemned ?

Nonsense. Otherwise all religions would be banned for being highly offensive.

No the ECHR literally ruled that freedom of speech does not protect insulting religious figures. It did not rule that "all religions would be banned for being highly offensive". So until you can show me an ECHR ruling that says what you believe to be the case, you are wrong.

[/quote]

Ah, fair. Religious people can insult others, but turnabout is only allowed when it does not include holy figures ?
Can religious people say it about eachother though ? Say - can a Christian say Brahma is a false god or vice versa ?

And do you have a link ? Because after the whole France thing it seems odd they would rule this way.

[Vassenor]

you really like the echr huh.

they are legally binding that does not mean they are justified or that i support them

Whether they are justified or not is totally subjective... it is hate speech under Polish law and is compliant with the precedent that the ECHR has set. Disrespecting religious figures is not protected by freedom of speech in any country that is a party to the ECHR.

So that's a no, you won't explain how it fits the ruling, you're just going to use it as a cudgel to shut down debate.

[Vassenor]

The Pride flag accepts homosexual behaviour which is intrinsically sinful in Christianity. Depicting the Mother of God as being tolerant of sin is blasphemous.

I take it you disagree with the people who claim that the word "homosexual" did not appear in the Bible until less than 100 years ago; when translations suddenly decided that it should be homosexuality and not pedophilia that should be condemned ?

No the ECHR literally ruled that freedom of speech does not protect insulting religious figures. It did not rule that "all religions would be banned for being highly offensive". So until you can show me an ECHR ruling that says what you believe to be the case, you are wrong.

Ah, fair. Religious people can insult others, but turnabout is only allowed when it does not include holy figures ?
Can religious people say it about eachother though ? Say - can a Christian say Brahma is a false god or vice versa ?

And do you have a link ? Because after the whole France thing it seems odd they would rule this way.[/quote]

The ruling was that only defamation that would cause breach of the peace was not protected. I'm waiting to see what unrest this poster would cause.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

you really like the echr huh.

they are legally binding that does not mean they are justified or that i support them

Whether they are justified or not is totally subjective... it is hate speech under Polish law and is compliant with the precedent that the ECHR has set. Disrespecting religious figures is not protected by freedom of speech in any country that is a party to the ECHR.

this is nsg it is not court.

we argue our opinions on whether things are justified or not, not on their legality.

the polish blasphemy law complies with domestic and European constitutional law, sure, but that does not mean i cant question its morality or furthermore point out that it is hypocritical for the polish authorities to claim to be guardians of free speech and claim to oppose censorship.

[Anglicora]

Sure. In Catholicism (the religion of 80%+ of Polish people), homosexual acts are a sin. They are, according to the Catechism, intrinsically disordered. The pride flag is a symbol of tolerance of these acts. By depicting the Virgin Mary, the most important woman in the entire Catholic faith, with a rainbow halo, they are depicting her as tolerant of homosexual acts. It is blasphemous. Ergo, it is hate speech (as ruled by the ECHR). You can say the ECHR doesn't matter but their rulings are legally binding in Poland whether you like it or not.

So you won't mind explaining how it fits the opinion in the 2013 case, rather than just hiding behind it.

Sure. The 2013 ruling states that calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile constituted an "attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace". The Polish court found that depicting the Virgin Mary, who is of lesser importance to Catholics than Muhammad is to Muslims but still very important, in this way constituted "intentionally offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship". These laws are in place to do that same thing as the 2013 case, to prevent "stirring up prejudice" and preserving religious peace.

[Vassenor]

So you won't mind explaining how it fits the opinion in the 2013 case, rather than just hiding behind it.

Sure. The 2013 ruling states that calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile constituted an "attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace". The Polish court found that depicting the Virgin Mary, who is of lesser importance to Catholics than Muhammad is to Muslims but still very important, in this way constituted "intentionally offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship". These laws are in place to do that same thing as the 2013 case, to prevent "stirring up prejudice" and preserving religious peace.

And how is seeing this poster going to cause unrest? Because right now it's seeming like you're calling Christians so fragile and easily angered that anything that conflicts with their narrow worldview is justification for violence.

[Kragholm Free States]

The West is certainly falling in the free speech department, but not falling *behind*. It is broadly still ahead of places like Poland and Russia, where one may be arbitrarily arrested for any criticism of the state or the church. But free speech is not a competition; it is not enough to simply be "better than those guys". The West should not grow complacent, we should recognise that our own freedoms are under threat even though they remain in better condition than in other parts of the world, and we should be prepared to defend those freedoms.

I happen to think this new Polish law is, in principle, a good thing - big tech companies, no matter their ideological bent, should not be able to so easily control and curtail the flow of information and shape the nature of permitted public discourse. It remains to be seen how Poland will enforce this law in practice, and I doubt it will be handled well given the nature of the current Polish government, but the broad aim of it is sound. Social media companies must decide whether they want to be a platform or a publisher. They cannot have the best of both worlds, the lack of accountability of a platform combined with the publisher's freedom to censor, edit, or favour content at will.

[Gravlen]

No.

then why cant the government restrict them

Because the government is trying to regulate the details of a TOS without a legitimate need, and trying to force a private company to host a certain type of speech.

[Galloism]

then why cant the government restrict them

Because the government is trying to regulate the details of a TOS without a legitimate need, and trying to force a private company to host a certain type of speech.

It's worth note that we do force private companies to host certain types of speech already. We call that regulation as a public utility.

Your phone company generally can't cut you off if you swear on their line or talk about QAnon conspiracy theories with your friends, because of utility service rules.

It's not QUITE the same, but there is some precedent for forcing private companies to host speech regardless of content if they are determined to be a utility.

[Gravlen]

So you won't mind explaining how it fits the opinion in the 2013 case, rather than just hiding behind it.

Sure. The 2013 ruling states that calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile constituted an "attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace". The Polish court found that depicting the Virgin Mary, who is of lesser importance to Catholics than Muhammad is to Muslims but still very important, in this way constituted "intentionally offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship". These laws are in place to do that same thing as the 2013 case, to prevent "stirring up prejudice" and preserving religious peace.

What's the factually correct colour of her halo?

[Galloism]

Sure. The 2013 ruling states that calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile constituted an "attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace". The Polish court found that depicting the Virgin Mary, who is of lesser importance to Catholics than Muhammad is to Muslims but still very important, in this way constituted "intentionally offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship". These laws are in place to do that same thing as the 2013 case, to prevent "stirring up prejudice" and preserving religious peace.

What's the factually correct colour of her halo?

I mean, it's factually correct that Muhammad would be considered a pedophile under modern standards, so I'm not sure the relevance of the question.

[Anglicora]

I take it you disagree with the people who claim that the word "homosexual" did not appear in the Bible until less than 100 years ago; when translations suddenly decided that it should be homosexuality and not pedophilia that should be condemned?

Well I wouldn't disagree with them on the first part. It is true that the word homosexual did not appear in English translations of the Bible until around the 1950s, but that's easily explainable by the fact that the word "homosexual" wasn't a commonly used word up until this point in time. See Google Ngram Viewer for proof of this. Anyways, its a non-argument because appealing to English translations is kind of stupid given that the Bible wasn't written in English. Specifically, 1st Corinthians was written in Greek. The Greek uses the terms μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται - effeminate and "homosexual". The μαλακοὶ were the "submissive" homosexuals, those who received. The ἀρσενοκοῖται were the "dominant" ones, those who gave. What you suggested is that the original meaning was paedophilia but this is just a myth that has spread on social media. ἀρσενοκοῖται is made up of two words, ἀρσεν (man) and κοῖται (bed). The same words, ἄρσενος and κοίτην, albeit in different forms, appear in the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. The words ἀρσεν or ἄρσενος do not mean young boy/little boy/child, they mean "man". Any Koine Greek dictionary will tell you this. If you don't believe that, the Hebrew OT uses the word "Zakar" which any Biblical Hebrew dictionary will tell you means man.

So that's a no, you won't explain how it fits the ruling, you're just going to use it as a cudgel to shut down debate.

This is just really childish and shows that you're debating in bad faith... I was responding to multiple people and had not gotten around to you yet. Be patient and respectful please otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

[Anglicora]

Sure. The 2013 ruling states that calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile constituted an "attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace". The Polish court found that depicting the Virgin Mary, who is of lesser importance to Catholics than Muhammad is to Muslims but still very important, in this way constituted "intentionally offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship". These laws are in place to do that same thing as the 2013 case, to prevent "stirring up prejudice" and preserving religious peace.

And how is seeing this poster going to cause unrest? Because right now it's seeming like you're calling Christians so fragile and easily angered that anything that conflicts with their narrow worldview is justification for violence.

We have hate speech laws in place for all races and religions, they're not established specifically to protect Christians.

[The Reformed American Republic]

How can anti-censorship be bad?

First of all, because the people claiming this is "anti-censorship" dooesn't understand what the term "censorship" means.
Second, because it's an illegitimate governmental interference in private business.
Third, when it's selective.

I'm not someone who is going to applaud Poland here, but why should we care about "illegitimate government interference in a private business?" Corporations have too much power anyway, and I don't view the free market as a right by any means. There are legitimate reasons for a government to disband, nationalize, or heavily regulate a business.

[Vassenor]

And how is seeing this poster going to cause unrest? Because right now it's seeming like you're calling Christians so fragile and easily angered that anything that conflicts with their narrow worldview is justification for violence.

We have hate speech laws in place for all races and religions, they're not established specifically to protect Christians.

That doesn't answer my question, does it? The ruling was specifically that speech that would cause unrest is not protected, so how is this speech going to cause unrest and thus not be protected?

[Anglicora]

We have hate speech laws in place for all races and religions, they're not established specifically to protect Christians.

That doesn't answer my question, does it? The ruling was specifically that speech that would cause unrest is not protected, so how is this speech going to cause unrest and thus not be protected?

Well given that there is a precedent of violent responses in Europe to blasphemy and also to other attacks on people's identities it just seems to be preventative.

[Gravlen]

What's the factually correct colour of her halo?

I mean, it's factually correct that Muhammad would be considered a pedophile under modern standards, so I'm not sure the relevance of the question.

Hi Anglicora.

Because of the ruling you cite, where the court found that statements knowingly made based on untrue facts fell outside the protection of Art. 10.

[Galloism]

I mean, it's factually correct that Muhammad would be considered a pedophile under modern standards, so I'm not sure the relevance of the question.

Hi Anglicora.

Because of the ruling you cite, where the court found that statements knowingly made based on untrue facts fell outside the protection of Art. 10.

Now I'm even more confused by the ruling, given that's absolutely a true fact.

[Anglicora]

Hi Anglicora.

Because of the ruling you cite, where the court found that statements knowingly made based on untrue facts fell outside the protection of Art. 10.

Now I'm even more confused by the ruling, given that's absolutely a true fact.

It depends on who you ask. Most Sunni Muslims would have to agree since Ṣaḥīḥ aḥādīth affirm the truth that Muhammad engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship with a child, but Qur'anists can disregard them and I do not know what Shia aḥādīth say. It is perhaps the use of the word "paedophile" that is causing offense since people understand it to be a bad thing.