I read yesterday in the metro ( from memory, so I might have the details wrong ) that a young man in Weymouth was sentanced to 80 hours community service for the crime of wearing a "jesus is a c***"( censored ) T-shirt, and refusing to remove it when requested to do so by a police officer.
I believe he was prosecuted under some of the new hate crimes legislation. Whilst I have no doubt that the T-shirt would be offensive to some of the community I personally feel the punishment is far in excess of reasonable.
Edited: I found the story on the interweb:
And again - that wasn't a static link to the story - hopefully this will fare better:
Re:Yuck ...
chromatic on 2005-10-19T17:18:17
Non-christians are offended by a pope letting an entire continent die because condoms are evil.That's sort of a really gross generalization.
Re:Yuck ...
runrig on 2005-10-19T23:21:02
That to me is not an option. Once you've seen it, the image stays with you. I have to say, though, lack of good taste occurs on both sides of the fence. When I went to a child birth class with my wife, there was this 'Christian' guy who wore a (I forget the exact slogan) 'Jesus died for our sins' shirt with a graphic depiction of Jesus not having a very pleasant time on the cross (that looked as bad as any heavy metal t-shirt). Gotta wonder about some people...If people are offended by it, don't look at it.
Classical example : it's an historical truth, and for Christians a religious truth as well, to assert that Jesus died on the cross. For Muslims it's a blasphemy. Muslims believe that a ghost died on the cross in place of Jesus (a major prophet of Islam with Ibrahim and Muhammad) while Jesus was taken to Heaven by angels, because God would never let a prophet be tortured to death. Thus, saying that Jesus died on the cross is equivalent to say that God is mean and unjust, and it's a very offensive blasphemy, probably much more offensive than comparing a crucifix to a dildo. But obviously we don't want Muslims to prosecute public schools because in history books one can read that Jesus died on the cross. So... blasphemy must be protected by law.
Re:Blasphemy laws
jdavidb on 2005-10-19T22:07:50
I agree. Say what you want to say. "That offends me" is not a reason to limit anyone's rights. If it offends you, don't listen. If you are for some reason held captive and forced to listen (as might be the case in compulsory education, for example), then we need to find legal remedies for that violation of your rights, which can be done without limiting anybody else's.
"That offends God" is an even worse reason to limit somebody's freedom. Leave the matter between God and the person who offended Him.
But what about the children?
lilstevey on 2005-10-20T14:48:18
Initially I was offended by the principal that someone could get into trouble for wearing a Tshirt, that surely the wearing of a Tshirt should be considered an expression of free speach, and that this conviction illustrated an immaturity in our culture.
There is another aspect to this however. I believe the incident occured on a public beach, which was likley to have a mixture of people upon it, the young, the elderly etc. Should he have thought, before leaving the house, that such a Tshirt might be inapropriatte for such an occasion, and might be best left to be worn at a club, or metal pub?
I still think the punishment is excessive for the crime but the balance between freedom of expression versus responsibility for ones actions and the depiction of graphic acts without considering the feelings of those watching makes me question my views on this.Re:But what about the children?
jdavidb on 2005-10-20T15:01:19
Well, I think in general it's the responsibility of the parents to shield their children as they choose in public.
I also think the problem could be solved by having private ownership of many of these public places, so then different privately-owned attractions could compete by having different standards of what is allowed.
As it is, the government owns these places and so as property owner it gets to set the standards. And that means that the standard is set by democracy. But democracy does not always set a moral standard: we can choose to prohibit homosexuality, or alcohol, or Christianity, for example.
How would you handle the situation of a family that complains about someone on the beach wearing a pro-homosexuality T-shirt, for example? Where do we draw the line to decide what is inconsiderate of other people? How about if it were people on the beach offended by a pro-Christianity T-shirt?
In my family's case, we're going to handle the issue by taking responsibility for our children ourselves. We wouldn't have it any other way. Letting everybody vote on what our children may or may not see has the potential to make tyrannical decisions that could affect us in negative ways while failing to protect our children from that which we believe they really do need to be protected from.
Yes, certainly, the man should have thought better before wearing his inciteful (not "insightful") shirt. He did something wrong, in the sense that he deliberately tried to offend people. But that's a wrong that comes from morality, not legality, and not only do I believe it is wrong to use the law and government to enforce morality, I believe it is impossible to do so consistently and correctly.
Re:But what about the children?
chaoticset on 2005-11-16T20:51:16
Next thing you know, the public will be demanding freedom of speech, no matter where they are or who they are!We've got to nip this in the bud, and show people that they're really only allowed to offend people when it's not going to offend people. Otherwise, who could foresee what chaos might erupt?
