Live data from Hacker News

Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

independent.co.uk

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#21

Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.

> This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Hate speech laws are perfectly fine, they intent to protect people from being harassed and attacked for what they are (philosophically, religiously, skin color...). This is not hate speech law: no group or people or people are involved here, only an imaginary character. If I say "death to religious people", this should be criminalized. If I say "death to god", there is nothing wrong with that.

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#22
post #8
post #2

This is a trial I'd like to watch.

Some of us would rather that such investigations never came to be, never mind for such charges to reach trial. Think of it this way: how many people have expressed similar views? Do we really want to put those people on trial for providing rational responses to hypothetical questions?

Of course, but given that the laws are on the books, this is one of the best cases that could come up because it will almost certainly either lead to no case, or make them look silly, and by extension make thes laws look pointless.

Norway used to have these laws as well, and a major factor in the decline of their use was exactly that it started making the government look stupid rather than serve a purpose the government was still attached to. The last successfull prosecution happened in 1912, I think, and the last prosecution in 1933 made the prosecutor look sufficiently silly (the case was only brought because it was pushed hard by a professor of theology and prominent preacher) that no further cases were brought.

The person persecuted the last time they were used were a writer named Arnulf Øverland who held a speech to a student organization in Oslo titled "Christianity - The tenth plague", ending by comparing the influence of Christianity on Europe to the biblical plagues and concluding the spread of Christianity was the worst of them all. I think he'd have rather liked Stephen Fry's answer...

While nobody should be prosecuted for this, when they go after people like him, or like Stephen Fry, in settings where said people feel safe to make these statements in the first place, it tends to be the beginning of the end for such laws rather evidence the suppression is still working.

(We should be more worried about the places where people don't dare utter such things in the first place)

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#23
The reason this law still exists is because blasphemy is included in the Irish constitution and so to remove it would require a referendum which "would rightly be seen as a time wasting and expensive exercise" [1]; the law is effectively a dead letter. With this becoming popular, we'll probably get a referendum moved forward with the result being overwhelmingly in favour of removing it. The person who reported him claimed he/she was not offended[2]; it wouldn't surprise me if it was done just to highlight the silliness of the law.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_...

[2]: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp...

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Stephen Fry was the most powerful entity in the universe.

... together with Laurie, Atkinson, Smith, Jones and a handful+1 others. Many gods.

One of my favourite sketches on religion is from Atkinson's live show when the devil, Toby, welcomes people to hell [1]. It satirises Pascal's Wager [2] and the general issue of most peoples lack of reasoned choice of religion so casually and effectively after various easy digs at the usual victims.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#25
post #21

Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.

> This is why hate speech laws are dangerous. You are mixing apples and oranges. Hate speech laws are perfectly fine, they intent to protect people from being harassed and attacked for what they are (philosophically, religiously, skin color...). This is not hate speech law: no group or people or people are involved here, only an imaginary character. If I say "death to religious people", this should be criminalized. I…

I agree with you in principle. What I was trying to say is that hate speech laws (and laws of similar spirit) tend to be written vaguely and leave room for unfavourable interpretation. Particularly in current climate, governments seem to be all too happy to sacrifice liberties under the disguise of protecting this or that (perceived as oppressed) minority.

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#26

Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.

Well there are people being assassinated by less tolerant religious members (usually of certain religions) for not following them even in 2017

And Hate Speech laws are not dangerous (and a different issue than blasphemy)

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is legitimate but it is also of the sophomoric category of questions. As for Islam that you mention, there are no such issues in Islam. Stephen Fry is arguing the same position that Satan does in the Qur'an, pointing out 'errors' in God's judgment. The Angels question God too in the Qur'an, but they do it very politely ..

Yes - and I agree with you, it's banal and in some ways a very Stephen Fryish question to ask - but asking a simplistic question is not to my knowledge, a crime.

Well, clearly it is a crime.

The debate is over if it should be a crime.

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#28
post #21

Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.

> This is why hate speech laws are dangerous. You are mixing apples and oranges. Hate speech laws are perfectly fine, they intent to protect people from being harassed and attacked for what they are (philosophically, religiously, skin color...). This is not hate speech law: no group or people or people are involved here, only an imaginary character. If I say "death to religious people", this should be criminalized. I…

If I say "death to religious people", this should be criminalized.

I think the American standard is fine. You can say that, but you can't say "let's kill those religious people over there."

Re: Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

#30
post #10

Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.

it's ireland... abortion is still illegal in nearly all circumstances, divorce was only legalised in 1997 and only in very specific circumstances

There are a variety of silly things under Irish law, not least of which is that a pornographic film/image may be classed as 'child pornography' (and prosecuted the same) even if the participants are aged over 18, but one or more of the participants is made to appear as if they are a child, or with child-like characteristics.
Post reply on HN