SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Iceland has legalized blasphemy, which had been criminalized under a 75-year-old law, despite some opposition from the country's churches:
A bill was put forward by the minority Pirate Party, which campaigns for internet and data freedom. It came after the deadly attack the same month against French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris... As three members of the Pirate Party stood before parliament on Thursday, each said: "Je Suis Charlie", an expression used globally to express solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo victims. After the ruling, the party wrote on its blog (in Icelandic): "Iceland's parliament has now established the important message that freedom will not give in to bloody attacks." The blasphemy law had been in place since 1940, and anyone found guilty could have been sentenced to a fine or three months in prison.
The Catholic Church wrote in comments submitted after the bill was proposed: "Should freedom of expression go so far as to mean that the identity of a person of faith can be freely insulted, then personal freedom - as individuals or groups - is undermined." The Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association said that the new law included provisions to ensure that people could still be prosecuted for hate speech. [...] In the 2013 election, [Iceland's Pirate Party] gained three MPs for the first time, and polls now say it is the most popular party in Iceland, with the support of 32.4% of the country. In 2013, its members drafted a law calling for whistleblower Edward Snowden to be granted Icelandic citizenship.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Saturday July 04 2015, @04:14PM
freedom of expression means anyone can be freely insulted. it is not the State's job to hold its citizens' hands and coddle them*. somebody hurt your feelings? boo-fucking-hoo, cry me a river. now, if it happens enough to be bullying or abuse or if its a threat to one's safety (threats and assault), then the State should step in, but "protecting from harm" does not mean "preventing from feeling insulted by other people's valid opinions".
* i know there's lots of people who seem to think that social safety nets are the government doing this, but keeping your citizens from starving to death and such is not coddling
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @04:36PM
now, if it happens enough to be bullying or abuse
Both of which are vague and subjective.
"preventing from feeling insulted by other people's valid opinions".
Whether they're valid or not doesn't matter.
Offense is taken, not given. Anyone could be offended by anything. Trying to protect people's feelings not only ends up infringing upon fundamental liberties like freedom of speech, but it encourages groups of people to get upset whenever someone criticizes them so that eventually that speech will be silenced.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:53AM
In many localities and jurisdictions, it is called "terroristic threatening". A bit more than "hate speech", but much less than "Blasphemy". I mean, all I said was "this bit of Halibut is good enough for Jehovah!" Now where's the harm in that? Jehovah, jehovah, jehovah, Xenu. Oops. So it is not merely a matter of hurt feeling, it is a clear and present danger represented by threatening speech that should be outlawed. Now criticism of the the majority almost never entails a realistic threat. But criticism of minorities can. See the difference? Do we have to get more graphic? When would you feel threatened? May the FSM protect you with a colander of invulnerability and the pasta of obscuration. Ramen.