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 Gravis on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:06PM
it's important to note that blasphemy is defined by people being offended. that said, there are plenty of people that are soooo easily offended. some people are offended by the very notion of evolution and would easily classify it as blasphemy. i know there are people in the US that would love to put people in jail for teaching evolution in public schools.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday July 04 2015, @06:45PM
You do not understand. They still outlaw blasphemy, the question is who is it safe to blaspheme against and who is it not safe to insult. What else is 'hate speech' laws but outlawing all opposition to whatever is declared official orthodoxy? In the past the official orthodoxy was Christianity so blaspheming it was illegal, now it is out and warmed over Marxism/Secular Humanism is the State religion. The more things change the more they stay the same.
The only thing the tolerant prog won't tolerate is... pretty much everything since ANY disagreement with their ever shifting stated positions is declared hate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:10AM
Oh, jmorris, you unmoderated racist! Of course you can continue to blaspheme as much as you like against blacks, jews, and gays! Just don't expect anyone to agree with you, or really want to read anything you say, or hang with you, if you know what I mean. I just wish I could quit you!
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:48AM
No shit, just look at the stupid rebel flag ban crap in the USA. Just to make fun of the banners (and hopefully make people think) I suggested that "We should ban the American flag, more minorities have died by bombs dropped by those wearing an American flag so we should get rid of it for a rainbow flag of acceptance" and you should have seen how many were 100% for erasing the American flag.
So remember boys and girls, there will always be somebody that is offended, no matter what the material in question.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:34AM
I'm sorry, were you offended by the banning of the offensive Confederate Battle Flag of the Army of North Virginia? Kind of a reach for you, doncha think? Atrocities have been committed under the Stars and Stripes, but that flag never represented those things in the way that the racist slaver flags of the South did. So again, sorry you were offended for supporting slavery.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @04:09PM
just look at the stupid rebel flag ban crap in the USA
Do you mean the 'ban' were the flag of a failed insurrection is removed from State government buildings? or do you mean the 'ban' where sellers have voluntarily decided not to sell them?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by TheReaperD on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:13PM
Where is the US Pirate Party? We so need them, especially since it's getting harder and harder to tell democrats and republicans apart as far as actual policy. Only the rhetoric and a handful of issues separate the two.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 4, Insightful) by seeprime on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:19PM
In the US the name Pirate Party would be derided so much by the media that it would have no chance of success. Should a "Pirate Party" label itself the "Freedom Party" then it would get plenty of media attention if it had charismatic and intelligent candidates.
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheReaperD on Saturday July 04 2015, @07:34PM
There is a "Peace and Freedom" party in the US. No one cares.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday July 05 2015, @02:19AM
Should a "Pirate Party" label itself the "Freedom Party" then it would get plenty of media attention if it had charismatic and intelligent candidates.
I don't know about this. It seems to me only the charismatic part is necessary.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:30PM
In US [wikipedia.org], where else?
No signs yet for a bo's'n position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tfried on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:42PM
There is not much of a chance of actually estabilishing "specialized" parties in a pure majority voting system.
Now a proportional representation system has its own set of drawbacks, but if you want pirates (or greens, or...) in US congress, change the voting system, first.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:21PM
The One Party benefits too much from the current voting system, so that seems extremely unlikely. It would take an absolutely massive amount of voters to change it, and that won't happen for a long time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Type44Q on Saturday July 04 2015, @06:50PM
Unlike Iceland, there simply aren't enough intelligent and informed people here in the States to support such a platform.
(Score: 1) by TheReaperD on Sunday July 05 2015, @05:43AM
I fear that you are right. *sigh*
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:44PM
They do so themselves by basing their lives around some dead sheepfucker's bullshit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by seeprime on Saturday July 04 2015, @04:57PM
Somebody needs a hug.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 05 2015, @07:25AM
I don't think bulls fuck sheep.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Sunday July 05 2015, @03:21PM
Whereas others have a god called Logic, which is an useful tool BTW, and they think they can conclude something using logic outside the universe, applying it to the hypothetical creator. Then they proceed to bash stuff like the bible because it's not accurate, while their science books do exactly the same (or do yours start with Planck and the first few instants of the big bang explained? What? you still didn't explain it? Burn those books then?).
One can prove to them (see my rants at the green site) that whatever possible goal science reaches, modelling every single interaction of matter in the past present and future included, doesn't conclude anything about the hypothetical transcendent domain of a god, but I'd rather point to the fact that their stance is a spectacular example of inconsistent religion. I'll take the FSM over your crackpot stuff any day.
Anyway back to the topic, blasphemy and the prohibition of blasphemy are both instrument of the devil (which exists at least as a concept), so any law is neutral in that regard. Legalizing blasphemy and prohibiting hate speech is quite suspect anyway, because the former is part of the latter.
(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.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mendax on Saturday July 04 2015, @06:55PM
I can imagine the ghost of Long John Silver addressing the Icelandic parliament, "Arrrr! ye sons of Baal! Ye spawn of Lucifer and Beelzebub! Goddamn ye! Goddamn ye all!"
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @11:04PM
Calling RIAA and MPAA crooks and their lackeys for bribe mills will now be ok? :D