The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Free Speech v Offending God

For John, BLUFThe Third Commandment is back, with a vengeance.  Nothing to see; just move along.

It is Breitbart, but still, this does seem timely and interesting.  "Islamic Leaders in Dearborn Michigan Plan Rally to Support Speech Prohibition".  They are, of course, concerned about blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed.  From the article:

In other words, it appears one of the goals of the rally will be the eventual creation of blasphemy laws:  laws that would reflect an international movement toward banning speech that is critical of Islam or Mohammed.
So, does that mean the use of terms like "Jesus F------ Christ!" will be banned outside of private settings, or banned in all settings.

It seemed like only a few decades ago that we got rid of Blasphemy laws.  Now they are coming back?  I would propose for our Commonwealth here in Massachusetts something like:

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
I would put it in our General Laws.  Part IV, Crimes, Punishments, and Proceedings in Criminal Cases, TITLE I, Crimes and Punishments, CHAPTER 272, Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order, Section 36, and call it Blasphemy.

Regards  —  Cliff

  "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
  1. Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence.  2. An insolent or arrogant remark or act.  Not a Twenty-first Century word.  On the other hand, Blasphemy is not a Twenty-first Century crime.
  Maybe we should just go with our last such law.  But then that is what is quoted.  But then you figured that out, n'est pas?

-2 T2 T2 ½


Mr. Lynne said...

In their offense they cry for legal privileged. To my mind, this is just expected, if not condoned.

On another note, beware of reporting that includes the reporter saying "In other words...". Especially at Breitbart. (What are you doing over there anyway?)_

C R Krieger said...

I figure anyone who is decried as much as the late Andrew Brietbart is someone worth checking out once in a while.  Heck, I even go to Gerry Nutter's Lowell and Left in Lowell.  What is that line?  "Trust but verify"?

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr. Lynne said...

Touche, but there are some places where 'but verify' turns into way too much work than it's worth. Better to notice a story on such a site, but consume the details via other more trusted and sensible media, IMO.