Talk:Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My source is many miles away, but I remember a Italian movie with a 14-year old woman who was got drunk and raped and she was so naive that she believed it was a virgin pregnancy and ran away and hid on the mountain and had the child. It was called "Miracle" in English, I believe. When it came to the US in the late 1950s or 1961 maybe, there was a New York law against blasphemy that it was charged under, but the Supreme Court ruled that such a law was unconstitutional. If someone could fill out the details, it'd be useful for the article.--Prosfilaes 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, it was The Miracle. I'll try to write something about it.
// paroxysm (n)22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Matanza Cofrade
Is the es:Matanza cofrade case worthy of mention?
[edit] Notable christian example to add
In France, an advertising reproducing the last supper has being convicted for religion offence. French article: La Cène (Girbaud) (see also [1]). --BMF81 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There are also examples of prosecution of blasphemy under Britain's current blasphemy law [2], which some Christians want to use again in a suit against Jerry Springer: The Opera. ("There have been no public prosecutions for blasphemy since 1922. The only successful private prosecution since then was the case brought by Mary Whitehouse in 1977 against "Gay News" over a poem it printed depicting Christ as a promiscuous homosexual.") - Nunh-huh 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fatwa Definition: Change?
Perhaps the definition of Fatwa as "religious opinion" needs a revision? ---Perhaps not a definition that would be widely accepted. Well, the Muftis at least don't seem to see at it as opinion ;) Would it suffice to simply add a hyperlink to the Fatwa wiki, instead? :D--AlwaysNever 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] the dangers of dogmatism
Why do we waste our time and humanity over arguing over cartoons? Dogmas by nature are too sensitive, which may also explain the absence of certain other prominent religions from this site's criticisms. It is disappointing that as a young secular western world citizen, I have little hope in our own "democratic" institutions (my jury is still out on whether democracy is in fact a system useful to the "greater good", whatever that may be, who/what should define this, and whether Churchill/his speechwriter was really right in saying that it's the best we've got). It is also disappointing that I neither have 'faith' that ANY organised religion can run its own show without somehow getting involved in public life (read:trying to influence people who are in no position to know any better).
I am for the cartoons. The freedom of speech is just a pretty argument, and though I support it, my real belief lies in that dogmas should never, ever be allowed to have anything to do with public life, be it scientific, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, communist, capitalist, leftist, rightist, corporatist, unionsist, "western democracy" (ha), academic, pacifist. (BTW, France, who did you help in Rwanda aside from giving genocidaires plane tickets and a safe haven? And now you're pacifist because it's nice to say so when your nation's energy depends on it? Ideals are only useful to win wars, is that it? Incidentally the same applies to Denmark (the plastic packaging is absurd), Canada, Britain, China, Japan, the US (very much not the only one; look at your own country already), ETC))/.
I'm also past the point when I am unsure whether the world knows my views, so please feel free to argue with me at bluehibou@yahoo.com.
- miss phoebe
[edit] Isn't the list a bit incomplete?
E.g. Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy is banned in many muslim countries for depicting Muhammad as a "false prophet" "cleft from his chin to his forelock." So is Voltaire's drama Mahomet. In Norway, Ireland and Italy the movie Monty Python's Life of Brian was banned etc.
Hi, I want to answer to last person who was talking about the meaning of Life. It is no more banned in Italy (I'm italian), and I think it has never been banned before.
[edit] Sony Playstation Ad depicting Jesus
There is also an ad, which apparently caused the Vatican to condemn Sony. It was to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the PlayStation, and depicted a Jesus figure with a crown of thorns made up of the symbols of the PlayStation ([], X, O, A), similng towards the camera. I would add an image, but I cannot find one that isn't public domain. (I have it in a magazine). Benlisquare (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: see http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000047333.JPG and http://www.joystiq.com/2005/09/30/the-passion-of-ps-vatican-calls-sony-ad-irreverent/ for info Benlisquare (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no image in the public domain. We could use a copy of the engadget one, or a scan from the magazine, and try and claim fair use on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jerry Springer The Opera
Can anyone provide some sort of source for the Jesus wearing a nappy bit? Because as far as I'm aware, the claims of christian groups about that were false, and he was in fact wearing a loin cloth Jasonisme 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image from Gyllandsposten.
The image from Gylandsposten is included in wikipedia on a fair use rationale. However, no fair use rationale is given for it's inclusion on this page. Per WP:FU each picture included on a fair use rationale needs a seperate reason for each of the pages that it is included on. In particular note this example of unacceptable use; "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" Taemyr 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Birmingham AL or Birmingham UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.66.227 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article needs retitling
The title of this article sounds like an OR essay, and needs to be retitled something like "List of blasphemy allegations" or the like. The term "freedom of speech" might be worked into the title; I think it's a default that a freedom of speech argument would be brought into the controversy, but this wasn't always so, so perhaps the more unwieldy "List of allegations of blasphemy countered by freedom of speech arguments" might even be necessary. Tempshill (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
