Australian state (ACT) passes blasphemy law to protect Muslims

[mralstoner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBAeaViTQc

[GrandizerII]

Does this guy know the difference between criticising Islam and being prejudiced against Muslims?

This guy denies Islamophobia is real? Yeah, nah, can't take him, or you, seriously.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The video is largely incorrect. The anti-vilification (NOT anti-criticism) laws specifically says in part that you may not discriminate against or vilify someone based on disability, religion, race, sexuality, gender identity, and HIV/AIDS status. There isn't anything in the law that says you can't criticize a Muslim or criticize Islam in general. Vilification, under the law, means that you cannot take actions (yes, including speech) that would '...incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion'.

It isn't a perfect law, certainly, but it in no wise criminalizes criticism of religion.

Boru

[Excited Penguin]

Idiotic laws. This is basically limiting free speech for no good reason whatsoever. This thing will bite them in the ass sooner or later.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The 'good reason' you claim doesn't exist is to protect certain groups (not all of them religious) against discrimination and vilification. Would you prefer the law read something like, 'No one may be vilified in Australia except for Muslims'?

Boru

[Excited Penguin]

I'd prefer there wasn't such a law to begin with, no matter what groups it might protect. That's limiting free speech. And that can only be acceptable in the most extreme of cases.

[Aractus]

The video is largely incorrect.  The anti-vilification (NOT anti-criticism) laws specifically says in part that you may not discriminate against or vilify someone based on disability, religion, race, sexuality, gender identity, and HIV/AIDS status.  There isn't anything in the law that says you can't criticize a Muslim or criticize Islam in general.  Vilification, under the law, means that you cannot take actions (yes, including speech) that would '...incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion'.

It isn't a perfect law, certainly, but it in no wise criminalizes criticism of religion.

Boru

Yep, and the OP is incorrect claiming the ACT is a state, which it isn't.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'd prefer there wasn't such a law to begin with, no matter what groups it might protect. That's limiting free speech. And that can only be acceptable in the most extreme of cases.

Horseshit. ALL freedoms are limited, of necessity. As a test, which of the following statements do you think should be protected speech?

1. All you fucking mud niggers should go back to Africa.

2. You have HIV? Serves you right, faggot.

3. So, Hafez - fucked your 12 year old daughter lately? If it was good enough for Mohammed, it should be good enough for you.

4. You know, gimpy - you might not be in that wheelchair if your mother hadn't fucked your brother.

I await your reply with something approaching boredom.

Boru

[Excited Penguin]

All of them.

When I said the the most extreme of cases, I was thinking information regarding a possible terrorist attack that might impede an investigation being broadcasted on social media during an actual terrorist attack. In a case like that, limiting free speech would be a good thing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All of them.

When I said the the most extreme of cases, I was thinking information regarding a possible terrorist attack that might impede an investigation being broadcasted on social media during an actual terrorist attack. In a case like that, limiting free speech would be a good thing.

Really? You support people calling HIV/AIDS patients 'faggots', and telling them that they deserve what's happened to them?

You must be a thoroughly unpleasant person in RL.

Boru