use Perl

• Very odd interpretation of the new laws (Score:2)

  by TeeJay (2309)

  Given they are supposed to be against the incitement of religious hatred.
  
  Quite how a t-shirt insulting a diety incites religious hatred I don't know, there was also a clear lack of motive or results. So the magistrates obviously didn't understand the new laws, unfortunately the poor chaps lawyer was clearly useless, as it would have been thrown out at a real court (as frequently happens as many magistrates have no understanding of modern law or society).
  
  More likely it would break unrepealed blasphemy laws,

  --
  
  @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
  print reverse @JAPH;
• Yuck ... (Score:1)

  by b10m (6087)

  The shirt is a Cradle of Filth (metal band) shirt and can be seen (for instance) here:
  http://www.pressarte.com/imagens_produtos/cradle4.jpg [pressarte.com]
  
  Yes, it's provocative and the font size couldn't be bigger, yet I believe noone has the right to punish somebody wearing it. If people are offended by it, don't look at it.
  
  Non-christians are offended by a pope letting an entire continent die because condoms are evil. Non-christians are offended by all the murder done by christians in the history. Non-christians are anno
  • Re:Yuck ... (Score:1)

    by chromatic (983)

    Non-christians are offended by a pope letting an entire continent die because condoms are evil.

    That's sort of a really gross generalization.
  • Re:Yuck ... (Score:1)

    by runrig (3385)

    If people are offended by it, don't look at it.

    That to me is not an option. Once you've seen it, the image stays with you. I have to say, though, lack of good taste occurs on both sides of the fence. When I went to a child birth class with my wife, there was this 'Christian' guy who wore a (I forget the exact slogan) 'Jesus died for our sins' shirt with a graphic depiction of Jesus not having a very pleasant time on the cross (that looked as bad as any heavy metal t-shirt). Gotta wonder about some people
• Blasphemy laws (Score:2)

  by rafael (2125)

  In an (hypothetical) state where church and law are separated, anti-blasphemy laws are unconstitutional, and blasphemy must be protected as freedom of speech.

  Classical example : it's an historical truth, and for Christians a religious truth as well, to assert that Jesus died on the cross. For Muslims it's a blasphemy. Muslims believe that a ghost died on the cross in place of Jesus (a major prophet of Islam with Ibrahim and Muhammad) while Jesus was taken to Heaven by angels, because God would never let a
  • Re:Blasphemy laws (Score:2)

    by jdavidb (1361)

    I agree. Say what you want to say. "That offends me" is not a reason to limit anyone's rights. If it offends you, don't listen. If you are for some reason held captive and forced to listen (as might be the case in compulsory education, for example), then we need to find legal remedies for that violation of your rights, which can be done without limiting anybody else's.

    "That offends God" is an even worse reason to limit somebody's freedom. Leave the matter between God and the person who offended Him.

    --
    J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
    • But what about the children? (Score:1)

      by lilstevey (4628)

      Initially I was offended by the principal that someone could get into trouble for wearing a Tshirt, that surely the wearing of a Tshirt should be considered an expression of free speach, and that this conviction illustrated an immaturity in our culture.
      There is another aspect to this however. I believe the incident occured on a public beach, which was likley to have a mixture of people upon it, the young, the elderly etc. Should he have thought, before leaving the house, that such a Tshirt might be inaprop
      • Re:But what about the children? (Score:2)

        by jdavidb (1361)

        Well, I think in general it's the responsibility of the parents to shield their children as they choose in public.

        I also think the problem could be solved by having private ownership of many of these public places, so then different privately-owned attractions could compete by having different standards of what is allowed.

        As it is, the government owns these places and so as property owner it gets to set the standards. And that means that the standard is set by democracy. But democracy does not always

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • Re:But what about the children? (Score:1)

        by chaoticset (2105)

        Next thing you know, the public will be demanding freedom of speech, no matter where they are or who they are!

        We've got to nip this in the bud, and show people that they're really only allowed to offend people when it's not going to offend people. Otherwise, who could foresee what chaos might erupt?

        --
        
        ------------------------------
        You are what you think.