Well,

Finland has a law about 'peace of faith/religion', which - first - guarantee's people right to practice their religion.. Secondary, it provides protection for the things religions consider holy.. In other words, it regulates blasphemy..

Now, the finnish police has started an investigation about the Finnish internet pages publishing Muhammed cartoons.. This investigation will likely lead to charges..

This legistlation is used very rarely.. It also considers only the specially holy subjects of the religions (god?).. I have never before heard of a case, where the legistlation had been used in this kind of purpose.. I suppose the legistlation has its root in the archaic history.. It also sets rather mild/moderate punishents (fine or few months conditional max) for breaking this 'peace of religion'..

Also, Finland goverment has publicly apologized about the Mohammed pictures..

I don't know.. The current situation still shows, that such legistlation could have a role in preventing ethinc or religious conflicts and provokations.. Still, the legistlation sounds rather archaic and contradicting with the freedom of speech..

What do you think?

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

It violates free speech. Finland is making a big mistake... BIG mistake. As is anyone who tries to regulate free speech like that.

Islam does not function well with other religions, because Islam is basically hostile to other religions. There is really no making them happy unless you completely cater to their religion. But that cannot be done, in the US that would violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Furthermore, what is blasphemous for one religion is another religion's creed. How can we even begin to regulate that? We can't.

I guess Sporklord's ladies will be forced to wear headscarves next.

I wouldn't call it a BIG mistake. It a ban on ridiculing another person's religious beliefs which serves no purpose but to anger another group of people. I wouldn't vote for such legislation in US, but if I were an editor of a newspaper I wouldn't print the cartoons because they blatently mock the religious beliefs of an entire religion.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

The ban isn't on ridiculing only Islamic beliefs. It's a ban on ridiculing any religion. No one is pushing Islamic values on Finland. Some of you people are a tad bit paranoid.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

Of course this is all overexaggeration.. And anyway, if things will develope, they will develope to the opposite direction.. Finland has systematically modernized its legistlation and removed the obsolete and problematic regulations..

Still, the actual law regulates 'publicly profaning something that a religious community consideres holy with intention of defaming' (my translation).. In other words, it only prevents intentional provocations.. Actual critic is always allowed.. Also the finnish police is currently investing if the crime has overall happened.. In other words, has these pictures been published with the intention of creating hate.. This is probable, since the pictures were published by quite extreme (fascistic?) movement..

I believe that this sort of provocations against religious groups is comparable to the provocations against ethnic groups (racism) and provocations against individuals (defamation of character).. Truth and critic that reflect reality is always allowed.. Still, the regulation to prevent racism and defamations are there for the practical reason.. It is not beneficial for society to allow intented provocations and humiliations.. These actions have also been regulated in America, all though only the mentioned individuals and ethnic groups are protected..

In the bottom line, it is questionable, if religious groups are that different from cultural/ethic groups.. So the real question is that should they receive similar kind of protection against provocations, defaming and public humiliating...

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

Remember this?

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/confederate4.html

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

No. Although I am sure several Euronations will now try.

It isnt free speech if you are muzzled because you might offend someone.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

That is offensive on so many levels I would not know where to begin.

It doesnt surprise me though.

Of course it will.

I wonder if I can sue the Finnish government because their laws offend me? I'm sure it's probably possible...

The Europeans still dont get that...they think they can legislate ideas out of existence. It is unbelievably juvinile...but it's their laws. If thats how they want to live...

Like that episode of South Park where pedophiles try to argue that they are oppressed...

What if it angers Christians that Jews refuse to recognize that Jesus-Christ-of-the-Lamb is the true son of God? How far do you want to go? The whole concept is beyond retarded.

Which is completely subjective. So the government can re-interopret it on a case-by-case basis as they see fit. Lovely.

The answer is no. Religions are getting "protections" they should not have to begin with.

Americans would never tolerate this kind of crap. This is an example of how freedom means more to us than it does to you.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

How stupid is that?

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.