In defence of religious freedom
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Politics
Forum Name: Current Events
Forum Description: Current Events
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35179
Printed Date: 24 November 2024 at 12:22am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: In defence of religious freedom
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Subject: In defence of religious freedom
Date Posted: 18 December 2015 at 9:55am
|
The British National Secular Society, an organisation dedicated to the removal of religious privilage and influence on the state, is campaining to uphold the rights of a preacher from Northern Ireland who has been charged with offensive preaching after he uploaded a video of a sermon; http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/12/verdict-delayed-in-ridiculous-prosecution-of-preacher-in-satanic-islam-case OK, he said stuff that was offensive. And? It is strange that it is the secular types who are at the forefront of defending his freedom to shout his wrong views. |
Replies:
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 19 December 2015 at 7:18am
| very interesting case, and hopefully it will send a strong message against overheated rhetoric. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 19 December 2015 at 9:43am
If he gets a fine then many hundreds of Islamic preachers should get jailed. Do you wish to see free speach limited like that? I don't. I want there to be a bias on the side of allowing free speach and only when violence is expressly called for would there be a problem. |
abuayisha wrote:Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 20 December 2015 at 7:07am
|
I agree with Justice Frank Murphy who opinioned;
�It has been well observed,� wrote Justice Frank Murphy, �that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.� |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 December 2015 at 8:06am
|
Let's be clear what Justice Murphy was referring to by "such utterances":
"There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568 - Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (No. 255) (1942) The specific "epithets or personal abuse" to which Murphy referred were the phrases "damned Fascist" and "damned racketeer", which by the standards of 1942 were quite a bit more vulgar and abusive than they might appear today. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 20 December 2015 at 10:11am
Who was Justice Murphy and what was he talking about? |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 December 2015 at 11:24am
I don't know where abuayisha came across the quote, but you can read it in context from the link I provided: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568 ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |