It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Nodin

Wibbs wrote: »

Sod hobnobs, you Atheist weirdos.

That's how Agnostics roll.


PS if you suggest hobnobs and beer you'll wish there was a god in heaven to save you...

Alas diabetes prevents me from beering.

Instead I have to rely on



...and similar substances.

Benny_Cake

Wibbs wrote: »

Sod hobnobs, you Atheist weirdos.


PS if you suggest hobnobs and beer you'll wish there was a god in heaven to save you...

Catholics (specifically Trappists) have you beaten I'm afraid. Not just any beer, but the best beer in the world (or so I'm led to believe):



As for Quakers? Hot chocolate. *clears throat*

Animord

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Catholics (specifically Trappists) have you beaten I'm afraid. Not just any beer, but the best beer in the world (or so I'm led to believe):



As for Quakers? Hot chocolate. *clears throat*

We can fix that - hot chocolate with Bailey's...

Bannasidhe

Animord wrote: »

So the board that was A&A has now become B&B - Biscuits and Blasphemy

Could be worse - could be Cookies and...actually never mind...wouldn't want to offend a substantial number of people...

wexie

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Could be worse - could be Cookies and...actually never mind...wouldn't want to offend a substantial number of people...

Cream?

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Could be worse - could be Cookies and...actually never mind...wouldn't want to offend a substantial number of people...

You know it's going to be bad when Ban says she's concerned about possibly offending people!:eek:

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Alas diabetes prevents me from beering.

Instead I have to rely on



...and similar substances.

^^^^ icky.


^^^ YUM

Hey Nodin - you as offended by the carb pushing Pastafarians as I - together I reckon we constitute a 'substantial' amount of diabetics here.

What say we form a 'church' and sue the barstards - 12.5 k euro each

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

^^^^ icky.


^^^ YUM

Hey Nodin - you as offended by the carb pushing Pastafarians as I - together I reckon we constitute a 'substantial' amount of diabetics here.

What say we form a 'church' and sue the barstards - 12.5 k euro each

...that kind of talk offends me. My people will be in touch with your people forthwith.

Links234

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Catholics (specifically Trappists) have you beaten I'm afraid. Not just any beer, but the best beer in the world (or so I'm led to believe):



As for Quakers? Hot chocolate. *clears throat*

Nah, not great as it's cracked up to be in my opinion. Now this on the other hand:



had the last one they had in my local last night, and oh it was good

Benny_Cake

Links234 wrote: »

Nah, not great as it's cracked up to be in my opinion. Now this on the other hand:



had the last one they had in my local last night, and oh it was good

Last time I was in London I had a pint of Jaipur in Wetherspoons. Good stuff alright.

Yes, I drank in a Wetherspoons. In my defence it was at the airport, and I was really bored!

Links234

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Last time I was in London I had a pint of Jaipur in Wetherspoons. Good stuff alright.

Yes, I drank in a Wetherspoons. In my defence it was at the airport, and I was really bored!

we've all done it at one point or another, they're more like Starbucks than a proper pub but it's grand for a bite and a pint at an airport

oh and I forgot, one of the finest beverages to grace the earth:

narnar2000

What's the big deal? There's only one religion we can't insult. All the others are fair game, no one minds, so blaspheme away against those ones to your hearts' content.

smokingman

Captain Morgan and Club Orange for me thanks! Has to be Club Orange with the bits though.

ScumLord

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Yes, I drank in a Wetherspoons. In my defence it was at the airport, and I was really bored!

In fairness to witherspoons they have a good selection of English Ales, I had to have a night on ESB the last time I was over there. I had noone to share my smirk with though.

The other point is just about every pub in the UK is a wetherspoons even if it's trying to hide the fact.

enda1

If someone finds a blasphemous post of Wibbs (or any well respected member) and emails a complaint about it, will he then be perma site banned too?

28064212

narnar2000 wrote: »

What's the big deal? There's only one religion we can't insult. All the others are fair game, no one minds, so blaspheme away against those ones to your hearts' content.

Incorrect. The absurd blasphemy law makes no mention of any religion in particular

Turtwig

enda1 wrote: »

If someone finds a blasphemous post of Wibbs (or any well respected member) and emails a complaint about it, will he then be perma site banned too?

It's a possibility. But who the f**k here respects Wibbs? That filthy agnostic!
That lousy fence sitting piece of crap! That. . .ok I love the guy. Yes it's a fear that none of us really know the answer to.

shruikan2553

It has been established that agnostics drink dr pepper. Is it a cola? Is it a root beer? We cant be certain!

Or do they drink only dr pepper? We cant be certain!

MadYaker

So whos going to send the email then? :pac:

Animord

I am very disappointed that no one has mentioned any Irish beers so far.

What about 8 Degrees? Or Galway Hooker?

If this forum is going to become the B,B&B, then its gotta be Irish Beer, Boland's biscuits and proper blasphemy all the way.

recedite

Franziskaner Weissbier. Thank the good lord for giving us monks.

Sycopat

Hmmm isn't the central dogma of pastafarianism the rejection of dogma?

The rejection of a churches dogma is usually considered blasphemous. So the accusation of blasphemy could be considered an assertion of a churches dogma.

The assertion of a churches dogma is against pastafarian dogma, and hence blasphemous to pastafarianism.

So any accusation of blasphemy is therefore itself blasphemy.

And we're all okay because it's illegal for anyone to actually complain about us.


I cpuld really do with a pint. But all I've got at home is whiskey. Whiskey, and rich tea's.

Links234

Animord wrote: »

I am very disappointed that no one has mentioned any Irish beers so far.

What about 8 Degrees? Or Galway Hooker?

Meh, I seem to go for very hoppy ales myself, and I don't think too many Irish breweries do a good hoppy one.

Amirani

Links234 wrote: »

Meh, I seem to go for very hoppy ales myself, and I don't think too many Irish breweries do a good hoppy one.

I like Irish Pale Ale from O'Haras.

Galvasean

Thank goodness that every post I ever make on Boards is a bonnafide work of art.

Exploiting the blasphemy loophole FTW

Usual **** from boards tbh. The feedback threads on soccer are always hilarious, just about all the things the users care about are answered with "we're not addressing that" or "it would be too much work for the moderators" and the whole thing is an exercise in futility.
Start a thread on AH and act surprised to be criticised and close it. Better close the one on Feedback as well. :rolleyes:

What I found interesting was what Dav said at the end of the AH thread:

1) When the Boards.ie Ltd Office receives a complaint, we *MUST* act on it.

He then says it doesn't even have to be a legal threat, so what is it then? Does it have to have any kind of legal basis or just be a little whine?

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Better close the one on Feedback as well.

They did.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

.............


He then says it doesn't even have to be a legal threat, so what is it then? Does it have to have any kind of legal basis or just be a little whine?

Actually he states here

"2) We did not receive a threat, a legal letter, a declaration of jihad or any of the other wild theories I'm seeing. We received an email. From a Boardsie (who isn't to my knowledge a Muslim for what it's worth). Highlighting their concern and quite correctly pointing out that the initial comments that started all this off were indeed the sort of thing that someone with a serious grudge could sue us over."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86948980&postcount=396

...which would presumably means anyone can whine and have a fair chance of a result.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

They did.

That was my point, I was providing a narrative :pac:

Nodin wrote: »

Actually he states here

"2) We did not receive a threat, a legal letter, a declaration of jihad or any of the other wild theories I'm seeing. We received an email. From a Boardsie (who isn't to my knowledge a Muslim for what it's worth). Highlighting their concern and quite correctly pointing out that the initial comments that started all this off were indeed the sort of thing that someone with a serious grudge could sue us over."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86948980&postcount=396

...which would presumably means anyone can whine and have a fair chance of a result.

Exactly. The equivocation around each new bit of "clarification" is pretty funny.

Wibbs

enda1 wrote: »

If someone finds a blasphemous post of Wibbs (or any well respected member) and emails a complaint about it, will he then be perma site banned too?

Ah here FFS folks. :eek::(:D

I doubt it TBH. Not sitebanned anyway, unless I decided to only post about Southern Baptists and how they're all kunts.

On the other side of this whole thing, the issue isn't the original muppets since banned for posting guff. The real issue is that by highlighting this in a heavyhanded way on the most popular forum on Boards, rather than letting the local mods handle it as they have always done on all forums by simply excising the trolls and dodgy posts, it has left the site and the community potentially open to every single issue muppet who wants to throw complaints around and gave them a roadmap to do so. Ironic as they were the types who kicked this off in the first place in the offending thread. Imagine a DeadOne single issue posting type reading all this guff and realising that maybe all he/she has to do to stifle debate on a subject is to email Boards? One "concerned citizen" email to Boards about the funny side of religion thread here and it's pretty much bye bye thread. If it's not bye bye thread because it may open the site to action under the blasphemy law, then neither was the AH thread. That's the problem now, not the muppets and not even the blasphemy law(utterly bloody moronic as it is).

The blasphemy law is daft at it's core. It could only really work at all in a one religion state for a start, as one man's blasphemy is anothers central tenet of faith. I'm sure you could find rabid Christians who would take great offence at the Muslim idea that Jesus wasn't crucified and wasn't the son of god and it could go the other way too. Which blasphemy wins?

PopePalpatine

Am I a dick for thinking about suing Brian McKevitt on behalf of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Am I a dick for thinking about suing Brian McKevitt on behalf of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Already suggested here.

All we'd have to do is:

1. Declare Dawkins or the EU to be central tenets or deities, whatever, of the FSM faith, then just about any edition of Alive! should be blasphemous.
2. Declare that the church of the FSM exists, complete with a membership list.
3. Declare that a substantial number of believers is outraged. And provide a list of the outraged members.
4. Claim that the alleged blasphemy was committed with the specific intent to cause outrage.

Of course, (4) is virtually impossible to prove, but a careless admission might take care of that.

Animord

As plenty of people come here with the specific intent of causing outrage - and indeed to the Christianity forum, I am sure if there was a FSM board the trolls would come.

swampgas

It seems to me that the Blasphemy Law itself is causing more outrage than anything else.

If the Church of FSM declares blasphemy laws to be so insulting to its members that they could be considered to cause "grave injury" then the blasphemy law itself could be illegal under the blasphemy law.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

Already suggested here.

All we'd have to do is:

1. Declare Dawkins or the EU to be central tenets or deities, whatever, of the FSM faith, then just about any edition of Alive! should be blasphemous.
2. Declare that the church of the FSM exists, complete with a membership list.
3. Declare that a substantial number of believers is outraged. And provide a list of the outraged members.
4. Claim that the alleged blasphemy was committed with the specific intent to cause outrage.

Of course, (4) is virtually impossible to prove, but a careless admission might take care of that.

Ah, but the Church of the FSM isn't a 'real religion'. it's nothing but a Cult.

Cienciano

The new boards.ie stance on questions about what actually is blasphemy seems to be "I can't explain, but I'll know it if I see it".

Doctor DooM

Posted on YLYL this morning, rather more depressing in context...

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

He then says it doesn't even have to be a legal threat, so what is it then? Does it have to have any kind of legal basis or just be a little whine?

The are some forums where mods receive a complaint they'll usually act on it regardless of whether there was any real problem with the post. It's happened to me a good few times in the pets forum. If you go off the "ahh isn't it cute" chat you'll get shut down. I remember asking the mod and being told any complaint is acted on regardless of the posts content.

SpaceTime

swampgas wrote: »

It seems to me that the Blasphemy Law itself is causing more outrage than anything else.

If the Church of FSM declares blasphemy laws to be so insulting to its members that they could be considered to cause "grave injury" then the blasphemy law itself could be illegal under the blasphemy law.

It could create an infinite legal loop causing lawyers to run up infinite bills! Be careful what you wish for!

You'd get a bill for € ∞.∞

The entire global financial system would suddenly implode with one massive legal bill

Akrasia

SpaceTime wrote: »

It could create an infinite legal loop causing lawyers to run up infinite bills! Be careful what you wish for!

You'd get a bill for € ∞.∞

The entire global financial system would suddenly implode with one massive legal bill

You could just give them a cheque for infinity plus 1 and then sue them for your change.

SpaceTime

On the plus side, it would crash the banks computer system if you input ∞ on your debit card transaction.
It's nearly as dangerous as typing Google into Google which causes the internet to break.

That's probably what happened when the Ulster Bank computers broke down hehe

narnar2000

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. The absurd blasphemy law makes no mention of any religion in particular

Yes, yes. Technically correct. But the fact remains that there is only one religion that is beyond reproach, that allows no criticism and is the perfect and unaltered word of God. No other religion will explode with violence, and threats over the pettiest thing (or the even at the grossest offence). There's only one religion that often enforces the death penalty if you choose to leave.

So, to make sure no one gets hurt, let's leave that tough guy alone and continue to beat the remaining life out of the ones that threaten nobody.

aloyisious

So something simple, like; a Christian preacher at the junction of O'Connell & Henry St's broadcasting "there is but one true god" could be taken to court for insulting the believers who (sometimes) occupy the front area of the GPO near that junction.

SpaceTime

aloyisious wrote: »

So something simple, like; a Christian preacher at the junction of O'Connell & Henry St's broadcasting "there is but one true god" could be taken to court for insulting the believers who (sometimes) occupy the front area of the GPO near that junction.

I think there's an opt out in the legislation for that kind of thing.

sbsquarepants

robindch wrote: »

Already suggested here.

All we'd have to do is:

1. Declare Dawkins or the EU to be central tenets or deities, whatever, of the FSM faith, then just about any edition of Alive! should be blasphemous.
2. Declare that the church of the FSM exists, complete with a membership list.
3. Declare that a substantial number of believers is outraged. And provide a list of the outraged members.
4. Claim that the alleged blasphemy was committed with the specific intent to cause outrage.

Of course, (4) is virtually impossible to prove, but a careless admission might take care of that.

I'll have no part of this.
Alive is comedy gold, leave it alone.:mad:

narnar2000

aloyisious wrote: »

So something simple, like; a Christian preacher at the junction of O'Connell & Henry St's broadcasting "there is but one true god" could be taken to court for insulting the believers who (sometimes) occupy the front area of the GPO near that junction.

Presumably so. But I guess the other side is that to Christianity, that other religion is blasphemous from start to finish, so maybe that could be banned...

28064212

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think there's an opt out in the legislation for that kind of thing.

Nope. The opt-out is "a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates". Religion does not fall under any of those protections

SpaceTime

28064212 wrote: »

Nope. The opt-out is "a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates". Religion does not fall under any of those protections

That could get interesting if one religion decided to sue another.

"Any reasonable person" is all a bit vague and I think the vast majority of us on this forum are definitely "reasonable".

wexie

SpaceTime wrote: »

That could get interesting if one religion decided to sue another.

"Any reasonable person" is all a bit vague and I think the vast majority of us on this forum are definitely "reasonable".

Problem is that you can 'reasonably' (hurhur) assume that most reasonable people wouldn't start any litigation based on this law.

By it's very nature it'll most likely be religious extremists of some persuasion or other and they aren't normally known to be particularly reasonable.

SpaceTime

I still don't understand why the previous government thought this was such a priority. There was nobody calling for blasphemy legislation!

Then again, they weren't exactly wonderful at the whole 'governing' thing...
I seem to remember a few days where I was genuinely worried that all my savings were going to disappear and contemplated emigration on quite a few occasions due to their economic policies too.

If anyone who knows Enda is reading this thread, perhaps suggest removing blasphemy as something to do! People kinda have a vague fondness for the Seanad, however, I think he'd get great milage out of ditching this crock and it's another stick to beat FF with too!

Win-win for FG if they delete it really.

It would be quite amusing to watch the current lot of FFers trying to explain how they'd support retention of such a piece of nonsense.