Newsflash: Spain "not the Arabian desert of 14 centuries ago..."

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by St Leo

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither Actually, that would most likely end you up in court in Canada too.

Are you sure? Irreversible made it through fine.

An instruction manual would most likely run afoul of the hate law.

[Drake Tungsten]

You are not free to yell 'Fire' in a theatre, and you are not allowed to give instructions on how to beat your wife and hide it. Where is the huge leap?

Yelling "fire" in a theater creates an imminent risk of harm to everyone within the theater. A movie that tells people how to beat their wives does no such thing (unless it hypnotizes the audience and orders them to beat their wives right then and there).

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What if the movie is called "How to Beat Your Wife The Muslim Way"?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Work-of-fiction vs. instruction manual. Still in poor taste, but many people have enough sense in their head to not take the movie as a green light to beat their wife.

People take the message that they want to from any work regardless if it is a work of fiction, instruction manual, or documentry.

[DRoseDARs]

Well, I already touched the yelling 'fire' vs. beating wive scenario in an earlier post, so

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sprayber


People take the message that they want to from any work regardless if it is a work of fiction, instruction manual, or documentry.

And yet governments deem it necessary to write laws telling people not to do things that they should already know not to do. Funny that.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


An instruction manual would most likely run afoul of the hate law.

I don't want to be a smartass, but how is one supposed to tell the difference between an instruction manual and a creative work. Does it have to say somewhere that it is an instruction manual. Could I write a book about a character beating is wife endlessly and describing in great detail without getting in trouble as long as I put a disclaimer saying that I don't condone such things. I'm just curious

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

You are not free to yell 'Fire' in a theatre, and you are not allowed to give instructions on how to beat your wife and hide it. Where is the huge leap?

Yelling "fire" in a theater creates an imminent risk of harm to everyone within the theater. A movie that tells people how to beat their wives does no such thing (unless it hypnotizes the audience and orders them to beat their wives right then and there).

Must be cross posts. I am speaking of a religious instruction manual, not a movie. Oh, should I say that is in regards to not being allowed to promote hatred (or violence) against an identifiable group, and not screaming something in a theatre?

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, should I say that is in regards to not being allowed to promote hatred (or violence) against an identifiable group, and not screaming something in a theatre?

Promotion of hatred, while certainly offensive, falls quite clearly under the purview of free speech in civilized nations.

[Shi Huangdi]

We have had similar issues in the USA with people trying to sue NAMBLA as incitement towards molestation, and I think there have also been cases where racist demoguages have been trialed for inciting to violence when their disciples kill someone.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sprayber


I don't want to be a smartass, but how is one supposed to tell the difference between an instruction manual and a creative work. Does it have to say somewhere that it is an instruction manual. Could I write a book about a character beating is wife endlessly and describing in great detail without getting in trouble as long as I put a disclaimer saying that I don't condone such things. I'm just curious

We are splitting hairs up here. A fellow was acquitted of child porn offences because what he did was write stories. They were protected for 'artistic merit'.

Meanwhile, an instruction manual on how to do such and such would lead to a conviction.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


And yet governments deem it necessary to write laws telling people not to do things that they should already know not to do. Funny that.

So Spain thinks that it's citizens will go out and beat their wives because of this book? I hope that Spain, like the United States, has ways of dealing with men who beat their wifes through legal means. The bible talks of god asking Abraham to sacrifice his only son. I wonder if Spain will determine that action needs to be taken there as well..

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Oh, should I say that is in regards to not being allowed to promote hatred (or violence) against an identifiable group, and not screaming something in a theatre?

Promotion of hatred, while certainly offensive, falls quite clearly under the purview of free speech in civilized nations.

Only in the United States of the Right to Bear Uzis, sir. Everywhere else is putting checks on individual idiocy when it gets close to harming, or promoting harm, of others.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Only in the United States of the Right to Bear Uzis, sir. Everywhere else is putting checks on individual idiocy when it gets close to harming, or promoting harm, of others.

Oh yeah?!? Well, I think that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them. [/Dr. Henry Jones mode]

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Well, I already touched the yelling 'fire' vs. beating wive scenario in an earlier post, so

Your honor, I was beating my wife because she was on fire.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


We are splitting hairs up here. A fellow was acquitted of child porn offences because what he did was write stories. They were protected for 'artistic merit'.

Meanwhile, an instruction manual on how to do such and such would lead to a conviction.

You touch on a topic I was going to bring up because I understand what you are saying and I appreciate the arguement. There have been instances here in the US as well of certain organizations that hide behind the freedom of speech arguement that I would have no problem with the government doing away with them. I was trying to look at it from the other side of the issue.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Oh yeah?!? Well, I think that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them. [/Dr. Henry Jones mode]

I'm not sure what I should say here. Perhaps I should slap you with a large cod.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sprayber


I don't want to be a smartass, but how is one supposed to tell the difference between an instruction manual and a creative work. Does it have to say somewhere that it is an instruction manual. Could I write a book about a character beating is wife endlessly and describing in great detail without getting in trouble as long as I put a disclaimer saying that I don't condone such things. I'm just curious

I'll bite. I'd say there are bigger fish to fry than people writing violent fiction. History books would be exempt because...well...it's history: denying it only precludes the possibility of avoiding repeating it. Documenteries would be exempt because (let's assume) the person witnessing the violence isn't participating in it. Shame on him for not intervening, but again it is history. Works of fiction, on the other had, walk a much finer line. Violence for the sake of entertainment is in poor taste; violence for the sake of education perhaps as well. Shades of grey are a b!tch to sort through. Movies like J-lo beating the sh!t out of her abusive ex serve to entertain, but not to educate that violence is still violence, regardless of who has it coming.

I don't known the name of it, but Sally Field did a relevant-to-this-discussion movie years ago. Did she club Moudi over the haed with a blunt object? Did she find a gun? No, she snuck around trying to find the safest way out of her situation without violence, even to Moudi who most deserved it.

Violence is an unfortunate trait we Humans have and will continue to have. For now, works-of-fiction, history books, and documentories are to be taken with a grain of salt and the understanding that if it's in a book or on screen doesn't necessarily mean it's ok to repeat or imitate. Many people already understand that, but some don't hence laws. Then you have people who claim - rightfully or not - that they have "authority" over this person's lifestyle or that. If s/he calls for violence, spoken or written, against another person then something is wrong there and needs to be addressed before it becomes a problem.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sikander


Your honor, I was beating my wife because she was on fire.

And then you have people breaking ribs will performing CPR...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sprayber


You touch on a topic I was going to bring up because I understand what you are saying and I appreciate the arguement. There have been instances here in the US as well of certain organizations that hide behind the freedom of speech arguement that I would have no problem with the government doing away with them. I was trying to look at it from the other side of the issue.

I can appreciate the other side too.

There was a high school teacher up here who took the peculiar tack of instructing his classes that the holocaust was a hoax. After several years, and to the horror of the authorities under whom he worked, this was discovered and he was prosecuted.

That he was prosecuted I have no problem with. That he was acquitted twice and they needed the third time to be lucky to get a conviction I had a small problem with.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We have had similar issues in the USA with people trying to sue NAMBLA as incitement towards molestation, and I think there have also been cases where racist demoguages have been trialed for inciting to violence when their disciples kill someone.

Ugh...NAMBLA. Bunch of fvcktards.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not sure what I should say here. Perhaps I should slap you with a large cod.

I doubt you could do it. Books about cod-slapping are probably banned in Canada...

[DRoseDARs]

I've heard squid-slapping books are still legal.

[notyoueither]

We are not allowed to slap cod, true. They are an identifiable group and are therefore protected under hate legislation. However, to slap you with a cod would be perfectly permissable, unless you should turn out to be a crippled, Jewish woman of colour.

[Drake Tungsten]

unless you should turn out to be a crippled, Jewish, woman of colour.

Who told you?

[notyoueither]

Kitten is a rat.

[DRoseDARs]

[Drake Tungsten]

Kitten is a rat.

That French bastard...

[notyoueither]

Didn't Sloww try to tell you?

[Drake Tungsten]

Does anyone even listen to Sloww anymore?