In what country? Not where I come from.[/quote]
Soviet Canuckistan.
I’d hazard a guess that far, far more people would be far more deeply offended by a “Beijing Tank Olympics” T-shirt than would be offended by a “Jesus is a Cunt” T-shirt. In terms of pure numbers, I mean. Though in China the Beijing Tank T-shirt would land a foreigner in hot water and a Chinese person in jail, of course.
I don’t think Christ was a cunt, though, that’s a bit too harsh. He was just a looney, and kind of a prick, and had the misfortune of being immortalized by the religious cult that grew around him that survives to this day. Hey, wait, I’ve got it: why not mock the guy by wearing a necklace with a pendant in the shape of the torture device used to kill him, instead? What were they called? Oh yeah, crosses.
Though that would be too offensive, maybe. Come to think of it, if I were a business owner I’d refuse to serve a person wearing a cross around his neck. What kind of bloody-minded twat would commemorate such a cruel death? Have you ever seen anyone wear an electric chair pendant?
I believe in freedom of speach, so I vote “no” one should not be jailed over the shirt. However, wearing a shirt like that is likely to draw a lot of “social justice,” as in, if they don’t put your sorry arse in jail quick, me n my boiz are gonna use it for a cunt. Then you can wear your “My arse is a cunt” shirt all over the place.
Free speech means free speech.
By “social justice” you mean “criminal assault.”
[quote=“Dr Zoidberg”][quote=“Maoman”][quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]I don’t think this should be a matter of law. On the other hand, if there are severe social repercussions it would be alright. If I were a business owner I’d refuse to serve a person wearing a shirt like that.
If it said “Buddha” “Allah” or “Your mother” I’d have the same reaction. It’s definitely offensive, but I think it comes up short of obscene.[/quote]
About the Jesus bit, I agree with RDO. It’s an offensive opinion, but not an issue for the courts, IMO.[/quote]
Agreed. However, if it did say Allah you can bet the Thought Police would have you in front of a Human Rights Commission ASAP. So, if Allah is off limits, why not Jesus?[/quote]
Exactly. Has anyone ever seen a shirt that says “Muhammad was a pedophile”? Why always the double standard for Islam?
Oh, and the “Jesus is a cunt” shirts are nothing new. They’ve been around for years. You could buy them in rock T-shirt shops in Canada in the early 90’s.
We know why it’s ok to use Jesus and not Allah: Christianity is generally seen as a “white” religion, even though the vast majority of its adherents are not white.
it would have been a much better t-shirt if it read “jesus is my fantasy”
Point of personal privilege…? 
At issue is not only criticism of religion, but also the public display of pornography (or something close to it–a cartoon, I assume). We can argue about where to draw the line, but at some point, almost everybody will have to concede that limits to public expression do exist.
What happens after the technology arises for moving-picture tee-shirts? Do I have the right to display porn movies to everybody on the bus?
It may also be relevant that some messages are highly likely to result in violence. Anything mocking Islam, for example. Maybe it’s not fair for Islam to get more solicitude than say, Wicca, but that’s the world we live in. So what’s more important–marginally greater freedom to mock Islam, or marginally fewer deaths from religious rioting?
In high school, I recall a student who put a banner on the side of his van. It depicted a giant phallus, and along the shaft, some rude message about a rival school. The police made him take it down. Right or wrong?
No. Graphic porn in public is obviously verboten (unless it’s US foreign policy).
I believe the standard in the US generally is, or used to be before the dismantling of hte bill of rights in recent years, that language that is intended to incite violence and is reasonably likely to incite imminent violence is verboten. That seems reasonable to me. And I agree it’s unfortunate if that means offensive language about muslims would be probihited that might otherwise be permitted if it concerned Christians, because of different reactions from the viewers, but so be it. It’s still a reasonable legal standard.
Or the kid who was suspended from school for displaying a banner off school grounds that read “Bongs 4 Jesus” and the suspension was upheld by the US Supreme Court.
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … ight=jesus
Those are more borderline to me. They’re not so likely to incite violence; just to piss off a bunch of uptight prudes. And, maybe society should be more tolerant of the right to piss off uptight prudes, in favor of permitting greater freedom of expression.
Language that is intended to incite violence…
If you mean my screaming “Death to Muslims!” in an attempt to incite people to kill Muslims, then I believe it is and should be prohibited by criminal laws as I would be attempting to get someone to do something criminal (ie: murder)
However, if you mean my screaming “Allah is a cunt!” results in Muslims engaging in an orgy of violence because they feel insulted… well, no, that speech should not be forbidden. To do so is to play the blackmail game: we must adhere to someone else’s beliefs or else! Today it’s not insulting Islam, what will it be tomorrow?
[quote=“Dr Zoidberg”]Language that is intended to incite violence…
If you mean my screaming “Death to Muslims!” in an attempt to incite people to kill Muslims, then I believe it is and should be prohibited by criminal laws as I would be attempting to get someone to do something criminal (ie: murder)
However, if you mean my screaming “Allah is a cunt!” results in Muslims engaging in an orgy of violence because they feel insulted… well, no, that speech should not be forbidden. To do so is to play the blackmail game: we must adhere to someone else’s beliefs or else! Today it’s not insulting Islam, what will it be tomorrow?[/quote]
I understand your point and I said it is unfortunate that the legal standard appears to lead to different results depending on the religious beliefs of listeners – I agree – but I still believe it’s a decent legal standard.
I believe in the US it is illegal to (1) make a statement (2) with the intent to incite violence, and (3) it’s reasonably likely it will lead to imminent violence.
So, it means one can’t intentionally piss off muslims with the intent of causing violence, if it was likely that ones words would lead to imminent violence (not a vague, abstract remote possibility of people taking offense, but a reasonable likelihood of imminent, or immediate, violence, and that was ones intention in making the statement). Is that really such a huge loss of liberties?
Yes, that’s a restriction on ones speech rights, but it also leads to greater civility and less violence in society. The benefits are seen to outweigh the harms. And I agree.
[quote=“Dr Zoidberg”]We know why it’s ok to use Jesus and not Allah: Christianity is generally seen as a “white” religion, even though the vast majority of its adherents are not white.[/quote]Also Christians are less likely to blow you up.
The Muslims are saying, “why didn’t someone tell that to George Bush.”
By “social justice” you mean “criminal assault.”[/quote]
Yes, that’s what I meant and why I put it in quotation marks. This is good ol’e boy cuntry and it’s conceivable to me that someone might be jailed for their own protection for being stupid enough to walk around in the that t-shirt. Ever seen the movie Deliverance? These parts can get ugly if you don’t understand the rules.
So is Jesus a coot?
Anyway… I still have my T-shirt with the a picture of Jesus on the front and it says “Jesus- One Badass Jew” on it. Would that get me arrested? As a statement it is pretty true, he did break the rules and was an all round revolutionary Jew, no?
I’d rather be blown up than be visited by …
the Inquisition!
as has been said before, it is the c–t word that is objectionable here, not the specific slant of any religious sentiment. and perhaps the picture, though it’s not really a photograph, and so shouldn’t be considered pornographic. after all, we’ve all seen tee shirts of keith haring figures having sex, etc.
I’d rather be blown up than be visited by …
the Inquisition![/quote]
An hour in the comfy chair too much for you, eh?
I’d rather be blown up than be visited by …
the Inquisition![/quote]
An hour in the comfy chair too much for you, eh?[/quote]
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!