Irish blasphemy law passes.

Jay/Cris wrote:

So yes, you're correct in admonishing me - at least, if I had said that order is always more important than freedom. I believe I used the word 'sometimes' to nuance to my words, however, and, last time I checked, 'sometimes' and 'always' weren't synonyms.

True, and you're right. I didn't read as closely as I should have. I apologize.

KelinciHutan wrote:

True, and you're right. I didn't read as closely as I should have. I apologize.

What the... Are you discussing something like responsible adults?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Melissa wrote:

Snoof wrote:

Melissa wrote:

Will they block "offensive" web sites like they do in China?

No, that's Australia.

Fuck you, Stephen Conroy.

I've heard China does it too. The Chinese government blocks all sites that have excessive sexual content, excessive violent content, or mentions Tibet. Software that gets around these blocks is a huge seller on the Chinese black market. Looks like Australians may have to go shopping at the black market too.

I give it 3 hours between such a system going online and an entire industry emerging dedicated to finding ways around it.

szaleniec wrote:

Melissa wrote:

Snoof wrote:

Melissa wrote:

Will they block "offensive" web sites like they do in China?

No, that's Australia.

Fuck you, Stephen Conroy.

I've heard China does it too. The Chinese government blocks all sites that have excessive sexual content, excessive violent content, or mentions Tibet. Software that gets around these blocks is a huge seller on the Chinese black market. Looks like Australians may have to go shopping at the black market too.

I give it 3 hours between such a system going online and an entire industry emerging dedicated to finding ways around it.

Three hours? I think the last time they tried putting such blocks in in was circumvented in less than 1.

Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if that estimate was on the high side.

You know what? For some reason, I don't beleive any of this. Seriously, I've lost count of how many times there has been thread on some law that's evilness was either overexagerated or the law didn't even exist anyway.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Who're these 'some people' you're talking about?

I expect she's having a slam at me, Jay.

BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS ABOUT YOU

Psy-4 wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

True, and you're right. I didn't read as closely as I should have. I apologize.

What the... Are you discussing something like responsible adults?

Hm. This is suitably embarrassing, you might say. I accept your apology, Keli, but let us never mention this incident again. It´d wreak havoc on my street cred.

Orgjrra guvf naq gur "ner lbh gnyxvat nobhg zrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" va gung bar bgure guernq... Plorejhyt, qb lbh ol nal punapr fhssre sebz hajneenagrq frys-vzcbegnapr?

Electron Blue wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Who're these 'some people' you're talking about?

I expect she's having a slam at me, Jay.

BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS ABOUT YOU

With Melissa it often is. Lurk moar.

You weren't the only one I was referring too, Wolfie dear. There's plenty of people who are against the protection of free speech. We call them fascists, if we're being nice about it.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Electron Blue wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Who're these 'some people' you're talking about?

I expect she's having a slam at me, Jay.

BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS ABOUT YOU

With Melissa it often is. Lurk moar.

VERY CREATIVE
ALSO DO YOU LIEK MUDKIPS

Psy-4 wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not quite. Mussolini was a fascist, too.

Cyberwulf wrote:

If any of you had bothered to read the linked articles from the Irish Times and Irish Independent (you know, the ones that are actual Irish sources and not hysterical American scaremongering), you'd realise that blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution.

I actually looked that up. The constitution merely says:

Quote :

"The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

Of course nobody was punished for it. Without a blasphemy law, it's unenforceable. Was there a previously established blasphemy law? What did it say?

I seem to remember her saying that it's already been a law. You know, because it says in the constitution it should be punishable, so they made a law to punish it. Forever ago.* Basically the same law but with higher fines and easier to apply to people.

Psy-4 wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

..aaand that's my smiley fix for the day. <3



*Fuck if I know when.