TheMantis wrote:
Apparently most of the rest of the world disagrees, very few countries have baned the shirt. I guessed the mind controlled sheeple of NZ need big brother to look after them. It's not like it's child porn or something that is unquestionably repulsive and banned accordingly.

The shirt isn't clever, and the sheeple who would wear it less so.

lol jesus

cradle of filth is a lame band

that is all I have to add

Henry Dorset Case wrote:

Klarkash-ton wrote:There is a difference between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs.

like one is in the Bill of Rights (in NZ) and one you just made up?

You're correct that the right of freedom of speech exists, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples belief does not. Crusty MTB seems to think that the first grants him the second. That was the intention of the sentence. Congratulations!

However I was specifically referring to American law as cited by Crusty. I don't know whether the NZ Human rights acts protects religious groups from hate speech as the american one does.

Klarkash-ton wrote:There is a difference between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs.

Can you explain why it is wrong to attack a person's beliefs? I'm not getting it.

E Dogg Capizzle wrote:

Klarkash-ton wrote:There is a difference between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs.

Can you explain why it is wrong to attack a person's beliefs? I'm not getting it.

No, I cannot explain american law (or NZ law) to you. Maybe they forgot to include that bit.

E Dogg Capizzle wrote:

Klarkash-ton wrote:There is a difference between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs.

Can you explain why it is wrong to attack a person's beliefs? I'm not getting it.

cos it's impolite to tell people they are stupid

Klarkash-ton wrote:

CrustyMTB wrote:
I take the american view on this, the freedom of expression trumps the right to be kept free from offence. Suck it up Princesses.

You are not taking the american view on this at all. Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. The t-shirt certainly meets the definition of obscenity, and american courts already have plenty of leeway to interpret it as probably all of the remaining free.

There is a difference between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs.

besides, how much wit do you think the t-shirt shows. And worn by people with even less wit, if that's possible.

Crusty is kind of generally right though, in the fact that the whole balancing exercise in the USA between freedom of speech and any other interest is weighted so heavily in favour of the former. Hence why it's ridiculously difficult to get an injunction for breach of privacy (which will be denied if any media organisation claims a slight interest); and also why those charming Westboro Baptist Church people can protest near the funerals of soldiers and celebrate the deaths of homosexuals.

I think in NZ, there's definitely an understanding that speech can be limited a lot easier - or perhaps just less of a fervent adherence to the right (and implicit knowledge that some shit just isn't worth protecting?). Unprovoked attacks are an extension of freedom of speech, but there's always gotta be some threshold where it's so offensive that it's not justifiable. Here: I'm unsure. It's pretty offensive, both in the attack aspect, and the language used (probably one of the few words that most people still get quite offended about) - but a HTFU argument is probably quite valid. Unsure.

Klarkash-ton wrote:

Henry Dorset Case wrote:

Klarkash-ton wrote:There is a difference between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs.

like one is in the Bill of Rights (in NZ) and one you just made up?

You're correct that the right of freedom of speech exists, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples belief does not. Crusty MTB seems to think that the first grants him the second. That was the intention of the sentence. Congratulations!

However I was specifically referring to American law as cited by Crusty. I don't know whether the NZ Human rights acts protects religious groups from hate speech as the american one does.

You are very ignorant of American jurisprudence, and given their Federal, state, and local lawmaking capacity, plus wide variation in social norms (America is BIG, yo, and diverse) then your attempt to generalise an "American" stance and contrast it with Nouvelle Zelande = utter fail. So sorry, but thanks for playing.

Klarkash-ton wrote:

Henry Dorset Case wrote:

Klarkash-ton wrote:There is a difference between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs.

like one is in the Bill of Rights (in NZ) and one you just made up?

You're correct that the right of freedom of speech exists, and the right to unprovoked attacks on peoples belief does not. Crusty MTB seems to think that the first grants him the second. That was the intention of the sentence. Congratulations!

However I was specifically referring to American law as cited by Crusty. I don't know whether the NZ Human rights acts protects religious groups from hate speech as the american one does.

You are very ignorant of American jurisprudence, and given their Federal, state, and local lawmaking capacity, plus wide variation in social norms (America is BIG, yo, and diverse) then your attempt to generalise an "American" stance and contrast it with Nouvelle Zelande = utter fail. So sorry, but thanks for playing.

unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs is a fairly inane concept.

Not trying to be offensive here just saying.

Unprovoked? So "provoked" attacks are ok. what constitutes provocation exactly?.

what constitute peoples beliefs?. the moon is made of cheese? Ufo's are real?, Homeopathy works? Sarah Palin has a brain?. There is objective evidence of the existence of god?
Many people believe many of these things (above), that are logically and evidentially untenable, but may be offended if I bag those beliefs. Should I therefore be silenced on them?

I may have real reason to believe Jesus was a right cunzor, I may also have reason to belief Hitler was similar. Should I be prevented from stating my opinion about Hitler because it is an "unprovoked attack" on the beliefs of Neonazis.

If it is an issue of liable, take it to a court.

If not don't complain

I'm sure however the issue here was about the word - cnut - which seems to be the new bar of offensiveness which is currently tryng to be lept over

When c...t is said with a smile it's not such a bad word.

I like cunzors

great uncle bulgaria wrote:
Unprovoked? So "provoked" attacks are ok. what constitutes provocation exactly?.

I for one find the sheer blindness and ignorance of those far right American Christians very irritating.

Beliefs are like a penises.

Just because you have one doesn't mean you should try ram it down peoples throats.

Henry Dorset Case wrote:
You are very ignorant of American jurisprudence, and given their Federal, state, and local lawmaking capacity, plus wide variation in social norms (America is BIG, yo, and diverse) then your attempt to generalise an "American" stance and contrast it with Nouvelle Zelande = utter fail. So sorry, but thanks for playing.

the generalisation was by crusty. I responded to that by pointing out it was wrong. First Amendment vs 14th amendment issues have been debated since the 1800's. People have been arrested and either successfully prosecuted or acquitted for at least 70 years on these issues probably due to 'their Federal, state, and local lawmaking capacity'. Now consider the 'unconstitutional' anti-terror laws, which are completely open to abuse. Now go and stir up some shit in america and see how long you get to spend in prison before your constitutional rights (well, for US citizens) save you. Hope you can afford a good layer, as the people with more money tend to win.

I made no claim to any knowledge of American jurisprudence.

I made no reference to NZ law; you did. I stated in a later post I cannot explain American (or NZ) law. I did not contrast an American stance with Nouvelle-Zélande (your French spelling is poor).

great uncle bulgaria wrote:unprovoked attacks on peoples beliefs is a fairly inane concept.

well, maybe 'attack' was the wrong word. most people view it as less agressive than I do. Which is odd because when I cycle most people don't even notice my attacks.