Hundreds of intellectuals and artists are concerned about its implications for freedom of expression, while police, lawyers, and prosecutors consider it too imprecise.
  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    Fuck this. The right to free expression is at the very core of a free society. Religious assholes need to deal with it or get the fuck out. If they can’t live in the west without starting violent riots every time someone offends their beliefs then they have no place in a pluralist and democratic society.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        Obviously there isn’t completely free speech possible. I myself am german, we have several laws dealing with nazism in relation to the right to free expression.

        That doesn’t mean I welcome additional restrictions to placate religious zealots who are implicitly threatening violence if they don’t get their way. Even if I agreed with their demand I would categorically reject it out of principle.

        The ability to cope with ridicule and adverse opinion is the absolute base line for life and participation in a healthy society. If someone can’t, that’s an insufficiency on their part and not a cue for society to drop their values and principles to accommodate them.

        • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          German

          Quoth §166 StGB, “Revilement of religious faiths and religious and ideological communities”:

          1. Whoever publicly or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)) reviles the religion or ideology of others in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.

          2. Whoever publicly or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)) reviles a church or other religious or ideological community in Germany or its institutions or customs in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs the same penalty.

          …we already have that law. Have had for ages, AFAIK it was introduced after the 30 dayyear war to make sure Lutherans and Catholics stopped with the incitement.

          (side note: “ideological community” isn’t a good translation, the original says Weltanschauung. Think Humanism, Stoicism, and the like, philosophies dealing with subject matters also close to the heart of religions).

          Which then leads to things like the Catholic Church complaining about a pig nailed to a cross in he leaflet of one of WIZO’s albums (a punk band), which led to them not lifting a finger and trying to fight it – they could’ve easily won if they had given a damn. Thing is having a big “censored by decision of court on request of the Catholic Church” censor bar slapped over it is a much more punk artistic statement than the pig on the cross itself.

          Then there was that guy who printed “The Quran, the holy Quran” on toilet paper and sent rolls to mosques and TV stations. That’s not ridicule and not mere adverse opinion, that’s revilement, an important distinction.

          The Churches themselves don’t really ever get in trouble based on that paragraph – that’s because they have had plenty of time to learn their lesson and get used to toning it down: Lutherans did not cease to call Catholics idolaters because they changed their doctrine, or because Catholics ceased to pray to beings that are not gods (such as Mary), but because it’s inciting. If they were to start saying things like “Atheists are inherently immoral and vicious” they’d get in trouble, fast (though that’s incitement of the people not reviling of a world-view, couldn’t think of a proper example right now).