Freedom of speech. Does it exist any longer?

  • Thread starter Carbonox
  • 86 comments
  • 4,207 views
11,644
Finland
Intercourse, PA
Carbonox
One of the hottest news topics here in Finland is right now an incident where a politician, Jussi Halla-aho, has been fined due to saying that Mohammed was a pedophile as he slept with and married a 9-year-old girl. Apparently we're supposed to have freedom of speech, but we're not allowed to say aloud true facts about religious figures?

Honestly, I don't see the point of this. Apparently I'm still allowed to call the 60-year-old hobo from a nearby shanty town a pedophile if he goes and rapes a child, but say the same about a prophet and it goes to the court? The fact is that according to the law of Finland, Mohammed was a pedophile just as much as those who have had sex with children in the recent days. We're already not allowed to talk anything bad about immigrants, who have more rights and less duties than true Finns and they don't even need to work to earn their living, why is this? Are people just too scared of racism? There was some New Zealander who mocked the Finnish lifestyle (or something like that) not too long ago and it quickly reached the news here too. I didn't care at all! Truth is, while we may be considered a great nation by some, we still have our bad sides just as much as everyone else does. There's no question about it.

However, if immigrants are allowed to talk bad stuff about Finns, or British Muslims are allowed to tell the Britons to get out of their country, the same should absolutely work the other way. There are just too many corrupted politicians who don't understand it.

Mohammed was a pedophile. Am I getting banned from GTP now?
 
More information required. What kind of fine? Is this a court ruling or a lawsuit?

50 "day fines". Sorry for awkward translation, but it's essentially a higher sum than 50 regular fines.

Quotes from Wikipedia (there are sources, don't worry):

In the course of the remarks, Halla-aho said the prophet Muhammad was a paedophile, and Islam is a religion of paedophilia, because Muhammad had intercourse with his 9-year-old wife and according to Sunnah Mohammed's life is exemplary in every way. He also asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis. This was stated in sarcastic response to a Finnish columnist that wrote that drinking excessively and fighting when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.

On 8 September, 2009, the District Court convicted Halla-aho of disturbing religious worship, and ordered him to pay a fine of 330 euros. The charge of ethnic agitation was dismissed. In October 2010 the Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court's conviction. Both the prosecutor and Halla-aho appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted a leave to appeal in May 2011. In a judgement given on the 8th of June 2012, the Supreme Court found Halla-aho guilty of both disturbing religious worship and ethnic agitation and increased his fines accordingly.
 
You're not allowed to call Asians, Muslims, Hispanics, or black people names because it hurts their feelings. They might go start an organization or something if you make them sad.
 
You're not allowed to call Asians, Muslims, Hispanics, or black people names because it hurts their feelings. They might go start an organization or something if you make them sad.

But white people and Christians can be insulted by anyone at will, yup, this is how the world seems to go.
 
It's basically the same here in Sweden. There's "war" going on between the politicaly correct and the politicaly incorrect.

But on the bright side it seems like it's changing, if somewhat slowly, to the better. There was recently a hidden cam documentary showing what goes on in some of Sweden's biggest mosques made by one of our most respected showhosts/interviewers showing how advisors adviced forgiveness for abused womeninstead of going to the police. That would've been unthinkable a few years ago.

But white people and Christians can be insulted by anyone at will, yup, this is how the world seems to go.


But immigrants can't be racist duh!



;)
 
Last edited:
Carbonox
But white people and Christians can be insulted by anyone at will, yup, this is how the world seems to go.

It's all "multi-cultural" over here in Scotland and we generally have good tolerance for everyone (racism is usually rare). Whenever I mention that I'm a Christian though it isn't long before a snide comment or two gets in. :( 👎

I think political correctness and tolerance of beliefs is sometimes corrupt as you've said. As much as I don't like Dawkins, I do agree with his view that religious branding of children is wrong.
 
50 "day fines". Sorry for awkward translation, but it's essentially a higher sum than 50 regular fines.

Quotes from Wikipedia (there are sources, don't worry):

In the course of the remarks, Halla-aho said the prophet Muhammad was a paedophile, and Islam is a religion of paedophilia, because Muhammad had intercourse with his 9-year-old wife and according to Sunnah Mohammed's life is exemplary in every way. He also asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis. This was stated in sarcastic response to a Finnish columnist that wrote that drinking excessively and fighting when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.

On 8 September, 2009, the District Court convicted Halla-aho of disturbing religious worship, and ordered him to pay a fine of 330 euros. The charge of ethnic agitation was dismissed. In October 2010 the Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court's conviction. Both the prosecutor and Halla-aho appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted a leave to appeal in May 2011. In a judgement given on the 8th of June 2012, the Supreme Court found Halla-aho guilty of both disturbing religious worship and ethnic agitation and increased his fines accordingly.

Yup, that's a violation of freedom of speech.
 
It's all "multi-cultural" over here in Scotland and we generally have good tolerance for everyone (racism is usually rare). Whenever I mention that I'm a Christian though it isn't long before a snide comment or two gets in. :( 👎

I think political correctness and tolerance of beliefs is sometimes corrupt as you've said. As much as I don't like Dawkins, I do agree with his view that religious branding of children is wrong.


Which is fine really. The problem is when it's only allowed one way.
 
You're not allowed to call Asians, Muslims, Hispanics, or black people names because it hurts their feelings. They might go start an organization or something if you make them sad.

But you can make fun of white people. No offense but i guess we're never offended if we're called something.:indiff:
 
Encyclopedia
Which is fine really. The problem is when it's only allowed one way.

Yeah I know. Muslims, Sikhs, etc would get the same too but people are scared to make any jokes because they'll get locked up for racial abuse.

I'm fine with general banter. What I'm not fine with however is something like I what happened two weeks ago when a guy (who I know) got a row from boss because he was wearing a crucifix (in a jewerly permitted workplace).
 
I don't know about Finland, but if he was doing that in the streets of the US, it would be legal. If he was doing it at a mosque or other religious building, they'd be well within their rights to sue him or have him removed for disturbing them.
 
I don't know about Finland, but if he was doing that in the streets of the US, it would be legal. If he was doing it at a mosque or other religious building, they'd be well within their rights to sue him or have him removed for disturbing them.

Sue him for what exactly? :odd:
 
I'd have to consult a lawyer, but there are any number of things you can sue someone for. Hell, you can sue someone for looking at you funny, but it certainly doesn't mean you'll win :P

Legal pressure is a useful tool to make sure a person stop disruptive action whether or not you gain anything financially from it.
 
I thought you can win any legal case in America if you have a good lawyer. :sly:

Meh, I believe only some pathetic skinheads would go and say stuff like that in a mosque. OK, yes, I'm anti-racist, but I still think anyone is allowed to be criticized without getting sued or, even worse, threatened for it. (Danish guy who drew Muhammed, remember?)
 
Threatening somebody is illegal. Saying something that is unpopular is a protected right, so long as it doesn't disturb the peace or incite others to do something illegal.
 
Muhammad a pedophile?

Oh wow like I never heard that one before. And Jesus was a public drunk right?

Besides it takes a lot of a for another schmuck to offend me, because they are just words at the end of the day.

Though I do agree my fellow Muslims need to chill, and just ignore bigotry or ignorant statements.

And by the way, people getting married around 9 or 10 years old was not unheard of in Arabia around the 7th century, as people died in their 30s or 40s. Shoot my grandmother from India got married when she was 13, so was my Granddad a pedo?

Marriage back then was about political and clan alliances, and financial stability. Romance came second. So you can't look at civilization back then with the modern thinking of today. As for him having relations with her, I have no comment. Finland needs to understand history better.
 
Last edited:
Muhammad a pedophile?

Oh wow like I never heard that one before. And Jesus was a public drunk right?

Besides it takes a lot of a for another schmuck to offend me, because they are just words at the end of the day.

Though I do agree my fellow Muslims need to chill, and just ignore bigotry or ignorant statements.

And by the way, people getting married around 9 or 10 years old was not unheard of in Arabia around the 7th century, as people died in their 30s or 40s. Shoot my grandmother from India got married when she was 13, so was my Granddad a pedo?

Marriage back then was about political and clan alliances, and financial stability. Romance came second. So you can't look at civilization back then with the modern thinking of today. As for him having relations with her, I have no comment. Finland needs to understand history better.

The problem here is that Muslims believe that everything Muhammed did was exemplary, so if he was with a 9-year-old while he was in his 50s, that would mean pedophilia is perfectly acceptable in Islam. That's what our politician was pointing out, and I think it's actually an extremely good way to criticize Islam, because it's true!

As for the freedom of speech discussion, it's too bad we don't actually seem to have full freedom of speech here, because if I now went and told you exactly what I think of Islam, I would most certainly get permabanned. Still a long way to go in this world until criticism of religions is allowed :(
 
I think the same about Islam as I do about all the other religions. They are all the same. And silly.

But hey, if someone needs it to live happy, so be it. Just don't bother me with it.
 
Well I'll take the risk and say what I have always wanted to say.

Everyone has the right for opinion except extremist Muslims and any other similar groups, because if they were to gain the power they want, they would eliminate those rights from any people caught under them.
 
ShobThaBob
I'd have to consult a lawyer, but there are any number of things you can sue someone for. Hell, you can sue someone for looking at you funny, but it certainly doesn't mean you'll win :P

Legal pressure is a useful tool to make sure a person stop disruptive action whether or not you gain anything financially from it.

Or when someone tries to break into your house, hurts themselves doing it, but sues the house owners, and wins.

I've heard this but I don't know if it's true.
 
This is a very good, but albeit very fragile, discussion. If the truth is told, there is no such thing as complete freedom of speech, but it is a lot more free than it was, say 100 years ago.

I live in the UK and see this kinda thing all the time, now I may say things that may offend some people, and for that I am sorry, that is not my intention.

There are some extreme people, usually muslim or islamic, living in this country who can go around preaching death to all that fight for this great country and all her allies, Abu Hamzer is a great example. He's rants went on for quite some time. Although he is actually in jail here for these crimes at the moment, he is a extreme case of what we are taking about. Also he is only in jail, at the moment, because he is awaiting extradition to the U.S.

If a English person, white, or black, was to take the same approach towards a Asian, Muslim, Islamic, Jew or any other religion then they would not be allowed to carry on for any were near as long.

The point I am trying to make is that the problem lyes with the police and the government. They are far to scared of having a racial lawsuit on their hands.

Do not mistake me for a racist, because you could not be much further from the truth. Some of my closest friends are Muslims, I am a white British atheist. I am a atheist because I find religion is a complete waste of time. My opinion, all it does is create problems between people who if it weren't for religion probably would get on very well.

Also we're talking about this as if it is about religion. It isn't, what about homosexuals? Bisexuals? Males? Females? Freedom of speech should cover all aspects not just the major but the minor as well.

My personal opinion is that if people didn't get so hung up on everybody else's beliefs and way of life, then we would be one step closer to a better way of life. People are far to ready to fight with each other, just like they will, I am sure, be ready to fight with me about this post. My aim is not to attract a fight, just my two cents.

I think everyone needs to be much more accommodating, and for the extreme people who just want to cause trouble and insight racial hatred of any kind to any race, I say, YOU are making yourself the minority, not everybody thinks that the only religion, or sexuality is the only way to be. How self obsessed do you have to be to actually believe that the faith you follow is the right one?

The good thing about the human race is how rich and diverse we are, and we have the free will to do as we please. That should apply wholly to freedom of speech. Your right to say what you feel should be protected, as should somebody's right to argue with you, within reason.

Well that has to be my biggest post ever, lol, anyway anyone looking forward to the next DLC? Hahaha.
 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_per...use_sue_the_owner_if_that_person_gets_injured

Take that as you will and apply your own states laws. A good rule of thumb though is that you can't booby trap your belongings. In that case, you aren't protecting yourself against a person, just the possibility. Having a gun to fire at anyone that opens a door protects yourself against anyone opening the door. Getting your own gun and defending yourself against perceived danger is protected though (in many states.)
 
ShobThaBob
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_person_breaking_into_a_house_sue_the_owner_if_that_person_gets_injured

Take that as you will and apply your own states laws. A good rule of thumb though is that you can't booby trap your belongings. In that case, you aren't protecting yourself against a person, just the possibility. Having a gun to fire at anyone that opens a door protects yourself against anyone opening the door. Getting your own gun and defending yourself against perceived danger is protected though (in many states.)

Some lady shot a guy that broke into her house, they found he was stalking her, and had a knife, but in that case they said you have the right to defend yourself in your own house.

Booby trapping would be different though.
 
That whole "Spring Gun" part seems very stupid. If it would be ok for you to shoot an intruder for your own safety then surely it should be ok for you to set a trap to keep your own safety. The only difference is whether it is directly you or not, you could take that point even further and say that in either situation it was a mechanical gun that killed them with you just pulling a trigger in the same way you set a trap.

Or simply to get around that a couple of obviously placed trespassers will be shot signs and then I'm guessing you are covered since you gave a warning.


Back on topic.

In no way do we have free speech currently. If I start talking about a genuine extreme opinion I may have then I may be prosecuted. During the riots a person said supposedly as a joke on facebook to go and riot in his home town, he never did and said he never had any intention of actually following it through. Yet he still was prosecuted for what he "said" on facebook and received, I think 2 months in prison.

The whole issue of racism is what stops us having true freedom of speech, the government believe they have a right to protect everyone's feelings so if I offend someone then I'm in the wrong. Freedom of speech IMO is down to the people to uphold, people will always be offended be others views however they should respect the persons right for these views, however much they may not like them. It is once people start inforcing the views where it should become a problem in my view.
 
Last edited:
Are there laws/statutes in the UK implying that you do have freedom of speech? In the US, talking about inciting a riot would certainly be illegal, just the same way talking about selling drugs would be illegal (that could get you arrested, but not likely convicted.)
 
Are there laws/statutes in the UK implying that you do have freedom of speech? In the US, talking about inciting a riot would certainly be illegal, just the same way talking about selling drugs would be illegal (that could get you arrested, but not likely convicted.)

I'm not sure about actual laws, however I know they arn't as explicit as the US laws for free speech. To me it still seems stupid how it can be illegal to say something, yes you may incite a riot however if the riot didn't happen then therefore no damage has been done to anyone thus the law shouldn't be involved. (Yes I know that it is actually based on intent to commit a crime) however saying you will do something and actually trying (succeeding or not) to actually do it to me seem completely different things. However the law see's it a different way.

As you said about talking about selling drugs, that is illegal however I don't think it should be unless you actually break a law, or show more actions of intent rather that just talking about breaking it.
 
Well I'll take the risk and say what I have always wanted to say.
As long as its within the AUP that's fine, but everyone posting in this thread should be 100% sure they are before hitting the post button.



Everyone has the right for opinion except extremist Muslims and any other similar groups, because if they were to gain the power they want, they would eliminate those rights from any people caught under them.

Ah, so your allowed freedom of speech, but others are not simply because they don't share the same views as you?

Sorry, but it can't work like that, and this is exactly what you are complaining about in your opening post.

You either agree to a set standard on 'freedom of speech' and apply to to everyone (and I do mean everyone) or you don't have freedom of speech.

Historically its a minefield of a topic and while the ideal of everyone can say what they want is well lauded, my family has been on the receiving end of 'free speech' used to incite violence. Something that does someone cause a rethink of your attitude. The same as the lovely "Pakistanis (actually the AUP violating shorter version and totally inaccurate as my wife is Anglo-Indian not Pakistani) are not welcome" I found on my back fence yesterday. Does freedom of speech cover that?
 
Back