1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • Re: An interesting read on Free speech.

    From Mutley@21:1/5 to John Bowes on Sat Jan 21 14:15:03 2023
    John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130874665/to-understand-hate-speech-we-have-to-understand-free-speech

    "to make it illegal to excite hostility against religious believers
    or bring them into contempt " Why don't they just say Muslims as
    that's what it's aimed at.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 21 19:21:06 2023
    On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 14:15:03 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130874665/to-understand-hate-speech-we-have-to-understand-free-speech

    "to make it illegal to excite hostility against religious believers
    or bring them into contempt " Why don't they just say Muslims as
    that's what it's aimed at.

    Perhaps they do not want to limit either what beliefs are deemed to be religious, or to discriminate between different beliefs. Some of the
    most hateful speech and armed attacks have been based on differences
    between adherents to different parts of broader Christianity. The
    partition of India was based on religious grounds. If you were a
    scientologist do you think it would be possible for hate speech to be
    directed towards you?

    I would imagine 'religious belief' may well require some definition in legislation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Bowes@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 21 00:58:45 2023
    On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 7:25:22 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
    On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 14:15:03 +1300, Mutley <mutle...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130874665/to-understand-hate-speech-we-have-to-understand-free-speech

    "to make it illegal to excite hostility against religious believers
    or bring them into contempt " Why don't they just say Muslims as
    that's what it's aimed at.
    Perhaps they do not want to limit either what beliefs are deemed to be religious, or to discriminate between different beliefs. Some of the
    most hateful speech and armed attacks have been based on differences
    between adherents to different parts of broader Christianity. The
    partition of India was based on religious grounds. If you were a scientologist do you think it would be possible for hate speech to be directed towards you?

    But nothing as bad as the atrocities carried out by so called Muslims Rich! But guess you don't care about making comparisons because they just make your silly opinions just look stupid and ill informed! The country has enough legislation to cover what
    any hate speech laws will cover. btw political beliefs can't be claimed as religion even if you do religiously support anything your Labour/Watermelon crowd come up with!


    I would imagine 'religious belief' may well require some definition in legislation.

    I would imagine that as usual you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about Rich...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 22 09:42:09 2023
    On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:35:53 GMT, willynilly@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
    wrote:

    On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:21:06 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
    I would imagine 'religious belief' may well require some definition in >>legislation.

    Rich's vision is from Bill Clinton:
    "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

    In alegal sense then, how would you define religion, Willy Nilly?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Willy Nilly@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 21 20:35:53 2023
    On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:21:06 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
    I would imagine 'religious belief' may well require some definition in >legislation.

    Rich's vision is from Bill Clinton:
    "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Bowes@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 21 14:59:13 2023
    On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 9:46:25 AM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
    On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:35:53 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
    wrote:
    On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:21:06 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
    I would imagine 'religious belief' may well require some definition in >>legislation.

    Rich's vision is from Bill Clinton:
    "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

    In alegal sense then, how would you define religion, Willy Nilly?

    More to the point Rich. How would YOU define it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)