Atheist guilty over cartoons

[tigerbob]

Right or wrong to convict this guy?

Atheist guilty over cartoons left at Liverpool Airport

A 59-year-old atheist who left anti-religious images in Liverpool Airport's prayer room has been found guilty of intending to cause distress.

Harry Taylor, of Griffen Street, Salford, was convicted of three charges of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

The images included cartoons of important religious figures in sexual poses, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

BBC News - Atheist guilty over cartoons left at Liverpool Airport

 

[Phoenix]

Not enough info - what there is seems to be based on heresay:

The images included cartoons of important religious figures in sexual poses, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

 

[Missourian]

Wrongly.

Speech is protected...even anti-religious speech.

 

[bodecea]

Wrongly.

Speech is protected...even anti-religious speech.

Um...this was not taking place in the U.S.

 

[eagleseven]

In the US this would be ludicrous, but I can't say for the UK. Britain has been clamping down on individual liberties, as of late.

 

[L.K.Eder]

is it free speech in the US if i go into a church and leave anti-religious pamphlets including cartoons of a priest fucking a goat, for example, in the pews?

 

[California Girl]

It was clearly designed to inflame. I have no problem with anti-religious cartoons or anything else, I have an issue with where they were placed. That is inciting. Atheists, like everyone else, is entitled to their view but to put them in a place set aside for religious purposes seems more like provocation than a genuine desire to pursue their 'art'.

 

[California Girl]

Not enough info - what there is seems to be based on heresay:

The images included cartoons of important religious figures in sexual poses, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

 

[eagleseven]

is it free speech in the US if i go into a church and leave anti-religious pamphlets including cartoons of a priest fucking a goat, for example, in the pews?

Yes, but as a private entity, the Church has every right to ban you from the premises.

It was clearly designed to inflame. I have no problem with anti-religious cartoons or anything else, I have an issue with where they were placed. That is inciting. Atheists, like everyone else, is entitled to their view but to put them in a place set aside for religious purposes seems more like provocation than a genuine desire to pursue their 'art'.

Inflame to what? Since when has "making someone mad" been a crime?

Is it distasteful? Yes. Does the airport have the right to ban him from their property? Yes.

Is it a crime? No.

 

[L.K.Eder]

is it free speech in the US if i go into a church and leave anti-religious pamphlets including cartoons of a priest fucking a goat, for example, in the pews?

Yes, but as a private entity, the Church has every right to ban you from the premises.

hm, sounds complicated.

this "atheist" is a real-life troll and an embarrassment for self-respecting atheists.

i have no idea if he should be convicted. certainly not with a special "anti-religion" malus.

he should get the same treatment as a Liverpool fan who puts anti-ManU fliers into a ManU-Fanclubhouse.

 

[eagleseven]

is it free speech in the US if i go into a church and leave anti-religious pamphlets including cartoons of a priest fucking a goat, for example, in the pews?

Yes, but as a private entity, the Church has every right to ban you from the premises.

hm, sounds complicated.

this "atheist" is a real-life troll and an embarrassment for self-respecting atheists.

i have no idea if he should be convicted. certainly not with a special "anti-religion" malus.

he should get the same treatment as a Liverpool fan who puts anti-ManU fliers into a ManU-Fanclubhouse.

I'm not religious, but I'd like to punch this guy in the face.

That said, punching him in the face is a crime. Making lewd drawings of him and posting them around his office is not.

 

[California Girl]

is it free speech in the US if i go into a church and leave anti-religious pamphlets including cartoons of a priest fucking a goat, for example, in the pews?

Yes, but as a private entity, the Church has every right to ban you from the premises.

It was clearly designed to inflame. I have no problem with anti-religious cartoons or anything else, I have an issue with where they were placed. That is inciting. Atheists, like everyone else, is entitled to their view but to put them in a place set aside for religious purposes seems more like provocation than a genuine desire to pursue their 'art'.

Inflame to what? Since when has "making someone mad" been a crime?

Is it distasteful? Yes. Does the airport have the right to ban him from their property? Yes.

Is it a crime? No.

Not in the UK, it's incitement and that is illegal. The UK laws about this stuff is tricky - they are very protective of minorities. If the cartoons were placed somewhere in a public place that is set aside for minority religions, then he is probably toast. And I have no problem with him being toast. He has a whole wide world to pursue his 'art'. He should allow others to hold their own views without having to tolerate his offensive behavior towards them.

 

[eagleseven]

Not in the UK, it's incitement and that is illegal. The UK laws about this stuff is tricky - they are very protective of minorities. If the cartoons were placed somewhere in a public place that is set aside for minority religions, then he is probably toast. And I have no problem with him being toast. He has a whole wide world to pursue his 'art'. He should allow others to hold their own views without having to tolerate his offensive behavior towards them.

I suppose this is another reason why I'm glad I'm an American.

 

[California Girl]

Y'all need to bear in mind that the Brits idea of 'free speech' is not our idea of it. They gave up that freedom long ago.

 

[California Girl]

Not in the UK, it's incitement and that is illegal. The UK laws about this stuff is tricky - they are very protective of minorities. If the cartoons were placed somewhere in a public place that is set aside for minority religions, then he is probably toast. And I have no problem with him being toast. He has a whole wide world to pursue his 'art'. He should allow others to hold their own views without having to tolerate his offensive behavior towards them.

I suppose this is another reason why I'm glad I'm an American.

Me too! You should try living here! Odd bunch, the Brits.

 

[eagleseven]

Y'all need to bear in mind that the Brits idea of 'free speech' is not our idea of it. They gave up that freedom long ago.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6cCPbA8jo]YouTube - American Veteran Removes US Flag from beneath Mexican Flag[/ame]

Would this be incitement in the UK? So bizzare to me...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Right or wrong to convict this guy?

Atheist guilty over cartoons left at Liverpool Airport

A 59-year-old atheist who left anti-religious images in Liverpool Airport's prayer room has been found guilty of intending to cause distress.

Harry Taylor, of Griffen Street, Salford, was convicted of three charges of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

The images included cartoons of important religious figures in sexual poses, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

BBC News - Atheist guilty over cartoons left at Liverpool Airport

I'd have to do some reasearch into Englands laws on this subject. It appears they have a law that is intended to punish those who intentionally try to cause distress to others based on religion. I'm not sure how they apply that law, if it is one.

If its a law I guess the guy is guilty and should be punished. However, being an American, I find punishing someone for expressing themselves to be wrong...instead he should be punsihed for vandalism.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Right or wrong to convict this guy?

Atheist guilty over cartoons left at Liverpool Airport

A 59-year-old atheist who left anti-religious images in Liverpool Airport's prayer room has been found guilty of intending to cause distress.

Harry Taylor, of Griffen Street, Salford, was convicted of three charges of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

The images included cartoons of important religious figures in sexual poses, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

BBC News - Atheist guilty over cartoons left at Liverpool Airport

Do they convict everyone who leaves bible tracts lying around where atheists, muslims, jews, luciferians, andchildren molested by priests can find them?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It was clearly designed to inflame. I have no problem with anti-religious cartoons or anything else, I have an issue with where they were placed. That is inciting. Atheists, like everyone else, is entitled to their view but to put them in a place set aside for religious purposes seems more like provocation than a genuine desire to pursue their 'art'.

So if I leave a bible or a Koran in a synagogue, I should be prosecuted?

And you wonder why people call Righties fascists...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

is it free speech in the US if i go into a church and leave anti-religious pamphlets including cartoons of a priest fucking a goat, for example, in the pews?

Yes, but as a private entity, the Church has every right to ban you from the premises.

It was clearly designed to inflame. I have no problem with anti-religious cartoons or anything else, I have an issue with where they were placed. That is inciting. Atheists, like everyone else, is entitled to their view but to put them in a place set aside for religious purposes seems more like provocation than a genuine desire to pursue their 'art'.

Inflame to what? Since when has "making someone mad" been a crime?

Is it distasteful? Yes. Does the airport have the right to ban him from their property? Yes.

Is it a crime? No.

Not in the UK, it's incitement and that is illegal. The UK laws about this stuff is tricky - they are very protective of minorities. If the cartoons were placed somewhere in a public place that is set aside for minority religions, then he is probably toast. And I have no problem with him being toast. He has a whole wide world to pursue his 'art'. He should allow others to hold their own views without having to tolerate his offensive behavior towards them.

*saves for future reference the next time the above angel claims to stand for liberty and freedom of speech*