Congratulations to atheist.ie for international publicity success

[Toland]

Couldn't believe it this morning. I was listening to the BBC World Service and on the news was atheist.ie.

Their 25 blasphemies got them a good space at the end of the on-the-hour-every-hour news on BBC World Service all morning.

Congratulations to all involved in the campaign.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8437460.stm

I see RTÉ haven't covered it at all. No surprise there anyway.

[YoungLiberal]

Yup, fair play to them.

[Christine Murray]

l concur. The head of the lrish Press Council (govt appointee) and editor of the lrish Times should have quit long ago : Dermot Ahern enacts Blasphemy legislation: We should have a Banquet!! poethead

[Congalltee]

organised atheists. Whatever next?

christians beginning to act like Christ, muslims actually coughing up their 2.5%, jews allowing arabs settle on their own lands in peace.

Two days gone and no one has been as risk of prosecution (the 25 examples are calculated to change the law not to cause offence). Damp squib.

[johnfás]

It seems as much a publicity stunt on behalf of Atheist.ie as a real attempt to highlight issues arising from the law.

I would suspect that the use of quotations, rather than publication of an original blasphemous article, was specifically chosen with the knowledge that it is far less likely that their publication would in actuality fall within the defition of blasphemy, for the purposes of the Act, which is the only definition which matters, rather than a generalised understanding of the concept.

Despite the website maintaining that the statements made were abusive and insulting, this is not a matter for them to decide. It is rather a matter for any court before which an action is made, who would presumably, though not definitively, apply a test of reasonableness as to what constitutes blasphemy for the purposes of the Act. That being the publication of matters which are grossly insulting and which as a consequence cause outrage (presumably actually causing, rather than potentially) among a substantial number of adherents to a particular religion or where such outrage is intended. It is also a defence where a reasonable person would consider the statements to have genuine literary, artistic, scientific or academic value.

1. There is no obvious intent to actually cause outrage, they state quite clearly that they are merely highlight problems in the law - so that heading is likely not applicable.
2. The matters would have to be grossly offensive, it is not clear that they are.
3. Outrage would actually have to be caused and demonstrated by a substantial number of adherents to a religion. Again, most unlikely, particularly given the manner in which they are published. Why didn't they publish the statements as an advertisement in the Irish Times if they actually wanted to do that? Again, an example that they are not that bothered with testing the law.
4. Quite likely that one could reasonably argue academic, artistic or literary value towards historical quotations.
5. Quite possible that republication of material already in the public domain prior to the effectiveness of the Act (which was 1/1/2010) would not fall within the scope of the Act when the judiciary are called upon to interpret it.

It would therefore seem that whilst this is a worthwhile ambition, it is an incredibly poor effort. It smacks more of a publicity stunt, rather than a genuine attempt to fall foul of and highlight the difficulties in the law. It in fact seems that stringent efforts were made to ensure that they would not fall foul of the law. Which is a bit like talking about speed limits being too low, saying you're going to show that they're too low, and at the same time rigidly sticking to them.

[Toland]

Damp squib.

Legitimate (and apparently successful) effort to garner publicity.

The firework's gunpowder seems to have remained dry, though RTÉ seem to have been looking the other way.

[TradCat]

Atheist Ireland are to be commended for their stance in support of free speech. As a murder attempt against a Danish cartoonist is foiled we are a generation that will have to defend again the freedoms we had taken for granted.

Every newspaper in the free world should publish the cartoons now in protest against this appalling outrage.

[Christine Murray]

join the Church of Dermotology: the man who can criminalise blasphemy whilst eluding definition of what is i)blasphemy ii) god !!! Facebook | Church of Dermotology's Wall

[Tony_1975]

It seems as much a publicity stunt on behalf of Atheist.ie as a real attempt to highlight issues arising from the law.

I would suspect that the use of quotations, rather than publication of an original blasphemous article, was specifically chosen with the knowledge that it is far less likely that their publication would in actuality fall within the defition of blasphemy, for the purposes of the Act, which is the only definition which matters, rather than a generalised understanding of the concept.

Despite the website maintaining that the statements made were abusive and insulting, this is not a matter for them to decide. It is rather a matter for any court before which an action is made, who would presumably, though not definitively, apply a test of reasonableness as to what constitutes blasphemy for the purposes of the Act. That being the publication of matters which are grossly insulting and which as a consequence cause outrage (presumably actually causing, rather than potentially) among a substantial number of adherents to a particular religion or where such outrage is intended. It is also a defence where a reasonable person would consider the statements to have genuine literary, artistic, scientific or academic value.

1. There is no obvious intent to actually cause outrage, they state quite clearly that they are merely highlight problems in the law - so that heading is likely not applicable.
2. The matters would have to be grossly offensive, it is not clear that they are.
3. Outrage would actually have to be caused and demonstrated by a substantial number of adherents to a religion. Again, most unlikely, particularly given the manner in which they are published. Why didn't they publish the statements as an advertisement in the Irish Times if they actually wanted to do that? Again, an example that they are not that bothered with testing the law.
4. Quite likely that one could reasonably argue academic, artistic or literary value towards historical quotations.
5. Quite possible that republication of material already in the public domain prior to the effectiveness of the Act (which was 1/1/2010) would not fall within the scope of the Act when the judiciary are called upon to interpret it.

It would therefore seem that whilst this is a worthwhile ambition, it is an incredibly poor effort. It smacks more of a publicity stunt, rather than a genuine attempt to fall foul of and highlight the difficulties in the law. It in fact seems that stringent efforts were made to ensure that they would not fall foul of the law. Which is a bit like talking about speed limits being too low, saying you're going to show that they're too low, and at the same time rigidly sticking to them.

Good post. Atheist Ireland will never be investigated for blasphemy, and certainly not for this incident. Their motives are political, which is exempted by the wording of the legislation.
Their best bet, however, would be to be deliberately, gratuitously offensive and to direct this at an older audience. Tommy Tiernan did quite well on The Late Late Show.

[cyberianpan]

[SIZE="5"]2009:[/SIZE]




[SIZE="5"]2010 (in every public building)[/SIZE]


cYp