"Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult"

[Tsuyoiko]

In the US you do technically have the right to free speech, and here we have no law guaranteeing that right. But there is a perception here that that right is somewhat theoretical. I know Americans who have said they would find it hard to admit that they are an atheist or a communist, whereas here most people wouldn't care. I wouldn't hesitate to admit to anyone that I'm an atheist and a socialist, it's just not a big deal.

As I say, that's a perception, which could be dead wrong...

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I see a difference between the law not allowing certain speech and people being reluctant to go against the weight of popular opinion. Most atheists here don't have a problem admitting it, but that's probably different in the Bible Belt (Midwest and South). If you said you were a Communist fifty years ago, you might have been burned at the stake; but today people would just probably think you're crazy.

Few want to admit to being a socialist here, but plenty believe in some form of socialism. I'm counting tax breaks and government subsidies to business, of course.

The worst thing to admit to being today is a Muslim. I didn't say Americans are free of bigotry and intolerance. But when our leaders get out of hand, we can usually rely on the courts to set things right, eventually.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

In those countries where "hate speech" is illegal, who decides what is "hate speech"? A judge? Jury? Some panel of all-wise bureaucrats?

Let's look at the thread title-statement. Is saying, "Scientology is not a religion" hate speech? So what is a religion? I've heard some say that Buddhism isn't a religion, but more of a philosophy. Would those people be guilty?

What about "dangerous cult"? What does "dangerous" mean? Catholic parents who raised a child religiously might well think that Scientology is "dangerous" to their belief system. Does that make it illegal to say so?

What about the small religious groups that have committed mass suicide at the urging of their leaders? Aren't those faiths dangerous to your life? Is it illegal to say so? Can truth even be a defense to a "hate speech" charge? What is truth (given that there are so many ways to slant or spin a factual statement)?

Is labeling someone else's faith a "cult" illegal? What exactly would someone mean when they say "cult"? Isn't every religion a "cult" by some definitions? What legal authority decides on the definition? Do we need to go through the dictionary to excise all the words that might offend somebody?

I honestly have to say I don't understand how these laws can work, especially without stifling a lot of speech that might have some merit or serve a social purpose.

 

[Mars Man]

And that, in itself, is surely the primary reasoning for the conclusion to not have such laws--they primarily stem from religious belief-systems which are closed societies.

Such attempts to restrict open opposition (as creation of any type of blasphemy law-like law is) is thus an extension of the religious belief-system itself. Islam is a major instigator of such these days. Even such a PC leaning is over doing it, much, much less even going to the point of making secular laws. (and even some private sectors bend to such)

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Is labeling someone else's faith a "cult" illegal?

In the end the CPS decided not. It seems the police got the message too, since, to my knowledge, there have been no more arrests for using that word.

As for the existence of such laws, remember that even in the US there are many restrictions to freedom of speech. To quote what has now become a cliche, you can't untruthfully shout "Fire!" in public. You can't make a public speech inciting the overthrow of the government. You can't knowingly and with malice make a false statement against someone.

Freedom of speech is also restricted by "time, place, manner". In certain circumstances, if you exercise your right of free speech outside a designated zone you can be arrested for trespass or disorderly conduct.

I think our hate laws are an extension of such restrictions, and made in the same spirit: to protect public order. However, I would prefer not to have such laws. Let people say whatever they want, and only arrest them if an actual disturbance of public order occurs.

 

[Haruspex]

I see religious hate like this:
First of all, whats a religion? Isn`t it a bunch of rules, regulations and dogmas more often than not supported by blind faith?
Does that not mean that it is completely open for discussion?
If one were to say that Melvin is a pedophile, when he`s stuck to a wheelchair without any limbs, I`d say "Ok, now thats a false accussation, he can`t do sh!t after all."
But hey, Scientology`s been accused of "underground" stuff before, and you know, they`re potentially able to do what Scientology haters, Anons, etc. claim they have done.
If they`re accused of something, and they can`t come up with any counterarguments, there must be a reason to that, and someone should look into it, because there`s something going on.
Everyone`s innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn`t mean you can forbid anyone to prove another guilty, can you? That would make no sense.