[Closed] Do [s]libel / slander[/s] (lying) laws apply to evangelists??

You have almost precisely no idea of what libel is, do you?

Go away and read wikipedia for a bit. Sorry. 🙂

yeah that's not libel. Or slander. Or defamation.

You could however call them deluded idiots and be safe from libel/ slander - defence of "fair comment"

you might be able to use employment law to suggest that either someone in a position of authority over you was bullying you by tryign to force you to accept their beliefs and you were afraid of the consequences of disagreeing or, if it it's someone beside/below you, that you fel that they are underminign your self-confidence by trying to convert you an that you need to go off sick with stress.

Well, you've got me on a legal technicality....

But in terms of principles, some groups seem to be able to get away with making what appear to be quite fanciful statements, whereas others are required to base what they say on facts or at least some convincing evidence

It's not a "legal technicality" at all. Laws of defamation protect people from harm to their reputations caused by the dissemination of untrue statements about them. It's fundamental to what such laws are about.

You want a law which prevents people expressing views which you don't share. This is called "rabid intolerance" or sometimes "nazi-cock-monkeyery". Either way, a whole different thing to libel. HTH 🙂

No desire for more laws...

I just get the feeling that I'd be asked to "move along" if I went down the city centre at lunchtime and started talking at people through a big megaphone.

Would the council tolerate the BNP giving a frank explanation of their true views on immigration?

Incidentally calling someone a liar puts you in a ideal position to be sued for libel.

Just ask[url= http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/and-then-i-was-incompetently-libelled-by-a-litigious-millionaire/ ] Gillian McKeit[/url]h.

Unless they are a liar? For instance you can call Archer and Aitken liars quite safely as they have been done for lying on oath

[i]Just ask Gillian McKeith[/i]

Or to use her full medical title Gillian McKeith :):)

Or to use her full medical title Gillian McKeith :):)

I saw Dr Goldacre at the [url= http://uk.secretgardenparty.com/2010/ ]SGP[/url] this past weekend and he used that line. Got big laughs from us assembled nerds

it is true aitkena nd Archer are deceitful and convicted off it.

Interestingly enough they cannot be prosecuted for calling me a sinner, saying I am infected by evil and that I will spend an eternity in hell for my impure actions on earth...which I find highly offensive.
I need to be carefual about critcisng them though because we [ the eveil sinners off to hell] must be tolerant of all religions. Oddly they do not need to be tolerant of me, female priests, Israel or homosexuals they save their tolerance for kiddy fiddler priests , suicide bombers, and other good believing folk apparently.
In case I can be sued for this it is simply satire or wrong or both and I do not mean to offend when I call you all a bunch of intolerant fools who believe in nonsense with no proof.

Surely we can section them as we section other people who hears voices telling them what to do and feel the rpresence of non existent entities.

Incidentally calling someone a liar puts you in a ideal position to be sued for libel.

Unless they are a liar?

Well, there's the rub. Religious groups seem to enjoy the protection of historical precedent.

To my scientifically educated mind, being told that I will not die, but will rise again, would appear to run contrary to all the known facts on living organisms - ie, based on our (quite extensive) knowledge it is actually untrue.

and Junkyard, yes, [i]offensive[/i]

that linked explained that you need to prove they know they are a liar at the time they say the lie

I can tell you from personal experience, is one word you can never use in England: even if you can show that someone was obviously wrong, even if you can show that they probably knew they were wrong, you still need to show that they deliberately distorted the truth, and that’s almost always impossible, without direct access to their thoughts.

I dont think religous people are liars they do beleive what they say therefore clearly they are mad not liars 😉
Not sure which camp Gillian falls into she may actually believe what she says or she may know it is bunkum I dont know which it is or which is worse.

EDIT:

rkk01 - Member
and Junkyard, yes, offensive

Me the believers or both ❓

Junkyard - Member

In case I can be sued for this it is simply satire or wrong or both and I do not mean to offend when I call you all a bunch of intolerant fools who believe in nonsense with no proof.

Well, you can't be sued, but certain observable entities hereabouts will probably accuse you of "personal attacks" and proceed to chase you through the Forum displaying a supreme grasp of irony, by doing exactly that... 😉

Untrue (to your scientifically educated mind) and "offensive". But how is it measurably harmful to you that they think and say these things?

Hooray. Woppit is here. The "religion thread" can proceed to its usual business. 🙂

I think it just comes down to how you define 'sin' and whether you credit 'life' with states other than the purely physical.

I rarely get offended by people who have different definitions or views on these two, the more rabidly insane their views on the matter the more I'm inclined to feel a bit sorry for them. Life is complex enough without inventing more complications, or thinking that some metaphysical deity wants you to go about harrassing other people.

There used to be, in my home town, a religious fanatic who took to standing in the middle of the market area on Saturdays loudly singing hymns and proclaiming the "gospel", albeit in his own words.

All around, people displayed that typically English purse-lipped dissapproval but unwillingness to do anything about something that was pissing everybody off. I suppose because we are supposed to feel tolerant of irritating nutters because they are "religious".

So I called the police and had him moved.

Hooray. Woppit is here. The "religion thread" can proceed to its usual business.

Surely it needs Mr E. Lynch to turn up as well to get the party started?

So I called the police and had him moved

I was enjoying myself that day amasing what you can get away with in public if people think you are both religous and nuts

Gosh. You saved your home town from irritation. Have a medal.

[img] [/img] 🙂

In truth, the street evangelists annoy rather than offend - but that is down to me, rather than their message.

But I do take offence at my kids' primary school constantly pushing Christian teachings to the exclusion of everything else. And yes, in my view that could be measurably harmful (in terms of a child's eductaion)

[Incidentally. This is a "lacrosse smiley". I cannot imagine a single instance in which this could even possibly be useful. [img] [/img] ]

is it a chrsitian school? my kids went to the mosque this year and not to church

Ok, thanks to everyone for answering my question.

So, the answer lies in the meaning of lies - ie there being the intent to deceive etc, therefore they are not actually lying. I retract.

They can't be lying if they don't know the difference between truth and untruth, or if there is no unequivocal validation of what is true.

is it a chrsitian school?

not supposed to be...

BigDummy - Member
Gosh. You saved your home town from irritation. Have a medal.

Bugger my home town. I did it for me. 8)

Surely it needs Mr E. Lynch to turn up as well to get the party started?

Well I'm not sure I really want to.......on account that some people are rather touchy. Poor old Woppit if criticised, comes out with stuff like : "but you haven't even met me" !

He's a sensitive little soul are Woppit is.........he doesn't take to criticism too easily - gawd bless him 8)

Patronising pillock.

Oh dear........you [i]are[/i] touchy 😐

are you really calling someone patronising .....considering how you address christians you cannot rally talk can you 🙄

you cannot rally talk can you

F1 on the other hand is fine.

I'm reserving my spite for ernie. Never having excercised "personal attacks" before, I'm finding it newly liberating.

Spelling and punctuation are a bit same old, mind...

Never having excercised "personal attacks" before

Spelling and punctuation are a bit same old, mind...

Oh, self-evidently they were taken personally. They weren't ACTUALLY personal, though...

Generally, I'm with Pat Condell: "I despise your religion and I don't care if that offends you."

I never said "I despise YOU..."

Obviously, that doesn't apply to ABSOLUTELY everyone, now...

see post above re self awareness you may be comfortable with that rational over offence but it is poor* clearly you offended people and seemed to rejoice in like you were preaching at an alter. Just more of your BS and reminds me why I left all the religious threads alone once you got stuck in ...arrogant, unaware, cocky , overly sure of your own intelectual abilities , patronising, rude and insensitive it is a lovely combination in any human and you wear it well... clearly I am only insulting your beliefs there and not you.... apparently

* given post after it is clear it is not even accurate you seem to enjoy offending people does it make you feel better to belittle other people? All rather pathetic

Eats shoots and leaves

I've just listened to one of [url= http://www.patcondell.net/index.html ]Pat Condell's insightful and amusing videos[/url].

Now I know [i]exactly[/i] what Mr Woppit sounds like. 🙂

In fairness to Mr Woppit, it is very instructive to read the [url= http://www.patcondell.net/page4/page4.html ]"feedback" section of the erudite and hilarious Mr Condell's website[/url].

While the threshold for an unacceptable ad hominem argument is some way short of this point in my book, we will definitely know that we have personal remarks on our hands when we read:

wat up mofoker 2 b honest hope u get raped by a donkey. u ignorant racist bastard hope a **** jus kicks u soo hard in ur ****in hed u gain knowledge and read the quran urself u self centered white pork face bastard. yh i sed it and u aint gonna stop me WHITE PORK FACE BASTARD
THATS WAT U R AND WAT U GONA B 4 EVER AND EVER AND EVER

DICKHED

U ARE A BARSTARD. U F***ING FOUR EYED WHITE HONKIE MONSTER. IM GNA RIP UR FU**NG HEAD AND LED YOU DIE SLOWLY. 1 WARNING THOUGH NO NEED FOR ME COZ I CAN PROMISE U DAT IN THE NEST 3 DAYS U WILL EXPERIENCE THE WORST PAIN EVER AND DAT WILL BE PAIN FROM HELLL U F***ING RETARDED WHITE HONKIE BARSTARD WHO NEEDS TO BE KILLED

I [i]think[/i] these people are probably of the muslim persuasion rather than methodists, but it's not wholly clear.

🙂

The simple answer is "yes" libel laws do apply to members of the clergy and other paid and voluntary Christian workers.

1) Woppit, you can't just insult something that you KNOW some people hold dearest of all things, and then claim not to be insulting THEM. That's just silly, and shows a complete lack of understanding of people. But we've been through all this. Was your quip about personal attacks through the forum aimed at me? If it was, then I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating the facts as I see them - so you shouldn't get offended (by your logic 🙂 )

2) You can only sue someone for lying if you can show that they were lying. You can't PROVE that we don't get taken up to heaven when we die any more that they can prove that we do. So no case.

you can't just insult something that you KNOW some people hold dearest of all things, and then claim not to be insulting THEM

Why not?

BigDummy - Member

I've just listened to one of Pat Condell's insightful and amusing videos.

Now I know exactly what Mr Woppit sounds like.

If only. I can't claim to be anything like as fluent, but spookily enough, we do look very similar.

Why not?

Because if you insult someone's', mother, profession, wife, nationality, pet dog, race, child, whatever, then that person is quite likely to feel insulted.

But you already knew that Woppit ........ no one is [i]that[/i] stupid.

Not even you.

If one insults a person's mother, one is insulting a person's mother. That person may well take umbrage at the insult to his/her mother, but one is still insulting the mother, not the person.

Only a bean-counting, pompous, boring, tedious waste of oxygen like you couldn't grasp that simple fact.

Now s*d off, you silly @rse.

Now s*d off, you silly @rse.

*bursts out crying*

.

OK.......that deals with someone's [i]mother[/i] .........what about their profession, wife, nationality, pet dog, race, or child? Would you be insulting [i]them[/i] if you insulted any of those things?

And what about their "ears" ?

Would it be OK to poke fun of someone's ears ? Would it be considered that you were not insulting "the person" .....just their ears ?

.......in your strange little world Woppit.

OK.......that deals with someone's mother .........what about their profession, wife, nationality, pet dog, race, or child? Would you be insulting them if you insulted any of those things?

You are stupider than even I imagined someone as ridiculous a windbag as yourself, could possibly be.

Some kind of achievement I suppose.

Excuse me, I have some fresh paint that needs watching whilst it dries.

Ha ha this is funny!

That Pat Condell; what a sad bastard. Over-inflated sense of his own importance, so he spouts ignorant bigoted shite that he thinks makes him sound clever, and bungs it on you tube. What a knob.

If I looked anything like him, I'd have to wear a Burkha.

You should contribute to his "Feedback" page, you'd be right at home...

If you insult something that is very personally important to a person, then you are also offending and insulting them by association. You know this full well.

But you are trolling now. I could call you a boring arrogant windbag if you like. Would it be any more meaningful? Blahblahblah.

Excuse me, I have some fresh paint that needs watching whilst it dries.

Ah, I can see you're stumped Woppit............it's the "ears" question what done it ...... innit ? 💡

Well have a think about it anyway, and let us know if you decide that insulting someone's ears is insulting
[i]"the person"[/i] as you call it.

Or whether it's just the ears whats getting the insults.

And btw, I would be quite interested on your take concerning insulting someone's wife's ears.

I have to say Woppit, I'm finding your subtle etiquette and fine dividing lines when it comes to 'insults', absolutely [i]fascinating[/i].

Although I think that we could probably just sum it all up thus : when [i][b]you[/b][/i] dish it out it's not an insult,
but when others do, it probably is.

Whaddya reckon ....... is that about it ?

ernie - you have the ears of a young Karl Marx 😯

Why don't Enie Lynch and Mr Woppit meet for a 'bike-off'? A series of cycling challenges, to decide the 'winner'.

Maybe then they might find they actually enjoyed something together, and stop arguing.

Maybe.

they might find they actually enjoyed something together

😕 Why the **** do you imagine I don't enjoy my time on here with Woppit

Obviously I can't speak for Woppit.

And to be fair I sometimes get the impression that he doesn't enjoy himself quite as much as I do 😐

Well by all accounts he's enjoying himself now. In a right posh bed, if his post on the thread about (unsurprisingly) beds is to be believed. Wonder if it has directional cables attached?

if it does can we plug them in direct to the mains ?

What a beautiful (if somewhat less than christian) thought 😉

To be fair, the "posh" bit is just the mattress...

Aligned North-South for the magnetosphere directionality, of course.