Banned newspaper publishers set up front against censorship

David Caruana

Nov 24th 2009, 07:52

@ MBorg:

What makes you think that every Maltese citizen wants his or her morals to be "protected"?

Let's put it this way... the publishers of Ir-Realta' and others of the same opinion are only demanding their right of freedom of expression. They don't want to impose anything on you, they only want their freedom. If something which is "shocking" for you is published on their newspaper, you will always have the right to close the paper and not read it. No harm done there.

What you want, dear MBorg, is to impose your scrupulous will on others. "I think it's filth so no one should be allowed to read it" or worse still "it's shocking, so no one should be allowed to utter or publish it" - is what people of your same opinion tend to think. If our society had to follow such thinking, what kind of democracy would that be? A fake democracy where "MBorg is OK, so **** you Jack".

Unfortunately, this is the same kind of fascist democracy that we are experiencing at the moment in our country.

D Vella

Nov 21st 2009, 19:09

David Farrugia, since the European Court ruling on the Crucifix question is not a criminal matter,it would be wrong to refer to this case as being" sub judice" ,as wrong as is your using 'the Finnish language' to illustrate your case.It doesn't make sense.

Time for some schooling in a secular State School,perhaps?

MBorg

Nov 21st 2009, 19:05

" To remove the law that disallowed the vilification of the Catholis religion" "end cencorship that defend nobody and nothing but the morals and the religion of the Roman Catholic Church "

What makes you think these are "outdated laws" and what artistic freedon are you referring to ? Do we now classify a short story full of filth as art ? Do you have to write "evil things" about the Roman Cahtolic church to feel that you have " artistic freedom"?

We need censorship. and how! It is there to "protect the morals of Maltese citizens " from this so called form of art.

M Attard

Nov 21st 2009, 18:56

@David Farrugia.

To have an official Religion in a Democratic Republic is wrong.In short,it means that the State is discriminating against some of it's Citizens. Not every Maltese is Catholic or Christian even.

Let the State be secular and let whatever Religion you practice (or not) be a private matter.This way you don't bother anyone and no one bothers you. The Maltese Constitution needs amending. As Society progresses and becomes more enlightened than the laws of the land have to be either deleted or amended to reflect the thinking of the times.. To hide behind and quote an old clause in the Constitution is rather cheap and furthers the argument for change.

GiovDeMartino

Nov 21st 2009, 18:23

"Suppression of the arts" Arts? Which arts?

victor pulis

Nov 21st 2009, 18:08

REGARDING THE TIMELINE THE ONE THAT TAKES THE BISCUIT IS THE ENTRY FOR OCTOBER! iN MY OPINION, IN THAT CASE WE REALLY REACHED THE PEAK( OR THEBOTTOM) OF ABSURDITY.

David Farrugia

Nov 21st 2009, 17:50

@ M Attard-before rushing to conclusions and calling other people's arguments as being flawed and calling other people nitwits, it is better to see whose argument is indeed flawed.

If one looks at the Maltese Constitution, it is clearly stated that the official religion of the State is Roman Catholic. Other provisions state that the official languages are Maltese and English. This means that the state has a right to use ONLY these languages in matters of public correspondence and other communications. If, using your (and of other fellow atheists) very flawed argument, someone feels offended because he prefers the Finnish language rather than the Maltese and English, does he have a right to impose the Finnish language on the state?

The answer for most people with common sense is no!!. Why is all this fuss being made about the Crucifix then? If the state's official Religion is Roman Catholic, then the state has the right to affix a crucifix in any public room and place, the same as it has a right to correspond to its citizens in Maltese and English.

Furthermore, the court case is sub iudice, and Italy will probably win the appeal.

Robert Callus

Nov 21st 2009, 15:02

@Stephen Farrugia

"Doing this sort of selection is a ban in itself. In fact, you should be the last people to complain."

Realta's publisher is not obliged to find anything that has been illegally banned and report it. If you feel things have been left out all you have to do is inform the Front Against Censorship.

A. Vassallo

Nov 21st 2009, 14:41

I saw Pornolitics while it ran its time at St.James Cavalier. It was hard to believe it was censored for its content or ideas, More likely not accepted for its mediocrity and stale ideas, it has become fashionable apparently to write or show whatever seems to shock just to get noticed.

G.Schembri

Nov 21st 2009, 14:24

@ Stephen Farrugia (sliema) I suggest you list all the other bans the new movement left out so they can add them up to their list. I'm sure these young people overlooked these bans and never intented to leave them out. I myself don't know which bans you are refering to or I would have listed them myself. Then and only then will you be able to accuse them of descrimination, how could they descriminate against something they don't know or forgot about.

@ J.Tonna If you don't want to read anything that offends you just don't read it. I myself did not like the story on IR-Realta and just stopped reading it period, there was no need for anyone to ban it. This is not the same as being in a place, like a classroom and seeing the image of a crcified man, which is usually placed in a prominent place. Children are bound by law to stay in class and cannot just walk out, that is why that lady objected to the crucifix in the classroom.






@ J.Tonna

Miguel Micallef

Nov 21st 2009, 14:00

J Tonna, your argument is fundamentally flawed.

The writer of the article that you didn't like can tell you don't read it, yes.

However the court can't tell the children don't look at the crucifix because they do not have that option. It has, in this same effect, told the school to remove the crucifix.

This way those who want to look at a crucifix can look at it and whoever doesn't won't have to.

The same way that whoever wants to read the artcile reads it but those who dont like it don't.

M Attard

Nov 21st 2009, 12:44

@J Tonna.

It just so happens that the said crucifix was displayed in a public place and couldn't help but be seen.You have a choice wheter you read a particular book or see a particular film. Non believers/objectors call them what you will had no such choice.Therefore your argument is to put it mildly flawed,but then like those nitwits on Xalatabank last night you probably don't grasp the argument at all.

Ramon Casha

Nov 21st 2009, 12:30

@J Tonna: You'd first have to pick up the paper and read it. It's the same with plays like Stitched - you're not being forced to watch - on the contrary you have to pay to enter.

To compare the court judgement to this, the court would have had to ban the crucifix from churches which it did not do.

David Borg

Nov 21st 2009, 12:13

Some really interesting and objective arguments ... so there sholud be no prohibition on the vilification of the Catholic religion but then you should not offend other religions ... and since when has immorality, pornography, indecency, foul language and the vilification of the Catholic religion become a fundamental human right?

As I was taught at university, there is a Latin maxim which states that we are servants of the law so that we can be free.

C Farrugia

Nov 21st 2009, 12:10

I, as a woman, found that article offensive since it depicted women in a degrading and humilitating perspective. For me this goes beyond religion. The rights of certain citizens cease to exist when the rights of others are being trampled. I cannot believe that we are trying to justify such pornographic writing under the umbrella of "creativity"!!!

A.Sacco

Nov 21st 2009, 12:04

"Oh Liberty, how many crimes have been committed in thy name!' I would substitute this adage with: "Oh Slippery Slope, how many mortals have gone down thy path to end in so much inextricable morass!"

J.Tonna

Nov 21st 2009, 11:50

Some days back the CoE Court ruled that the presence of a crucifix goes against the human rights of non-believers.

I, as a believer, do not want to see/read offensive stories. So why should'nt they be banned too?? You might answer "do not read them", but the Court did not tell the lady not to look at the crucifix if it offened her.

Stephen Farrugia (sliema)

Nov 21st 2009, 09:56

No,no. There are more things then the above that have an illegal ban and you don't select what you want and leave more important bans out.
Doing this sort of selection is a ban in itself. In fact, you should be the last people to complain.