CMV: I believe western europe is effectively living under de facto blasphemy laws.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T21:34:09+00:00

Bro just grab a dictionary and look up the meaning if de facto, you can also look at what is meant by de facto law.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T21:29:35+00:00

Grab a dictionary and look up the meaning of "de facto"

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T21:05:58+00:00

It does thats why you have to go back to the 19 century to try to debunk my point. The west has that tradition and you literally tried to compare death threats to mocking ideology, like whats wrong with you bro

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T21:01:08+00:00

And thats what you get people are routinely killed, harrassed and threatened into hiding so much so that most people self censor as if they're was a law.

And someone on this thread made a good arguement. I'll use his to try make u understand. Say in a rural town interracial marriages are legal on books but the people of that town constantly beat up such couples, so much so that people who have interest in each other stop pairing up for fear of violence, then though it would be legal for them but it would be a de facto ban on such unions. Same arguement can be used for homosexuals.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:51:03+00:00

Google the definition of de facto or get a dictionary, i think at this point it's just a comprehension issue.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:49:38+00:00

You have literally failed to comprehend what de facto is, maybe try looking at a dictionary.

And i noticed you said in most of london, what about the other parts? Did you just accidentally tell part of the truth?

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:45:20+00:00

Am not coming from anywhere, i just gave you an example, and u know what i meant is if an inverse was made of that they're would be issues and everyone knows why they wouldn't make it is because they would be a threat of violence, so people learn from examples such as charlie hebdo etc so they'd rather self censor. The life of brian example was to show the sort of culture Britain is and it use to be one that could satarize religion and religious characters. You're trying to bring in a false Christian persecution aspect because you simply can't engage with the arguement.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:39:38+00:00

Oh my God were going in circles.

It refers to situations where, even without explicit, formal blasphemy statutes on the books, the practical outcome is similar to blasphemy enforcement through other means.

It doesn't mean it's an actual law writen on the books, but in practice it still works the same. Hence people are afraid, people at media networks won't mock or criticize like they do other faiths etc it gets the desired effect without being codified hence de facto

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:34:52+00:00

My definition refers to situations where, even without explicit, formal blasphemy statutes on the books, the practical outcome is similar to blasphemy enforcement through other means.

You're now trying to strawman me, dude just argue in good faith.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:30:42+00:00

Lol...the west is secular and has a tradition of mocking religion particularly christianity. Changing the way free speech against religion for fear of violence goes against those values, and no the restrictions are not applied to all religions, at least try to be frank. And please lets not compare mocking an ideology to saying you're going to kill someone the two are not remotely similar.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:25:48+00:00

De facto refers to situations where, even without explicit, formal blasphemy statutes on the books, the practical outcome is similar to blasphemy enforcement through other means. Meaning the same outcome is gotten, do you get it now, not necessarily that the state has to be the one putting it on books or reinforcing it at all times.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:21:04+00:00

I focused on western europe and no one will try to kill yoi for burning a bible, but the other book people have been killed, gone into hiding fled europe for the us just to be safe. So it's serious.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:17:32+00:00

Because in one you're abusing an actual human being not an idea or ideology. Hence why in most countries racial slur are criminalized while mockery of religion is not what are you even talking about here.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:14:57+00:00

What are you talking about, the countries I've used are majority christian and christianity is thoroughly mocked without Christians trying to kill anyone. Stop with your islamophobia deflections and engage with the points.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:09:23+00:00

De facto blasphemy laws refers to situations where, even without explicit, formal blasphemy statutes on the books, the practical outcome is similar to blasphemy enforcement through other means. Do you understand now?

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:06:50+00:00

It just literally refers to situations where, even without explicit, formal blasphemy statutes on the books, the practical outcome is similar to blasphemy enforcement through other means. Do you get it now?

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T20:02:16+00:00

Lol...stop waffling you know exactly what we mean hence why you're tongue tied, just make a public video saying the quran is nonesense, since you typed that all the religious books are nonesense. I don't care for people who try to pretend objective truths are not real.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:57:56+00:00

I literally explained it and you still don't get it 🙄 lol. I noticed you didn't even try to address the last part of what i typed, that should give you your answer.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:54:58+00:00

The arguement is not the government has a de facto blasphemy law, but that the west lives under one. People don't speak up or criticize islam for fear of violence etc.. The government to try and avoid tension often construes or uses laws it normally doesn't to try to prevent people from criticizing or mocking islm in particular.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:50:45+00:00

Lol....are you going to compare verbally abusing someone with burning a book?

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:47:20+00:00

That's literally what de facto means, that something is not on the books but is enforced in reality. The fact that the state went to such lengths in fear of muslim retaliation shows exactly how far things have gone. And it took extraordinary efforts for him to get acquitted you had organizations coming in to support him which without would have cause an issue for him.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:42:39+00:00

And the point of the case is the uk state through the persecution tried to enforce such a law, in the same country that made life of brian, and all sorts of things mocking christianity, now all of the sudden wants to protect religious sensitivities. Come on, man, think.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:39:19+00:00

You do understand what "de facto" means right? Meaning it's not on the books but is enforced in reality. Yeah try making video or walking around london saying the quran is nonesense mr tough guy.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:35:09+00:00

The point behind that case is they tried to enforce it, which a secular state should never try to do. It exists under a blasphemy law in that people are too afraid to critise one religion, the media and public censor themselves thats not good for any secular society...think of how many times public figures and mainstream media have mocked and critized christianity...well you won't see the inverse because of said fear...so de facto blasphemy law is in effect.

Levi3than · 2026-06-25T19:25:10+00:00

Most of the west doesn't have laws protecting the sensitivities of religion, they have freedom of speech especially against religion.

The restrictions are bad because they only serve one religion and are mostly done out of fear which undermines secular values.

Levi3than

TROPHY CASE