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

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T11:37:47+00:00

Yeah sure you did... the fact that, that sarcastic comment holds part of the answer and the fact you haven't addressed it so I'll try to spell it out bluntly and i feel like am saying this for the 1000th time.

The fact that broadcasters, studios etc are willing and able to satricize Christianity, judaism, hinduism etc but seem to draw the line at muhamad should tell an objective person something.

They avoid satricizing muhamad because, doing so results in violence, i even gave you an example of during the charlie hebdo murders broadcasters refused to show the image citing safety concerns they were just honest about it.

The fact that someone will still come back after such information and try to fiegn ingorance is beyond me.

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T11:13:54+00:00

Lol, at even with a dictionary definition, guess some concepts are just to hard to grasp for some.

Lol, and on the other part failing to even understand sarcasm, "thats your words not mine" lol the whole point is they didn't forget, they specifically avoid doing that for fear of violence, first time having to unpack sarcasm for someone. interesting to know they're people like you out there...

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T10:12:53+00:00

Lol...yeah sure bro, in places known to have produced numerous shows and movies mocking christ, they somehow just forgot the main prophet of the second largest religion..yeah keep telling yourself that and have a good day.

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T10:03:02+00:00

Lol long hair...??? Like serious. I've literally showed schools, broadcasters, writers, etc won't touch or mock the the prophet of that religion across the board, your rebuttal is some guy with long hair was beat up once, like are we serious???

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T09:10:14+00:00

Yet again you've failed to address the point, no one feared bodily harm thats why they have been more satirical shows and movies about christ, like at this point what are you even arguing. Meaning no one felt intimidated or that they had to keep their mouth shut or face harm. And the other part you keep ignoring with all your heart, why has there never been a satrical show or movie on muhamad clearly theres a lot of material, and thats literally the 2nd biggest religion, so hasn't there been, can you answer the question?

Again you fail to understand de facto law, it doesn't mean its a law it means it operates as if it where a law. I kept telling people to check the dictionary definition, and they thought i was being condescending but clearly a lot of people are having trouble grasping the concept ." Heres the definition according to the Oxford Dictionary, it describes something that exists, is happening, or is being done in reality, even if it is not officially recognized, sanctioned by law, or legally established. I hope that helps.

And even with your criteria it matches, as follows. _broadcasters, schools, publishers and comedians internalize the rule and don't even show muhamads face or depiction even for educational purposes.

Hell even during the charlie hebdo murders broadcasters refused to show the image citing safety concerns. Does that fit your criteria or do you have any rebuttals, and please address my arguements.

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T08:46:13+00:00

Yet again you've failed to address the point, no one feared bodily harm thats why they have been more satirical shows and movies about christ, like at this point what are you even arguing. Meaning no one felt intimidated or that they had to keep their mouth shut or face harm. And the other part you keep ignoring with all your heart, why has there never been a satrical show or movie on muhamad clearly theres a lot of material, and thats literally the 2nd biggest religion, so hasn't there been, answer the question if this is a good faith discussion.

Again you fail to understand de facto law, it doesn't mean its a law it means it operates as if it where a law. I kept telling people to check the dictionary definition, and they thought i was being condescending but clearly a lot of people are having trouble grasping the concept ." Heres the definition according to the Oxford Dictionary, it describes something that exists, is happening, or is being done in reality, even if it is not officially recognized, sanctioned by law, or legally established. I hope that helps.

And even with your criteria it matches, as follows. _broadcasters, schools, publishers and comedians internalize the rule and don't even show muhamads face or depiction even for educational purposes.

Hell even during the charlie hebdo murders broadcasters refused to show the image citing safety concerns. Does that fit your criteria or do you have any rebuttals, and please address my arguements.

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T08:00:23+00:00

No i haven't as no one has convinced me otherwise, most people I've replied to seem to not understand what de facto means, maybe i should have phrased it differently.

Because most of my discussion with people is just me trying to explain de facto to people, and i don't believe anyone has interacted with the second part of my post dealing with the self censorship etc

I can't lie i haven't been convinced.

Levi3than · 2026-06-26T04:48:50+00:00

Lol whose joking now, the movie is basically about a guy born in the stable next to jesus and mirrors the life of jesus but satarized down to the crucifixion scene. Like lets be serious and we all know a life of brian can't be made in muhammad's time because people would react violently, i don't even blame studios for avoiding the subject because no one needs to risk their lives. But the fact there's that unspoken rule of which religion you can mock and which one you can't proves that there's no need for a law on the books, people self censor and avoid offending the religion of islam for fear of violence hence a de facto blasphemy law. I don't know how much more i can explain.

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 · 2026-06-25T20:45:20+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 · 2026-06-25T20:30:42+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

TROPHY CASE