I previously wrote about Finland’s prosecution of Christian Democrat MP Päivi Räsänen for raising objections to homosexuality. She has now been convicted with a decision this week from the Finnish Supreme Court. Free speech is now in a free fall in Finland.
Räsänen is a Christian Democratic member of parliament and former Minister of the Interior. Räsänen is also a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and is married to a pastor.
She was critical of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland for its support of the Helsinki LGBT Pride events in June. She spoke out against the involvement while highlighting a quote from Romans 1:24-27 , which reads:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
In the United States, this would of course be entirely protected as the exercise of religious freedom and free speech. However, the former Interior Minister was accused of “hate speech” against LGBT+ people over a 2004 publication, a 2018 radio appearance, and a 2019 social media post that included a Bible verse.
While she was acquitted by the District Court of Helsinki and the Court of Appeal, the case was eventually brought to the Finnish Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now voted 3-2 to convict her for being “derogatory towards homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”
In a statement, the Court declared that “Räsänen’s statements were in this way derogatory towards homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation. However, certain other passages referred to in the charge were not held to be derogatory.”
The Court imposed fines on Räsänen and the manager of Luther Foundation Finland. Notably, the other person named in the filing is bishop Juhana Pohjola, who published the pamphlet. Pohjola reportedly leads the 2,749-member church, as well as being the chairman of the International Lutheran Council.
It also ordered both to take down the “unlawful passages” in the publication.
The Court did uphold Räsänen’s acquittal on a charge stemming from a 2019 social media post in which she posted a picture of Romans 1:24–27.
Räsänen stated that she may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, stressing:
“Freedom of speech is needed precisely when we disagree on things. I hope that despite this decision, constructive discussions can be held, even on difficult issues, under the protection of freedom of speech and religion.”
In Rage and the Republic, I have a chapter on “Why Big Fierce Rights Are Rare” that specifically discusses the collapses of free speech and other rights in Europe. This case is just another example of how our European allies are abandoning core Western principles from free speech to free exercise.
Given the sweeping economic changes unfolding in this century, those rights will be even more important in the years to come. In countries like Finland, the population will enter these uncertain times with even more uncertain rights.
Professor Turley. I like your daily excursions into the foibles of the West, focusing on the outrages of our day, and the rage it creates amongst almost all of us. Particularly, I’m dismayed that government officials waste so much time advocating or pushing trivialities almost as though there are no other problems. But keep it coming.
Russia and China have been very successful and undermining western civilization. The United States is currently on a rebound, but it’s as of yet not certain as to whether that’s gonna be sustainable as the propaganda mill of the left– they among the useful idiots of the CCP – has been very successful at deluding the minds of the electorate
To some extent Russia and China have succeeded in undermining the west – But Both are in much greater danger of failing.
Instagram comment from a man who attended the gay pride festival in California.
Can we talk about the disturbing behaviors that were allowed at the gay pride parade? Adults promoting S&M, peeing on people in kiddy pools and spanking naked bottoms in front of children? Why is the San Francisco police not doing anything about this? This is not promoting pride, it’s promoting sexual offenses. If a woman can be persecuted for breastfeeding in public, why is a parade of nudity and sexual acts allowed? This is not the America I know. Please, let’s not forget our morals.
A wonderful gathering of the groomers.
Word of advice, if the gay pride parades are antithetical to your morals, then do not attend.
ANON is antithetical to my morals. They aways have to open their mouth and post Crappy responses DAILY!! Keep it up BOZO. 20 USELESS replys from them everyday!
But heck, who’s counting right? Maybe you should go away.
Another useless reply!! Way to go ANON
You can rest assured that I will not attend the gay pride grooming festival. You can take your kids to watch men urinate in each other’s mouths if you want to. As time goes by you reveal more and more who you are. You also expressed your thoughts about books in Florida schools that described oral sex between ten year old boys. Everyone should keep these opinions in mind when they read your thoughts on any subject. Folks, pedophiles are a real thing. Sorry, I should have been more politically correct and said “minor attracted” lest some leftist judge finds it necessary to put me behind bars and Anonymous would see her fondest dreams come true.
TiT
Do not presume that the pride festivals that you have seen or that get featured on the news are reflective of all gay people.
While there is a significant portion of the LGBTQ+ community that fits your description, it is not all of it.
Like all other groups, it is made up of individuals, and those individuals do not all share the same values.
There is some conduct that is unacceptable in public – without regard for sexual orientation.
All the conduct TiT commented on is not acceptable as part of a parade (or by those watching) but acceptable in private.
The transgender spectrum (e.g. homosexual orientation) has no redeeming value to society or humanity.
The hetrosexual spectrum (e.g. hetrosexual orientation) has no redeeming value to society or humanity. Fixed it. You’re welcome.
for someone who is not even smart enough to spell heterosexual, twice, you have just become the low-education, low IQ poster child for one who has no redeeming value to society or humanity. Fixed it. Now YOU get fixed. please.
ATS are you intent on proving yourself an idiot.
The only thing that uniquely distinguishes heterosexuals from homosexuals is sexual orientation.
Homosexuals can not reproduce therefore they are objectively of less value to society, humanity and nature.
Otherwise the value of heterosexuals and homosexuals as a group is identical.
There may be value variations among individuals – serial killers have less value to society or humanity than people who are not serial killers – regardless of their sexual orientation.
If you wish to make an argument – it should make the tiniest bit of sense – unless you are a 4yr old.
Transgender and homosexual are not the same thing – though many teens who think they are trans are actually just gay.
All people have some value – regardless of their sexual orientation.
Finland adopted a Constitution in June, 1999. Assuming the official English translation of the Constitution is accurate, the Finland Supreme Court’s decision seems in direct conflict with at least two of the Constitutional provisions. Section 11 of the Constitution of Finland says, “Everyone has the freedom of religion and conscience. Freedom of religion and conscience entails the right to profess and practice a religion, [and] the right to express one’s convictions[.]” Section 12 of the Constitution says, “Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. It seems that MP Päivi Räsänen’s statements for which she was convicted were her “right to profess” her religious beliefs and her right to “express [her] convictions.” It could be argued that Section 12 is concerned only with prior restraint but if the first sentence is given its common meaning, it should be much broader. Perhaps the lesson for us Americans is that under our system, the provisions of our Constitution mean what the Supreme Court says they mean. If Democrats are able to put a majority of justices on the Court like Jackson, we may find that the Bill of Rights no longer means what it clearly says.
So their constitution is in conflict with their supreme court? Or vice versa. So then there’s a major problem. How to resolve it? If their SC is the final arbiter in all things law, then what’s the consequence? Why are you referencing US law vis a vis Finnish law?
That’s why the Keep-9 amendment should be approved and ratified.
Wanna share with the people what that amendment is? Might help people to understand that you have a few screws loose.
I didn’t realize that there are still some internet users who have never heard of google.
https://www.keepnineonthesupremecourt.org/
Google? Surprised that you don’t know what you’re writing. Gotta ask again, what does that have to do with Finland?
Silly low-IQ anonymous doesn’t know how to use google and didn’t realize I was responding to honest lawyer mostly’s comment.
HLM, is there anything in Finland’s Constitution about separation of church and state, theocracies? Anything about protected groups?
The acquittal was appealed twice? Acquittal isn’t appealable in the US without new evidence? Acquittal isn’t appealable at all in the US? She’s an elected official?
Certainly a different system.
Good point about an appeal of an acquittal. Fwiw, in the US an acquittal is not appealable regardless of whether there’s new evidence.
Given the various religious dicta against homosexuality, it’s obvious that homosexuality has been a social taboo for thousands of years. Without various accepted social norms, there is no agreement that makes us a “society”. People may debate various social norms, but when they begin forcing new social norms on people, it is pure authoritarianism … and authoritarianism rates a strong response. Nip it in the bud.
So what.
I tend to agree, anon, there isn’t a common thread among the groups, individuals. The culture falls apart like a string of beads if the thread is broken.
I’m one of those who will proudly say that I have had enough of the pseudo-intellectual parsing of words and the ridiculous creative (false) interpretation of Scripture. The Bible is clear. The words have meaning. It’s not like one can assign new meaning as a matter of convenience. Homosexuality is viewed as an abomination. In those very words. Agree with it or disagree with it, that’s your call. Nonetheless, that’s what it says. So, the Finish dilemma centers on a matter of freedom of speech, mixed with freedom of religion and a condemnation of the very heart of the Christian faith, the Bible. To end, how is the Finish legal system dealing with the Quran, the teachings in the Mosques or the posts by Muslims? Or is this treatment reserved for Christians only? The lesson many of us are learning from the horrific civil liberties abuses being institutionalized in Europe is really simple. Our new attitude our once cherished allies and the roots of our heritage? Screw Europe! You are acting like the totalitarian states you profess to despise. By the way, don’t call on us the next time you need the blood of our best to deliver you from harm.
What if your bible is not the core of another man’s belief system. Kill them or jail them?
Anonymous, I guess you missed it. At a gay event in California a man dressed in bondage leather let another man urinate in his mouth. It was all considered just part of the fun. Where were the denouncements from the gay community. There were no denouncements because of the anything goes in the name of their lifestyle. Here’s your opportunity to condemn this man and his lovers actions at a public event. What say ye? We’ll wait.
I guessed you missed it, Penley made no reference to your personal sexual fetishes, or anyone else’s. Just wrote about Muslims and Christians.
Gotta ask, what business it of yours what CA gays do. Do not attend then.
What if I lived in the neighborhood. Lock myself in and pull the shades?
Perhaps they were paid actors and went home to wife and children after the display. Hopefully the area was identified and could be avoided?
Anon, nobody’s suggesting anything like that, only that people should not be criminally prosecuted for expressing their views, as happened in Finland.
I guess that the F SC made a decision that doesn’t abide your puritan fixation, what business is it of yours? Or mine? Who really cares?
You may think freedom of speech is old fashioned and “puritan,” but not everyone agrees with you. America’s founding fathers believed liberty to be an unalienable right, endowed by the Creator, and that includes 1A freedoms. Yes, yes, I know this case is from Finland, but it’s not like those basic freedoms inherent to being human should be violated there, or anywhere. Or are you saying the Finnish people are sub-human or otherwise not deserving of basic human rights?
I repeat its in Finland, do you get that. Free speech, as you so narrowly interpret it, IS NOT UNIVERSAL. What do you not understand?
You can play word games all you want, just shows you’re a petulant child.
Wanna talk, then act like an adult.
It appears you responded to my comment without reading it.
This confused individual expresses support for the 1st Amendment freedom of speech and immediately denies defamation, which is speech.
Defamation is immutably constitutional; find a workaround.
Presumably the individuals would need an argument based upon sound rational principles about the importance to the general population of the idea. Perhaps universality of homosexual behavior and how it improves a culture. If not it’s merely personal conduct without general application and requires no mention nor honors.
A guess…
When do you Anonymous turn 13 years old?
Would any nice American ladies like to meet a Mexican man over wine?
I got former girlfriends and a wife who did.
LOL (-:
DustOff,
Right?
Poor annony. Never had a girlfriend, a Gen Z almost 30 incel virgin.
Typical reply for a juvenile eh?
OOOOOOO someone hit a sour spot.
“A sour spot is the least powerful part of an attack hitbox in fighting games, dealing less damage and knockback compared to the “sweet spot.”
Geez dustoff, you sure do have a way with words. Tell us about those two collage degrees you got?
At least DustOff knows the difference between “by,” “buy,” and “bye.”
And, yes, DustOff correctly called you out for your juvenile comment.
Does he really, have you quizzed him? Considering he has two “collage degrees”. How many “collage” degrees do you have? What’s it like being a 75 y/o among kindergarteners? Intellectually challenging I’m assuming.
Considering your juvenile mind is working feverishly to conjure up juvenile insults, that would then be correct assumption. You silly child. Sticks and stones may break my bones…
Isn’t all this insulting rather taxing on you, considering you’re the blog intellectual, its taking time from your intellectualizing.
DustOff knows more than you, clearly.
Dont have a use for a college degree. I am doing quite well without one.
Not even close to 75. Got a good friend with a 6 year old. That is about as close to kindergarteners as I get.
I never claimed to be a intellectual. That is just you, projecting in your fits of hate and rage.
HAHAHA. You sure freak out about my medical degrees.
Keep crying. Upstate and me will just smile.
Wait, dustoff says he has medical degrees? Specialty? Brain surgery; did a lobotomy on himself.
Dustoff has medical degrees? He can do self-lobotomies.
I once had a black “teacher” who had been added to the faculty of a private school assure me of her qualifications, saying, “I have went to college!”
The last time I saw my buddy from the same home town, he was being loaded onto a “dustoff” to be taken to the rear 12th Evac Hospital.
Usurping the name “dustoff” constitutes stolen valor.
Whores?
What, you are a pimp?
No ladies here, but a lot of Karens. Will that do?
Does anyone know where an illegal alien can get a job as a butcher? Asking for a friend.
You could run for Alderman in our next city election.
No. They cannot. They are illegal and you should do the right thing and report them to ICE or the local LE/PD.
Are you really as stupid as you sound?
Loyola University newspaper has issued an apology in the wake of the murder of freshman Sheridan Gorman…ostensibly to her accused murderer. The Phoenix was sorry for calling Jose Medina-Medina an “illegal immigrant” instead of a “Rogers Park Resident”…https://t.co/01UFG9ySL8
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 25, 2026
Too bad the Biden admin did not deport him. Sheridan Gorman would be alive today.
Jose Medina-Medina was also arrested for shoplifting by Chicago police but he was released again under Chicago sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration authorities.
If it were not for Biden’s illegals, this woman and many others would be alive today.
And that has what to do the the subject at hand?
Hey dummy, it was a joke.
A core principle of civility is to direct criticism toward the behavior, not the person as a whole. Since around 2010, with the advent of unedited “anyone-can-publish” social media, we’ve seen this principle wither away. Its demise is complete in the leftist style of political oppo-branding (while only some on the right stoop to ad-hominem attack).
Note how this Finnish MP Räsänen is calling out homosexual behavior, but is careful not to denounce the persons engaging in it. I suspect that distinction made all the difference in her being acquitted on the first two occasions.
I’m pretty sure the way these hate speech laws are written, respectful criticism meted out with civility is still protected speech. They draw the line at blanket denunciation of the person or group.
Note how 3 out of 5 Finnish Supreme Court judges convicted her for her “derogatory towards homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.” The quote is the tell. Their mental mistake is to oppo-brand civil criticism as having crossed the line into incivility — as if there is no difference anymore. The 2 Judges who voted to uphold the acquittal (if my analysis is correct) have not forsaken the principle of civility, and can still recognize it when they see it.
This case, with its 2 acquittals and narrow 3:2 conviction at the Supreme Court reveals that not all Europeans are leftist lunatics when it comes to speech standards. The fanatics are slowly being isolated, and their radical policies will not stand the test if time. It’s important not to paint all Europeans with a broad brush of denigration.
Mental mistake? How did you derive that, considering Finnish law is different than US law.
“not all Europeans are leftist lunatics when it comes to speech standards. ” But, but, but everyone here sez they’re morons and sickos. Who to believe?
Is it sick to stand up for civility? Is doing that a march toward authoritarianism? It can’t be.
Note in the heading links of this website, there is posted a Civility Rule (which isn’t enforced except in the most
obnoxious cases).
I’m assuming a free society cannot endure over the long haul if its cohesion evaporates into warring camps, each with their own realities, and having only distrust and hatred toward the other camp. The philosophy of elocution going back millennia demands civility, and inculcating youth to learn and practice it when speaking in public. This is understood as necessary to upholding a community’s social glue, which correlates with its survival.
The hate speech laws adopted in Europe would not have passed if they were designed by lefties to attack and punish their perceived enemies. They passed because a majority saw a creeping incivility (with the advent of the open web and social media), and with it factions forming reminiscent of Germany and Italy in the 1930s.
The goal of hate speech law was to curb the unhinged rants demonizing one’s opponents, and give some legal oomph to civility and mutual respect (when expressing yourself in public). To me, that is a sane and responsible policy direction — albeit admittedly teacherous to enforce because there is no clear red line where civility breaks off into incivility. It’s a “you know it when you see it” thing, as our Supreme Court observed in wanting to define indecency.
That said, just throwing up our hands and saying “we’ll accept incivility — and indecency — because we can’t precisely define them — that’s casting off morality as too nebulous. It bodes poorly for the future of society.
Notice what the court actually wrote: “ In a statement, the Court declared that “Räsänen’s statements were in this way derogatory towards homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation.” Their conclusion, which was based on their assumption of Rasanen’s intent, is incorrect. Her comment is based on the scripture and the plain reading of it.
So, scripture trumps law, you’re saying?
In Finland, the law under the constitution is free speech prevails, as honest lawyer mostly points out above. But the Finnish Supreme Court refused to enforce it, in an apparent act of raw judicial power.
Refused? How do yo know that? Are you fluent in Finnish?
The MP made a common mistake in reading Romans. Read in context, abandoning straight sex and engaging in homosexual acts was PUNISHMENT for bad behavior, specifically their failute to qorship the one true God. Instead, they worshipped idols. They were NOT punished FOR same-sex sex.
At most, Romans says same-sex sex is unnatural, weird.
the left are fascists
either fight them now…or wait for WWIII
Fascists? How so? The Finnish Supreme Court adjudicated the case. Fascist countries don’t have courts.
“Fascist countries don’t have courts.”
Both fascist Italy and fascist Germany had courts.
Stick to ankle-biting. You make less of a fool of yourself.
But the article was about Finland… so all countries with courts are fascists, is what you’re saying?
IT and DE had courts? Okay. The USA has courts? That makes it fascist right? Got it.
One of the major things that was missed in the discussion is they apparently have no concept of double jeopardy since she was acquitted twice but then convicted by the Supreme Court. So I suppose the government gets to keep charging you till they get a conviction. Sort of similar to the law in New York except there just throw every law they can at you and hope for something to stick.
Unless of course you are one of the protected species.
I think the Trump administration should maintain one outlet for the Voice of America, place it in Zurich and broadcast all over Europe that free speech is alive and well in the U.S. and we would welcome them to come here. You might have to battle a little bit that’s ok.
You’re applying US legal concepts to a foreign country. Apart from you not speaking Finnish, you have no Finnish legal qualifications. Do you get that?
What does VOA have to do with the Finnish case?
Rocket scientists such as yourself should try to show some intellectual mercy to the rest of us rubes
And you (Anonymous 8:33am) consistently publish without a brain but we agree you still have the right to speak, gibberish that it is. Since you want to speak about moral equivalency then I feel that lack of double jeopardy in a constitution basically invalidates a right to trial (by jury or otherwise) if the state can just keep charging you until they get the judgement they want.
Since we are talking about FINLAND I won’t use a baseball analogy of 3 strikes and you are out and instead ask how many free kicks do you get after a foul (fut bol or soccer) which I believe is only 1. One would surmise that fut bol has more finality than a not quilty verdict. This is not the Napoleonic Code is it?
Unfortunately, VOA has become a mouthpiece for the woke and ideology of the globalists. Not sure if Kari Lake has been able to make any strides in ridding the woke propaganda coming from VOA.
VOA, NPR, PBS, etc., are all in the liberal camp, yet they rely on us for financial support to let them spew their ideology. I stopped watching PBS and listening to NPR a long time ago. Glad we have Trump and conservatives to call out their one-sided view of reality.
phantomboldly,
And what a slanted view of reality it is, where a biological male can invade women’s bath rooms, locker rooms, sports, taking away medals, records even scholarships from real women.
Explain how you transitioned from VOA etc. to transsexuals in sports please?
“I stopped watching PBS and listening to NPR ..” So, what do you listen to now? the demons in your head?
Land of the Vikings! Kill’em first then apologize a few decades later – the woke population of now pacifists are doing a better job of becoming communist than Stalin or Putin could have hoped for! Excellent work by the comrades on the ‘Supreme’ Illuminati Court!
“Land of the Vikings” is not a single country but refers to the Scandinavian region comprising today’s Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, which were the historical homelands of the Vikings.
No mention of Finland.
Would be interesting to know what the Finnish people think of that case? Turley, you are the typical ignorant American pushing your deranged ideology on a people with different values.
I was thinking the same thing about you . . .being a typical ignorant American. Try flame throwing your thoughts for us “ignorant” Americans.
Offended? Why? Your comments reflect ignorance as well as stupidity. Not my fault you’re atypically ignorant American, which you readily acknowledged.
I want to eat a gringo.
Today’s special: $3.75 a pound.
“Today’s special: $3.75 a pound.”
$50/lb in two years of the left gets their way. Supply (scarcity) and demand..
Fascism has a long tradition in Europe, and Democrats are trying to impose it in the United States. Of course, if the opposition to homosexuality was couched as “Islamic” beliefs, she would have been just fine. European Fascists are afraid of offending Muslims. They know that Christians do not fight back.
So says the fascist… how you arrived at “Islamic” beliefs is quite the leap considering its not a factor in the story.
the left are backed by enemies of the west, to DESTROY the west
men in women sports
massive money printing
fascism
LGBTQ, etc…which GOAL is to END the production of children!
Drugs
importation of illegals from the 3rd world
releasing criminals
And many on the left have no idea HOW BRAIN WASHED THEY ARE!
The right wants small government and freedom
The left want absolute central power to DESTROY all others
The left claim the right are fascists…because they are 100% hypocrite Morons!
Is there a point some where in that nonsense?
What troubles me most in this case is not only the conviction itself, but the obvious asymmetry it reveals in how “hate” and “harm” are now being defined and enforced.
If a Christian cites Scripture and articulates a traditional moral judgment about homosexual conduct, that expression is treated as an actionable injury to a protected group. If, however, a speaker attacks Christianity, condemns Christian doctrine as bigotry, or ridicules believers for holding those same moral views, there is no corresponding impulse to prosecute. One set of consciences is commanded to be silent in the name of tolerance. The other set is effectively licensed to denounce, so long as its denunciation tracks the prevailing orthodoxy.
That is not neutral application of a speech standard. It is viewpoint discrimination dressed up as protection of human dignity. A legal regime that punishes citizens for expressing long standing religious doctrine, while shrugging at equally harsh attacks on the faith itself, has ceased to be an honest referee. It has become an active participant in deciding which convictions are permissible and which are forbidden. That is precisely why some of us see these “hate speech” prosecutions as a direct attack on both free expression and freedom of conscience, not as a measured effort to prevent violence or genuine incitement.
You got any sources for that diatribe?
BTW, you miss the main factor of the story… its takes place in Finland not in your deluded mind. Other cultures, other values.
You’re so stunted in your thinking, that you believe the entire world must think like you.
Does your mommy know you’re on this blog 10 hours a day?
Diatribe, deluded mind? You must have not done well in English and speech while in high school. Casting aspersions to others with whom you disagree is a sign of anger waiting to explode. Lighten up Bud!!
And your comments reflect serenity and bliss?
What’s wrong with criticism, ego can’t take it?
Anonymous, I’ll separate all these words into paragraphs to aid in your reading comprehension challenges. Good luck.
My “source” is not a private ideology. It is the same statement of first principles that framed our own constitutional order. The Declaration of Independence grounds legitimate government in the pre‑political truth that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure those rights, not to manufacture or revoke them as a matter of taste. That claim is expressly offered to “a candid world” as applying to mankind, not as one culture’s parochial preference.
On that understanding, when any government, Finnish or American, punishes peaceful expression of religious conviction because some hearers find it “insulting,” it is not merely reflecting “other values.” It is abandoning the very purpose that justifies government in the first place.
The cautionary tale here is that across much of Europe, “hate speech” regimes are migrating from the punishment of direct threats and incitement into the policing of doctrinal boundaries, and international bodies are eager to present that model as a global norm. The pressure will be for the United States to “harmonize” its speech law with those standards.
In my view, the better course is the reverse: the natural‑rights framework articulated in the Declaration, and embodied in our First Amendment, should be the line we hold, not the next domino to fall.
OLLY,
Well said.
Let this case and others we have seen coming out of the UK and EU be fair warning to us all.
Warning? How’s that? Give us you’re intellectual insight please.
you’re asking him to show how limited his brain is.
How 2% has such power to control the Western world is beyond my understanding. Be nice to everyone but if I want to critize anybody such as Germans or Chinese or Egyptians then that should be my right. The same thing for Homosexuals, Trans gender or Christian Nationals or Muslims.
To criticize other people’s religions is “your right”? It’s not. If you do, then are you willing to accept the consequences?
Hey Anonymous, I thought maybe we wouldn’t hear from you and then I realized I was mistaken, today isn’t No Dinks Day.
I thought maybe we wouldn’t hear from you and then I realized I was mistaken, today isn’t No Drunks Day on the blog. My bad.