KruzeS said:
I never said they were infallible. I just said the offense mattered more than the legal issue, and that you people are taking this out of proportion. You tell me I'm outright lying, then you quote the precise article I'm talking about. So yes, I am telling you your first quote may very well not be a legal comment. If I wanted to go and make a sketch of the cathedral or a 3D model (and I actually have worked with church models in research papers), I'd ask for permission, because I think that's the polite thing to do. They stated Sony hadn't asked for permission, not that Sony needed permission, you see? But we could go ad eternum with this, when it's just obvious we'll disagree, so let's just agree to that, instead of you going on record saying I'm but a lier defending a bunch of idiots.
Beyond that, and about me thinking you're atacking religion, just look at Blue's post to see where I'm coming from. It's funny, I laughed actually. But people are making it so this is about religion. And I'm not even a very religious guy, I just don't see it as a bad thing - specially when what they want is money and recognition for an anti-gun program. |
Nevermind half my comments. I confused your comments with a guy above you. My bad. He was the one who thougt we were attacking religion, when we attacked the New York mayors for comments just as dumb, and they had nothing to do with religion.
As for the offense, we're not discussing how offended they are. The OP is cleary discussing the likely outcome of any legal action, which is a hypothetical, so saying it's just being considered is irrelevant, since this is, again, a hypothetical situation.
So comments on the legality are what's relevant here, and offense just doesn't really fly in common law.*
*It may get people fired from jobs, but those people can sue if they are fired unfairly.
