I think it's offensive, and I would like to not see things like that pop up in my stream.
Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such. It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
I find a lot of religious imagery horribly offensive.
Also a lot of right wing politicians. Republicans for example. Actually most Democrats too - I'm not American.
And political statements against meat eaters - I want my steaks, and I want them bloody.
I can go on. I'd rather not see any of the above pop up in my stream.
At the same time, if the choice is between having to see them in my stream or having censorship, I'll tolerate seeing them in my stream. Together with people giving me the finger.
IANAL, but I think your #1 and #2 do apply most of the time for anything that can be seen in the public. Defamation of people's religions in a dis-respectful way is generally unlawful (though maybe not illegal). The act of giving someone the finger is generally regarded as a sign of violence.
You might have more liberal views than me, but I do think it's a violent gesture. I get the point you're trying to make, but I simply disagree that for this specific case, this should be something that is generally acceptable in a public social network with 13+ year olds on it.
"Defamation of people's religions" falls squarely under free speech in any country that has it. And if you consider "defamation of religion" a "violent gesture", consider re-examining your values. The attitudes you suggest would fit right in in countries still ruled by religious bodies, but they have no place in in civilized societies. (Any country that still places restrictions on speech, or intertwines religion and government, hasn't quite figured out "civilized" yet.)
Also, "unlawful" and "illegal" mean the same thing.
Now, I'd absolutely agree that defamation of religion can potentially offend people. And I suspect that if someone had a profile picture that defamed someone's religion, Google would remove that one too, because they want to keep profile pictures inoffensive to most of their target audience. That does not make such images illegal, though.
For that matter, promotion of religion can potentially offend people, but I doubt Google would remove profile pictures with overtly religious messages, because they don't particularly care about the small number of people offended, and they don't want the massive backlash from religious people, whose ability to stir up angry mobs has only grown with modern technology. (Oops, I've defamed religion there.)
Google could also choose to delete all profile pictures that contained the color red because they don't fit a preferred color scheme. If they did so, they'd attract quite a lot of complaints and ridicule, but they certainly have the right to do it.
> Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such.
I find your post offensive, but I'd never suggest that you shouldn't have the right to post it. (Hacker News would certainly have every right to delete it if they wanted, but I'd find that even more offensive.)
> It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
Speaking of offensive, you just implied that at least three out of ten men would find that an acceptable outcome. I understand the point I hope you meant there ("majority rule" has serious problems if you don't preserve fundamental rights), but you picked a truly awful way to express it.
Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such. It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.