There is a very interesting interview of the webpage’s creator (in greek), it should be easy to get this subtitled: http://youtu.be/ZpTwuJpehAE

A person who intended to cause trouble found what they were looking for.  How ’bout that.

This, along with “She was asking for it,” and “if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about” makes up the authoritarian litany.  You’d make a great cop.

The ONLY point of insulting other people’s religions, values, families, countries, tribes, etc. other than to make one’s self appear in some way superior is, quite simply, to cause trouble.

Simply false.  When I “insult” people’s religions, values, families, countries, or tribes I am always doing so in the service of making some larger point, not simply to stir shit.  For example, when I point out that the Catholic church is a criminal organization it’s because I actually think it is a criminal organization and this needs to be pointed out, especially considering the amount of temporal power and wealth possessed by that institution.  Likewise, when I “insult” someone’s values it’s because I think they are bad values and should be reconsidered.

Let me guess: you’re a Mormon.

Pasta is what the FSM is made of — you can tell by the meatballs.

Venn Diagram:

{  boiled tubes of flour  { pasta { spaghetti } } }

So let’s see… Your argument was “hate speech laws can be used to stifle valid speech, so we shouldn’t have hate speech laws.” I show that other laws, which have nothing to do with hate speech, can be used in the same way. So which are you going to do? Object to all laws that can be abused to stifle valid speech, or try and find a more relevant objection to hate speech legislation?

And that’s even without going into how he conducted himself during his trial…

Do I have the right to tell the government to arrest anyone who tells me that I am going to Hell for not being saved? I find that highly offensive and this is something that they find their duty to tell me.

I would think that a Greek would have the right to criticize the Greek religious power structure in any way he or she wishes.  Certainly my father in law has no hesitation in his vehement disapproval of the Ortho church structure and abuses of power.  Ditto my wife (not religious but baptized Ortho Greek). 

There are some reasonable limitations on free speech, but they necessarily must be extremely rare.  Specifically inciting violence against an individual or group is a good example.  Uttering/publishing a threat of violence is another. It is not someone’s right to demand or encourage my death for any reason.  But people have as much right as they want to make fun of me or anyone else – which is what the Pastafarians are doing.

Certainly, there are consequences for actions. But that doesn’t mean the perpetrator of those consequences is in the right. I mean, not if you want to call it civilized.

No state should be validating violent and opresive responses to percieved insults by granting those people special rights not to be insulted. How you deal with an insult proves what kind of a person you are. Do you deal with it more speach? To prove the other person wrong? Congratulations, you now are now mature enough to be a part of modern society. Do you respond to words with violence? Sorry, you’re not ready to enter the real world, you need to grow up.