If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Freedom of speech vs. offensive language
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I was watching the news this morning about the opening of a gay school in NY and as expected there were a few idiots protesting outside with placards reading 'God hates gays' and other slogans.
And while those particular slogans are not too bad, at the recent ordination of a gay bishop also in the US there were a few more idiots, two of which were carrying placards reading 'AIDS is the cure'.
Now I'm pretty sure that if those people did something like that in Britain they would be promptly arrested for inciting hatred and homophobia (and if it were to me I'd do rather more to them than just arrest them). Obviously there is a line between freedom of speech and offensive or hateful language, and we seem to draw the line at an earlier stage than the Americans.
So who's got it right? Is it possible to strike a perfect balance between allowing freedom of speech and protecting individuals from hatred and defamatory messages? Do you think that messages such as 'AIDS is the cure' targeting gay people should be allowed?
And while those particular slogans are not too bad, at the recent ordination of a gay bishop also in the US there were a few more idiots, two of which were carrying placards reading 'AIDS is the cure'.
Now I'm pretty sure that if those people did something like that in Britain they would be promptly arrested for inciting hatred and homophobia (and if it were to me I'd do rather more to them than just arrest them). Obviously there is a line between freedom of speech and offensive or hateful language, and we seem to draw the line at an earlier stage than the Americans.
So who's got it right? Is it possible to strike a perfect balance between allowing freedom of speech and protecting individuals from hatred and defamatory messages? Do you think that messages such as 'AIDS is the cure' targeting gay people should be allowed?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
If only to show how ridiculous these people are.
Surely the best way of adressing these, and the racists, is to allow them to expose their true nonsense...
I'm not sure that a school for gays is a good idea but that is a seperate issue.
So my opinion on this is that if they think 'AIDS is God's cure to homosexuality' then they'd better fucking keep it to themselves instead of picketing schools or even funerals of homosexual people (as they've been known to do), if they don't wish to spend a few months eating porridge.
Surely the right not to be deeply insulted and offended outweighs the right to speak what one wants?
Agreed :yes:
some people could do with bearing that in mind on these boards too, perhaps :chin:
And you are convinced that you are.
What makes your opinion more worthy of being heard than theirs?
How offended would you be if I told you that you couldn't say what you thought?
Whether we like it or not we have rules regarding respect for others and what is considered acceptable or not.
Nazis were/are convinced the Aryan race is superior to others. Many are also convinced the Jewish race was so worthless it was justified to exterminate it.
Yet we wouldn't allow anyone voice their opinion in public that certain races are inferior to others and should be exterminated.
So while I respect other people's right to an opinion, we all know- or should know- where the boundaries are. And in cases such as Nazis saying some races should be exterminated or Christian fundamentalists claiming a terrible disease is God's cure to the homosexual 'illness', I do indeed claim the moral high ground and categorically state my opinion is more worthy to be heard than theirs- or rather, that their opinion is not worthy of being heard whatsoever.
Is that too hard to understand? Many things 'offend' me yet I don't seek to censor them (offence is wholly subjective).
i would challenge them to show how that statement is bible-based and mature Christian thinking.
if someone is a fundamentalist/literalist then they will know that the word, term or theory of HIV/AIDS does not appear in the Bible, not even the modern versions, so this statement is based on their own prejudice and not "biblical fact".
God's cure for HIV is actually prevention - the teachings in the Bible are about sexual conduct not being of a "promiscuous" nature
it is also very hypocritical Christian behaviour, where the behaviour of a few gives the wrong impression of many.
unfortunately the more extreme or set-in -their-ways someone becomes in their views and opinions the less likely it is they will be reasonable.
No we don't, we have rules against inciting hatred. Neither of those slogans do that, neither says that they should be killed (for example)...
That isn't what they are doing. Neither suggests that we, as mortals, should take matters into our own hands. Each suggests that God will act.
Seeing as you don't believe in the "supreme being" (unless you count Zidane of course) then just who do you think they are inciting?
But who are you to decide that, surely they would agrue that your opinion is of no basis and shouldn't be heard.
As hobbs says, the best way to counter their claims is to argue them, not drive them underground.
No it does not. Being 'offended' doesn't violate anybody's rights.
If this person started to post notices on the walls and announcing in the PA system to all the staff that you are 'a fucking c*nt' on a daily basis surely you would not put up with it, and would demand he stops.
The point being that whereas everybody is entitled to an opinion there are limits and boundaries of what is acceptable. Would anyone think this man's right of free speech was being violated because he's been told he cannot tell the world you are 'a fucking c*nt'?
No they wouldn't, because they would agree such name-calling to be outside the boundaries of freedom of speech.
The trick of course is who establishes where the line is drawn. What I'm saying is that in my view, and I believe in the view of most decent people, picketing events where gay people are present and telling them AIDS is the cure to the homosexual disease is simply unacceptable. Freedom of speech goes out of the window when you start behaving like a total tosser.
short version
freedom of speech goes hand in hand with respect - those that show no respect to other people they share this planet with waive their right to freedom of speach
ah the short version of the short version (and it still makes sense)
If they can back up wholly what their opinion is and listen to both sides well then they should be entitled to it. In fact one thing that's stuck with me that somebody said (and ironically it was a drunk lesbian):
"The only person you have to live with 24/7 is yourself, so live your life trying to impress others?"
But then at the same time, hate crimes... well that's another ball game.
Precisely. And I would have thought that going to the funeral of a homosexual person with placards reading 'God hates f*gg*ts' or 'You will burn in hell' is as big a show of disrespect as there can be.
All I can say is that I am very glad that such things would not be allowed in this country. In cases like this "freedom of speech" can go to hell.
that the fact these silly statements those idiots over the atlantic come out with about homosexuality, just shows how stupid they truly are, so in a way its a good thing, beause when things are stopped legally, they just go underground
hmm about the gay school issue, you can see why it was set up, to stop people being harassed in school about it, but still, people in schools just use anything against the people they pick on, they just use any physical/personality trait against people, i was picked on over my bloodt freckles at one point, till i hit the guy and it suddenly stopped, not saying violence works, but neither does complete segregation,obviously people TEND to group up with those who have similar beliefs/lifestyles but completly seperating groups more causes more misunderstanding and causes a deep rooted competition between the groups which can lead to true hatred, just for the sake of it
anyway i dont want a debate on the gay school issue
but i think people should be allowed to express their views, because it exposes the flaws in the argument, and allows you to challenge their views, hence which leaves a transparent society
hmm this sounds like a silly comment, but if anyone seen south park? because as they say when trying get cartman outta prison for hate crimes cause he chucked a stone at a black kid cause the kid was annyoing him, ARENT ALL CRIMES HATE CRIMES since they show a complete hate and disrepect for fellow humans?
The fact is you will never 'win' an argument with such people or convince them that there is such a thing as decency or respect for others. I don't care if they go 'underground'. They must learn that their fundamentalist views don't apply to society, and that if they choose to cross the line and insult and offend others instead of keeping to themselves they will pay the price.
I put it to anyone of you that if you had a loved one, say your brother, who died of AIDS and a group of homophobic god-botherers picketed the funeral with placards saying ‘AIDS is the cure’ or ‘Gays will burn in Hell’, you’d be the first ones to kick their heads in. And rightly so.
Sometimes with whatever beleif you have you should just bite your tongue and keep it to yourself because some of the statements like Aladdin posted are disgraceful and should never be said.
So yes they maybe allowed these opinions of someone, but they should just keep it to themselves.
Respect is earned, not bestowed.
I know someone else who says this a lot. I would argue that there are different degrees of repsect, and that there is a benchmark we should really all try to adhere to.
Perhaps you will remember those words, the next time you or the collaborator run out your "trailer-park" rhetoric...
Perhaps in return you would consider not using the word 'traitor' any more when talking to people who dare to criticise their governments? Firstly because 'traitor' is a far more offensive word IMO, and secondly because it's a load of bollocks of course. If anyone must be called a traitor, the word is better suited for those who are happy to send US soldiers to their deaths so the President and his corrupt cabinet can fill their pockets with petro-dollars. But that is another argument altogether.
It's fact.
NO PERSON will respect you out of duty. IT MUST be earned.
You give people you don't know "credit"- for want of a better word- and respect them. If their actions merit disrespect, then your respect for them decreases.
Unless you are suggesting it's okay to insult and abuse perfect strangers on the bus until they can prove they deserve your respect. :rolleyes:
NO ONE has to like you or respect you.