Where freedom of expression should end

BillieTheBot

Here, for instance

Frankly, if you are burying your dead soldier or gay son and suddenly some cunts turn up at the funeral with placards reading "Thank God for 9/11/Iraq war"/ "God hates faggots", I think that far from them having a 'right' to express such things it should be your right to kick them repeatedly in the face until it is a bloody mess, and then have them jailed on charges of general cuntiness.

But that's just undemocratic me...

Former Member

you have freedom of expression

but not freedom from the consequences it may cause

Former Member

Not that I disagree with the general sentiments, but would you also support people beating the shit out of those wearing 'Jesus is a cunt' t-shirts? Either we can all be offensive to others or no-one can.

Former Member

as i said, every one should have the freedom to free speech, but nobody is exempt from its consequences

Former Member

That's not ok but a t-shirt that says "Jesus is a cunt" is?

Former Member

I quite agree.

That is the difference between being offensive and being abusive and threatening.

Saying that God hates fags is offensive, but not directly abusive. Doing it at a gay man's funeral is directly abusive. It's a very easy distinction to make, really.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Not that I disagree with the general sentiments, but would you also support people beating the shit out of those wearing 'Jesus is a cunt' t-shirts? Either we can all be offensive to others or no-one can.

Jesus or his immediate family would probably be justified in doing so. Especially if someone had turned up at the crucifixition with such a t-shirt.

I'm sorry, to show up at a funeral with that kind of sick shit is simply beyond 'freedom'. It shouldn't be allowed. And the perpetrators should be punished by law- or at least, the family of the deceased should be allowed to kick seven shades of shit out of the knuckle draggers without fear of being prosecuted for it.

Former Member

I, as a christian and as a member of Jesus' immediate family, am not hugely bothered by aformentioned t-shirt. But I saw comments that stated to the effect of "if you are bothered suck it up and deal with it", I put it to you that those signs are in the same catagory, either it's ok to be racist and religiously inflamatory, or it's not.

Violence is another matter.

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote:

I put it to you that those signs are in the same catagory, either it's ok to be racist and religiously inflamatory, or it's not.

YOu're completely and totally missing the point.

If the bloke had gone into St Winifred's wearing that T-shirt then it would be abusive. Simply wearing it in the street is offensive, and that is not enough to impose a serious criminal sanction on somebody.

I'll put it this way: me wearing a T-shirt saying Blair is a cunt is not abusive, it is offensive. But if I went to his kid's funeral wearing it it would be abusive, and I would- rightly- be punished for it.

Former Member

I think I'm exactly hitting the point actually, and that you sir are being pendantic. Why is it suddenly abusive instead of offensive just because of where you are? Because you excused one and condemn the other?

Former Member

It's not pedantry, it is common sense.

If something is directly targeted at a person, and that person is there, then it is abusive, threatening, and morally wrong. Calling a dead person a cunt does not qualify as that, but you could make an argument for it if you did it at his fan club's HQ.

Teh_Gerbil

It's taking it too far here.

I've always loved how these people are usually violent towards Gays, but gays are not violent in return.

Shows one lot is a far better member of society than the other, no?

Former Member

Yes. But that will be of little comfort to the family of the deceased.

There is something particularly repugnant about a bunch of fundmentalist bigoted cunts going to a funeral of a gay person with such disgusting placards.

I don't know if that would ever happen here... I can only hope that if it did the perpetrators would be immediately arrested for breach of the peace- or any other charge for that matter.

Indrid Cold

Kermit wrote:

If something is directly targeted at a person, and that person is there, then it is abusive, threatening, and morally wrong. Calling a dead person a cunt does not qualify as that, but you could make an argument for it if you did it at his fan club's HQ.

So it's ok for me to shout "Jack is an asshole" as long as Jack isn't around?

I agree with you actually, holding this kind of placard there was totally wrong. But I don't think that's the reason it was wrong, it just doesn't feel right to me.

Former Member

Zalbor wrote:

So it's ok for me to shout "Jack is an asshole" as long as Jack isn't around?

I agree with you actually, holding this kind of placard there was totally wrong. But I don't think that's the reason it was wrong, it just doesn't feel right to me.

theres a difference between telling someone what you think of someone or leaving a passive message, but going to someones funeral to say 'shame on you' isn't that

eta i must add though i dont think they should be prosecuted, they deserve a good 'fuck off' and tradional middle 2 fingers up

Indrid Cold

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

theres a difference between telling someone what you think of someone or leaving a passive message, but going to someones funeral to say 'shame on you' isn't that

Yes, this sounds correct.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

It's not pedantry, it is common sense.

If something is directly targeted at a person, and that person is there, then it is abusive, threatening, and morally wrong. Calling a dead person a cunt does not qualify as that, but you could make an argument for it if you did it at his fan club's HQ.

a·bu·sive (ə-byū'sĭv, -zĭv)
adj.
1.Characterized by improper or wrongful use: abusive utilization of public funds.
2.Using or containing insulting or coarse language: finally reprimanded the abusive colleague.
3.Causing physical injury to another: abusive punishment.
4.Relating to or practicing sexual abuse.

Fuck George Bush.

It appears i'm being abusive.

Former Member

But it's up to George Bush to complain. Not random people.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

But it's up to George Bush to complain. Not random people.

I wasn't trying to imply what constitutes an act that needs repremanding. I don't think anyone has managed to tie that down in this thread yet. I was trying to point out that the offensive / abusive stance doesn't really hold water as it appears it's not as clear cut as that.

Former Member

someday those guys are gonna pull that nonsense in the wrong company and end up bleeding in the hospital. I wont be crying any. :mad:

they have the right to flash those signs round if they want, but they ought to have the dignity to not disrespect a dead soldier.

can you imagine the outcry from the media if it were a bunch of anti-war protesters?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Here, for instance

Frankly, if you are burying your dead soldier or gay son and suddenly some cunts turn up at the funeral with placards reading "Thank God for 9/11/Iraq war"/ "God hates faggots", I think that far from them having a 'right' to express such things it should be your right to kick them repeatedly in the face until it is a bloody mess, and then have them jailed on charges of general cuntiness.

But that's just undemocratic me...

I agree, that is completely uncalled for!! can you imagine! i would go completely insane if that happened to me! like if it was my brother or something!!

Former Member

There should be no limits to freedom of expression.

Former Member

kyck-hater wrote:

There should be no limits to freedom of expression.

none at all?

Former Member

freedom of speech should end when it becomes untollerable for society at large, and and a vast majority do not only find it offencive they find it upsetting, unjust, unprevoced, and uncalled for and that it is widly disaggreed. but i do think that more people need thicker skin and need to put up. If a gay person has a problem with that "aids cures fags" sign- i do i think it's sick personaly-, they should have the right to go and tell them that they are cunts for thinking that, and that their god is obviously a sick and perverted bastard if thats what his people have to believe.

Former Member

Freedom of expression should stop when it involves defamation of character or preaching hate. There are several ways you can express your point of view whilst being tactful and smart about it.

Former Member

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Freedom of expression should stop when it involves defamation of character or preaching hate. There are several ways you can express your point of view whilst being tactful and smart about it.

what if your point of view is hatefull? I mean is it right to censor racists?

Former Member

I think there's a difference between expressing you disapproval for a certain individual or group based on their beliefs and/or actions, and doing the same based on something which cannot be changed such as their race, sex or sexuality.

It would be more acceptable for these people to hold banners along the lines of "God hates gay sex" since this is an opinion about a particular action and the people that partake in it (the same as "God hates sex outside marriage"). But they are essentially discriminating against a group of people because they are gay, rather than because they believe a certain thing, or act in a certain way.

This is why protesting against a certain set of religious beliefs is more acceptable. Of course, you can get to a situation where the religious beliefs no longer have anything to do with, and you've got to ask yourself where religion ends and race begins. A lot of people seem to be a member of a religion, without necessarily agreeing with all of the views that they are supposed to. It seems to be more of a culture than a belief system.

Of course homophobia is still a bit of a grey area, because even though there is now a lot of evidence to suggest that being gay is genetic to some extent, it is not yet conclusive, and some people still see it as a lifestyle choice and therefore, a worthy target.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote:

there is now a lot of evidence to suggest that being gay is genetic to some extent

Care to quote any of this evidence?

Former Member

Not really, since I know it'll just turn this thread off topic. But just for you, this seems to be the most recent study.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Not really, since I know it'll just turn this thread off topic. But just for you, this seems to be the most recent study.

I'm sure I won't have to lecture you about the difference between correlation and causation, but you will notice that the genes haven't been identified, and the scientists have no clue which genes may or may not be responsible.

So whilst I'll accept the possibility of a genetic element in homosexuality, I can't accept your assertion of there being "a lot of evidence" to show it.

Former Member

Yes racists should have the right to freedom of expression, because it's alot easier to prove them wrong, rather than driving them underground.

I'm not of the view that there should be no limits to freedom of expression - there does need to be a line drawn somewhere, but it seems to me that those placards were being...provocative for the sake of being provocative, and therefore getting the reaction they obviously wanted in the first place.