Daily Fail

[Thoob]

I am starting to think that people on the internet are prejudiced towards Christians.

I am starting to think that you are prejudiced towards homosexuals.

 

[Pliskron]

The hypocrisy of this blog is so blatant it's comical. The left always wants to shut down the side they don't agree with. I think that the view that homosexuality is a sin is a valid religions based point of view and they are entitled to it. That point of view doesn't scare me and I don't agree with it. I think the people trying to shut this man's speech down are far more dangerous than some old kooky guy. I'd much rather have freedom and put up with the occasional nut than have a group of bureaucrats arbitrarily decide what speech I'm entitled to. What happened to all the liberals who defended freedom of speech even if it was speech they didn't like. Now I'd be right with you if a bunch of religions people wanted to pass legislation to limit the civil liberty's of homosexuals but the left are the persecutors in this one that are trampling civil rights.

 

[thegame07]

The hypocrisy of this blog is so blatant it's comical. The left always wants to shut down the side they don't agree with. I think that the view that homosexuality is a sin is a valid religions based point of view and they are entitled to it. That point of view doesn't scare me and I don't agree with it. I think the people trying to shut this man's speech down are far more dangerous than some old kooky guy. I'd much rather have freedom and put up with the occasional nut than have a group of bureaucrats arbitrarily decide what speech I'm entitled to. What happened to all the liberals who defended freedom of speech even if it was speech they didn't like. Now I'd be right with you if a bunch of religions people wanted to pass legislation to limit the civil liberty's of homosexuals but the left are the persecutors in this one that are trampling civil rights.

There is freedom of speech and taking it to far. Nobody wants to hear hate speech! So your point of view it's ok to be a racist/homophobic/bigot and shout your hate speech in the middle of a street because of "freedom of speech" Let's leave the KKK alone it's their point of view? I'm afraid freedom of speech shouldn't count when it comes to hate speech.

I know you don't agree with it but saying it's their freedom to speak the bs they spread is just wrong in my eyes.

 

[TrolleyDave]

The hypocrisy of this blog is so blatant it's comical. The left always wants to shut down the side they don't agree with. I think that the view that homosexuality is a sin is a valid religions based point of view and they are entitled to it. That point of view doesn't scare me and I don't agree with it. I think the people trying to shut this man's speech down are far more dangerous than some old kooky guy. I'd much rather have freedom and put up with the occasional nut than have a group of bureaucrats arbitrarily decide what speech I'm entitled to. What happened to all the liberals who defended freedom of speech even if it was speech they didn't like. Now I'd be right with you if a bunch of religions people wanted to pass legislation to limit the civil liberty's of homosexuals but the left are the persecutors in this one that are trampling civil rights.

Just as I find the hypocrisy of your post to somewhat comedic. I would more than gladly defend his right to speak his religious belief, but should the view go unopposed by those that oppose it? After all free speech was born from people deciding that the common public should have the right to speak out against ideologies and leaders that they believe to oppressive, repressive or hateful. You claim he has the right to say what he wants as it's a valid religious view, yet you say we shouldn't speak against his view even though our views are a valid secular one. As for him being arrested you should study up a bit more on the liberty of free speech, you'll soon find that hate speech isn't defined as free speech.

 

[Pliskron]

I know what you're saying but I don't think that people who think homosexuality is a sin are being hateful. We have the occasional Nazi march in America. About 10 guys who are protested but about 2000 people waiting to kick their asses. No one takes them seriously so it doesn't matter. That system works far better than limiting speech. The proof of it is all the progress homosexuals have been making from marriage rights to serving in the military. We don't need to trample some rights "free speech" to give civil rights to another group. What you see done in the UK is what the Chinese do when they don't like what a dissident says. As far a I'm concerned this man is a dissident who's being persecuted. Now if he was arrested for yelling and being disorderly that's another matter.

 

[Monkee3000]

Some quotes.

'To silence criticism is to silence freedom.'
- Sidney Hook

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

'Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being "pushed to an extreme", not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.'
- John Stuart Mill

'Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.'
- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jamstruth]

The hypocrisy of this blog is so blatant it's comical. The left always wants to shut down the side they don't agree with.

This is not a political left Wing/ Right wing debate Pliskron, me ,you and TrolleyDave have been through that before.

Perhaps arresting him was too far but I still don't think he should have been saying such things. So what if the Bible said homosexuals were evil? The Bible's kinda outdated today. Heck, Jesus completely overrides most of the Old Testament (since he was a direct messenger in a more modern setting) and he is the guy you believe was your Messiah right? Feel free to call me out if Jesus did, in fact, say anything on the subject of homosexuality.

I'm surprised that the Church backed him up as they're supposed to be trying to appeal to as many people they want to and "save" them. Islam I kind of expect but it just strengthens their stereotype of being an intolerant society that severely oppresses many people.

And Sterl, I'm not prejudiced against Christians. I only hate the intolerant ones and especially the ones that believe the Bible entirely literally (no evolution, no Dinosaurs etc.)

 

[TrolleyDave]

The guy preaching in the street could have been arrested for something as simple as not having applied for permission for a street protest. And if you think this is an example of things are done in the UK then you need to actually learn about what goes on in the UK. Have a gander at a movement called the English Defence League, or the protests that we allow Muslims. People in this country are allowed to protest and speak things that they never would be allowed in America. Can you imagine 3000 radical Muslims being given permission to protest in Washington DC saying that the government should be overthrown and Sharia introduced? If you believe the answer is yes then you need to learn a little more about your country and about all the journalists and protesters who've been arrested and jailed for speaking out/protesting against the Middle East invasion.

 

[BeatriceTheGolde]

ENJOY YOUR GRINDAN WAGGLAN INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION ON UR RROD 360 FUCKERS.

 

[Pliskron]

The hypocrisy of this blog is so blatant it's comical. The left always wants to shut down the side they don't agree with. I think that the view that homosexuality is a sin is a valid religions based point of view and they are entitled to it. That point of view doesn't scare me and I don't agree with it. I think the people trying to shut this man's speech down are far more dangerous than some old kooky guy. I'd much rather have freedom and put up with the occasional nut than have a group of bureaucrats arbitrarily decide what speech I'm entitled to. What happened to all the liberals who defended freedom of speech even if it was speech they didn't like. Now I'd be right with you if a bunch of religions people wanted to pass legislation to limit the civil liberty's of homosexuals but the left are the persecutors in this one that are trampling civil rights.

Just as I find the hypocrisy of your post to somewhat comedic. I would more than gladly defend his right to speak his religious belief, but should the view go unopposed by those that oppose it? After all free speech was born from people deciding that the common public should have the right to speak out against ideologies and leaders that they believe to oppressive, repressive or hateful. You claim he has the right to say what he wants as it's a valid religious view, yet you say we shouldn't speak against his view even though our views are a valid secular one. As for him being arrested you should study up a bit more on the liberty of free speech, you'll soon find that hate speech isn't defined as free speech.

Being gay is a sin. Why is that hateful? It's stupid but hateful? Nope, you just want to criminalize speech you don't agree with for political reasons. What if I said being gay is a sin right now? who here would I convince? But you'd strip civil liberty's over something so silly. If I were you I'd protect the rights of the minority because in fifty years with the influx of Muslims you're going to be that minority and the shoe is going to be on the other foot.

 

[Destructobot]

Gah, so much BS, so little patience.

Speech is either free, or it isn't. If you can't say hateful, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted things without being censored, you can't expect to be able to say anything that your particular government dislikes without being censored. You can't have it both ways. Either everyone can say whatever they want, or no one can. You have to defend the assholes' freedom if you want the non-assholes to also have that freedom.

So tell me, because I really don't know. Is there freedom of speech in England? Also, Jesus titty fucking Christ; "APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO PROTEST"? Are you fucking kidding me? You need permission to dissent? Yay for your abundance of liberty.

 

[Pliskron]

Maybe a good citizen should have just punched this obnoxious prick in the head and the police could have look the other way lol

 

[TrolleyDave]

Being gay is a sin. Why is that hateful? It's stupid but hateful? Nope, you just want to criminalize speech you don't agree with for political reasons. What if I said being gay is a sin right now? who here would I convince? But you'd strip civil liberty's over something so silly. If I were you I'd protect the rights of the minority because in fifty years with the influx of Muslims you're going to be that minority and the shoe is going to be on the other foot.

Why is it hateful? It's hateful because by accepting the view from that it's a sin you're also accepting the view that the punishment for that sin is acceptable. Do you know what the punishment for homosexuality is in the Bible? And if you think I want to criminalise speech then you know very little about me. I defend the BNP's right to a platform to speak. They're a group that I find disdainful, loathsome and disturbing. My view is that it's up to the common decent people to speak out against them in protest using intelligence and truth.

As for the whole Muslims becoming a majority thing, please don't rehash easily debunkable right-wing Christian propaganda. The far right have been pushing that kind nonsense since the British borders were opened up to immigration. Originally in the 60's it was West Indians who were going to overload Britain and White people be a minority, then it was Indians in the 70's, then Pakistanis in the 80's and now Muslims. All using the exact same demographics and birth rates arguments. Plus, the British bill and law making procedure is set up in such a way that it would be nigh on impossible for it to change from a secular to a religious based society.

QUOTE(Destructobot @ Mar 27 2010, 04:49 PM) Gah, so much BS, so little patience.

Speech is either free, or it isn't. If you can't say hateful, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted things without being censored, you can't expect to be able to say anything that your particular government dislikes without being censored. You can't have it both ways. Either everyone can say whatever they want, or no one can. You have to defend the assholes' freedom if you want the non-assholes to also have that freedom.

So tell me, because I really don't know. Is there freedom of speech in England? Also, Jesus titty fucking Christ; "APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO PROTEST"? Are you fucking kidding me? You need permission to dissent? Yay for your abundance of liberty.

Your argument for hate speech isn't exactly correct. The idea of the liberty of free speech was created so that people could speak out criticese the government, official bodies and those wishing to oppress or repress the masses without the fear of persecution, imprisonment, censorship or vilification. It was also created to ensure that the press could report the truth without the fear of those same things. It wasn't created so that the KKK could have a platform. You don't have to defend the assholes freedom in order to ensure the non-assholes get their freedom.

Yep, there's plenty of free speech in the UK. We can call for the hanging of the PM if we like, so long as our argument is based on fact and truth. It's not a right set out for us under the Magna Carta though. It's a right that's been entrusted to the general public and the press, and with that trust comes responsibility. Free speech isn't the right to lie, it's the right to tell the truth.

And yep, we've got to apply for permission to protest so that the local councils can then organise police pretection, set up cordons to keep traffic away and that kind of the thing. Like I said, if you think there's no free speech in Britain then learn a little about it. Look up Anjem Choudray, the BNP from 10 years ago, the English Defence League. And if you think America is any more free or has the full liberty of free speech then you know little about the history of your own country, and even less about the present.

 

[Jamstruth]

Speech is either free, or it isn't. If you can't say hateful, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted things without being censored, you can't expect to be able to say anything that your particular government dislikes without being censored. You can't have it both ways. Either everyone can say whatever they want, or no one can. You have to defend the assholes' freedom if you want the non-assholes to also have that freedom.

So tell me, because I really don't know. Is there freedom of speech in England? Also, Jesus titty fucking Christ; "APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO PROTEST"? Are you fucking kidding me? You need permission to dissent? Yay for your abundance of liberty.
QUOTE(Pliskron @ Mar 27 2010, 04:50 PM) Maybe a good citizen should have just punched this obnoxious prick in the head and the police could have look the other way lol

You two do know who you're talking about here? We are Britain the most reserved country in the world! We get the giggles and blush talking about sex.

Anyway...this has degenerated into a neverending argument over America vs. Britain now, neither side will ever back down. Neither will change views. Neither will have anything to convince the other side. This isn't what I hoped this topic would turn into but oh well it is what it is!

 

[Destructobot]

Anyway...this has degenerated into a neverending argument over America vs. Britain now

I didn't mean to turn it into such, but please answer because I honestly do not know. Do the British people have freedom of speech or not? I had always assumed that they did, but now that I think about it I really don't have any information on the subject.

 

[Jamstruth]

We do have Freedom of Speech but Hate Speech can result in fines etc. Many people have spoken out about homosexuals over the years, there was a threatened church split a little while ago over a gay minister.
What I objected to about th article was that it seemed to, in my opinion, defend the opinion by citing Freedom of Speech. I don't think you should be able to go around shouting homoephobic remarks willy-nilly.

 

[emigre]

Anyway...this has degenerated into a neverending argument over America vs. Britain now

I didn't mean to turn it into such, but please answer because I honestly do not know. Do the British people have freedom of speech or not? I had always assumed that they did, but now that I think about it I really don't have any information on the subject.

I'd say cautiously, we do but there's a fine line between free speech and inciting hatred (which is illegal). Any individual can say what they want about governemnt, parliament and the Queen without fear of being presecuted. In recent years we've had some cases which asked the question of wheter incitemnt of hatred is free speech i.e. Nick Griffin BNP leader and the so-called suicide bomber poet of some muslim woman who wrote some pro-jihad poetry. Both were found not guilty of thier respective charge as it was deemed it was free speech. Personally though I think thier views are abhorrent, I felt eh courts made teh right decisions. Though we had Geert Wilders (Far Right Dutch politician) denied entry to the UK. So its a bit of a mish mash but I would say we have freedom of speech though hot in its purest form. Though I think that would be impossible for state to acheive due to thier cultural norms and values.

 

[Destructobot]

Your argument for hate speech isn't exactly correct. The idea of the liberty of free speech was created so that people could speak out criticese the government, official bodies and those wishing to oppress or repress the masses without the fear of persecution, imprisonment, censorship or vilification. It was also created to ensure that the press could report the truth without the fear of those same things. It wasn't created so that the KKK could have a platform. You don't have to defend the assholes freedom in order to ensure the non-assholes get their freedom.

Freedom of speech is either freedom of speech or it isn't. If there is any single case in which your (or my) government can decide whether or not you get to say something, you do not have freedom of speech (obviously, cases involving government secrets are dealt with differently by every government whether they should be or not). The very idea that some points of view, no matter how stupid and objectionable, should inherantly be subject to censorship is the opposite of freedom of speech.

Free speech isn't the right to lie, it's the right to tell the truth.

In other words, your freedom of speech is always subject to the interpretation of some censor, whether it be the government, the courts, or the people. If what you have to say is unpopular, you shouldn't be able to say it. If the government and the courts say a lie is the truth, you're fucked.

I'm not saying that the USA is any sort of example that the rest of the world should follow, I'm just saying that free is either free or it isn't, and if you have to get permission to express yourself you are not free by any definition. This applies to the US just as much as it applies to anyone else.

 

[sirdashadow]

Hmm, I'm going to end the argument now.

Homosexuality isn't (just?) a sin, it's scientifically wrong as well. You cannot procreate if you are a homosexual. You cannot procreate with the same sex. It's impossible.

Who gives a f**k if it's a sin or not and who are YOU to tell ANYONE what's right and wrong. What if a homosexual DONT WANT to procreate. You can NOT FORCE anyone to do what YOU want. You are noone. You are the same as anyone else.

Homosexuality, in my opinion, is a neurological disorder. By all means, I don't have the scientific proof (except what I've stated already) nor knowledge to make this a concise and bold statement, but this is just what I believe.

And that is your OPINION. And you are entitled to it. And I respect it. Hope you RESPECT other people's way of life too!

Now that being said, I have no problem if you are gay, or are a lesbian.

Just don't do that gay shit around me.

If you don't have a problem if I was gay or lesbian (which by the way, I am not), why does it bother you if someone does "gay shit around you?". The answer: Either you are afraid you would get aroused and would threaten your masculinity or you are repulsed by the idea. If you are repulsed then you DO have a problem with gay people, because you can't tolerate that.

QUOTE(Shiro786 @ Mar 27 2010, 02:02 PM)

Edit: In regards to the freedom of speech thing...where is the line between freedom of speech, and inciting hatred? LOL. If inciting hatred is part of speech, then one should have the freedom to incite hatred. I don't understand your logic, emigre.

I agree. But when hatred escalates to abuse or murder that's when we have to draw the line, don't you think?

 

[emigre]

Homosexuality isn't (just?) a sin, it's scientifically wrong as well. You cannot procreate if you are a homosexual. You cannot procreate with the same sex. It's impossible.

Now when religion and science agree and adhere to the same idea...that's when you know that...something is up.

Homosexuality, in my opinion, is a neurological disorder. By all means, I don't have the scientific proof (except what I've stated already) nor knowledge to make this a concise and bold statement, but this is just what I believe.

Now that being said, I have no problem if you are gay, or are a lesbian.

Just don't do that gay shit around me.


Edit: In regards to the freedom of speech thing...where is the line between freedom of speech, and inciting hatred? LOL. If inciting hatred is part of speech, then one should have the freedom to incite hatred. I don't understand your logic, emigre.

Not my logic but logic that's not doing the legal system any favours. To incite hate is an offence but surely it is free speech. However in some court cases where the defendents were charged with inciting hatred, they were found not guilty on grounds it was their freedom of speech. It wasn't well thought out legislation.

Personally people should be allowed to say what they want but they should be expected to be challenged on thier views. Ergo Nick Griffin can say what unpleasant things he wants however I or anyone else should have the right to challenge his views.