Comments on: When does preventing free speech to criticise homosexual behaviour become dangerous?

By: Big Guy 360 (SFECU)

Big Guy 360 (SFECU) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:19:59 +0000

There is considerable debate over how or whether hate speech can be defined; whether speech thus labeled ought to be regulated; and if so, how and by whom. These debates center on three critical questions: First, what is the force of speech? Is it the expression of personal thoughts, or is it a form of action that affects and can harm others? Second, is the free expression of ideas which some perceive as hateful necessary for healthy public debate, or is it harmful to public debate? Third, should governmental policies be founded upon the protection of interests and rights of individuals, or of identifiable groups — such as sexual orientation (e.g., homosexuals) and race (e.g., racial minorities)? Legitimate criticism normally protected in USA under the First Amendment is sometimes labeled "hate speech" by the critiqued.

In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can sanction the harmful effects of speech through laws against slander and libel.

Indeed, the term "hate speech" and its surrounding discussion (whether and to what extent speech should should be regulated) is something restricted to American legal discourse. For example, the German constitution is subtly more restrictive, guaranteeing ‘freedom of voicing ones opinion’ and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups.

Since such laws often apply only to the victimization of specific individuals, some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups. Others argue that hate speech limits the free development of political discourse and ought to be regulated, but by voluntaristic communities and not by the state. Still others claim that it is not possible to legislate a boundary between legitimate controversial speech and hate speech in such a way which is just to those with controversial political or social views.

Here in the US we have such thing as "Hate Crimes" that are tied into "Hate Speech" if a victim is assaulted and it can be proven’ that by the mere utterance of "hate Speech" it therefore becomes a hate crime and the penalty is increased. So while the "Hate Speech" is not really regulated, Crimes that involve "Hate Speech" is regulated with higher penalties.

My view is that we need to protect the freedom of speech insomuch as that speech does not incite violence. I use the term "incite" as to mean as a direct pushing of violence to a specified victim or group. Opinions must have the ability to be an opinion and must be free from interference or else it would not be free Speech.
References :

By: Susie

Susie — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:05:59 +0000

It becomes dangerous when it gets to the point where you can't even discourage your own children from a certain behavior, that goes against your basic belief system, without being hauled off to jail.
References :

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:20:59 +0000

I wasn't aware free speech was being banned, only hate speech. The point at which free speech becomes dangerous is where it is not given in a spirit of honest debate but in a hate filled rant, where others are incited to violence.
References :

By: Maid Angela

Maid Angela — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:33:59 +0000

Why would anyone want to criticise homosexual behaviour any more than criticising heterosexual behaviour or anyone else's behaviour for that matter. I don't know of any efforts to suppress any facts about how children are brought up. As I understand it it is accepted that children are generally better of with their biological parents if this is possible. Sometimes however this is not possible and sometimes it is not even advisable. As far as I am aware there are very few historical events that have been fully proven in that the details are as stated in the bible. I would think that this would be a difficult thing to do as a lot of the accounts have been written many years after the events by people who are trying to put over their point of view. Also a lot of the accounts are copied from earlier accounts and some interpretation of events given by people who had a very limited knowledge on which to interpret those events. Take the story of Noah and the flood. First it is taken from the story of Gilgamesh and the writer states that the whole world was flooded. Of course it is possible that the whole of the world the writer knew was flooded but since he had probably never travelled more than about 50 miles in his life and certainly was not aware of the Americas or Australia then his account would be accurate as far as he was concerned but not accurate in the overall sense.
References :

By: numbnuts222

numbnuts222 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:13:59 +0000

What proven historical accuracies have been repressed? Should I start wearing a tin foil hat to fit in with the conspiracy? No one has complete free speech, there are laws to stop people from spreading slander, anti racism laws, laws to stop discrimination against minorities etc. There are even anti-blasphemy laws in the UK. Homosexuals have been a minority that have been discriminated against quite viciously in the past. We have limited freedom in the UK, complete freedom means anarchy, so these laws are our protection.
References :

By: Grey Tower

Grey Tower — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:00:59 +0000

It becomes dangerous the moment our liberties (including freedom of speech) are withdrawn. A point in case is the journalist Jan Moir (Daily Mail) who was targeted and vilified for writing an article that did nothing more than to express what the majority of people in this country think.

As usual, it is the minority who dictate how everybody else must think, speak and act – and watch out if you even so much as dare to look at them wrong! Their liberties, their freedoms and their behaviour must be held sacred but yours and mine are worthless.

Yes, if Government gets its way, nobody will be able to speak or write a single word that shows up homosexual behaviour in its true light. And then people wonder why the moral fibre of society has broken down. Apathy – that’s why. To think that hundreds of thousands of British people died between 1914 and 1918 to preserve our freedom, only for a handful of bullies to trample all over it.

Isaiah 5:18-21 describes the situation we are now in: "Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit, and wickedness as with cart ropes… Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight."

Edit: Big Guy 360 makes a valid point about hate speech – and that is not restricted to homosexual behaviour. Hate speech and hate crimes can be applied to race, religion, disability etc. Just to clarify – I understand the main point of this question has to do with the U.K. Government trying to introduce legislation that will prevent people from exercising free speech, and that criticism of a person’s sexual behaviour is not the same thing as being guilty of a hate crime.
References :

By: Grand theft pants

Grand theft pants — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:36:59 +0000

I agree. preventing free speech is dangerous.
References :

By: Aurora Ryynänen

Aurora Ryynänen — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:46:59 +0000

Tell me, what's it like being paranoid? You can criticise me all you want, just dont interfere in my life. I mind me own business; you mind yours. Who I date and mate with is none of your bloody business.
References :

By: Ilovedonnii

Ilovedonnii — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:23:59 +0000

why should you be able to critisise it?

your obviously not gay so why should you have any point of veiw on anything related to it?

this question is like saying when does criticising people for beeing black become dangerious, its obvious coz theres nowt to criticise and your just hurting people for no reason!

god ur an idiot, it’s people like you that made it hard for people like me growing up!

@ gray tower. you ignorant retard, "true light" WTF!!!

if you experianced it like a gay person does then you would understand but your ignorant so you can’t.

how can something that feels like it does be wrong.

god i hate people like you.
References :

By: Chickpea

Chickpea — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:06:59 +0000

Why should homosexual behaviour be illegal? A democratic and modern politician shouldn’t even question it or he’ll make a fool out of himself.
I’m not homo but what the heck is wrong with consensus love and sex regardless of the gender?
There are lots of them more suitable to parent a child than other etero couples do.
Some home-schooled bible retarted need a life.
References :