5 Men charged with stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation

[MrPinkPanther]

I can't help being gay just as a ginger guy can't help but having ginger hair, so why should I be protected by the law but the ginger guy can't?

Where did Catzsy say that? She is quite rightly saying that there is a difference between saying "I don't like gingers" and "Execute all gays", similarly there is a difference between saying "I don't like gays" and "Execute all gingers". There are different levels of discrimination and if someone says "Execute all gingers", whilst of course being serious, then they obviously deserve to be punished in a similar manner.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't read all of the other post as they are like small essays (though they have valid points, I'm agreeing with Catzsy however!)

I agree that they should be charged. Lets say 5 men handed out leaflets saying 'All muslims should be executed' or 'All jews should be executed', they would certainly be charged! Therefore, it's only just these idiots are charged.

So why not just outright outlaw all forms of offensive/threatening language?

Where did Catzsy say that? She is quite rightly saying that there is a difference between saying "I don't like gingers" and "Execute all gays", similarly there is a difference between saying "I don't like gays" and "Execute all gingers". There are different levels of discrimination and if someone says "Execute all gingers", whilst of course being serious, then they obviously deserve to be punished in a similar manner.

Is this the 'Liberal' 'Democrat' talking?

While you are more consistent in saying you would punish on the gingers point whereas Rosie it appears was not, I must ask; why do you feel free speech should be outlawed? where have you got the impression that people have got a right not to be offended?

The line is drawn from violence, words on the other hand do not cause harm hence do not need to be outlawed.

[qaxzsw]

So why not just outright outlaw all forms of offensive/threatening language?



Is this the 'Liberal' 'Democrat' talking?

While you are more consistent in saying you would punish on the gingers point whereas Rosie it appears was not, I must ask; why do you feel free speech should be outlawed? where have you got the impression that people have got a right not to be offended?

The line is drawn from violence, words on the other hand do not cause harm hence do not need to be outlawed.

They do cause harm, they hurt people and can cause offence. It's not banning freedom of speech, it's using freedom of speech responsibly. With Freedom of Speech comes responsibility and if they are going to abuse it they should be punished!

[-:Undertaker:-]

They do cause harm, they hurt people and can cause offence. It's not banning freedom of speech, it's using freedom of speech responsibly. With Freedom of Speech comes responsibility and if they are going to abuse it they should be punished!

And surely being responsible means accepting people have differing opinions to those of your own, to ban them is the irresponsible act.

[HotelUser]

And surely being responsible means accepting people have differing opinions to those of your own, to ban them is the irresponsible act.

No, it's accepting that there's a difference between a difference in opinion, and an inappropriate opinion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, it's accepting that there's a difference between a difference in opinion, and an inappropriate opinion.

An inappropriate opinion? and who decides that then? ahh thats right, the opinions of others who disagree with that opinion. When you have a belief/opinion you will almost always think the other side is wrong and has a flawed argument - hence why we have opinions and debates.

If you feel an opinion is wrong, then debate it and destroy it - if you cant, then you reassess your own opinions.

And that kids, is liberty.

[benjamin]

I think you will find they are not being charged for their views but for publishing leaflets stating that homosexuals should be executed. What they say in the confines of their own home is their business.
@FJ I think you will find that the writtens propaganda against Jews and other minority groups was allowed and not acted upon so a different scenario.

I completely agree with Catzsy, there is no problem whatsoever with people having their own opinions, free speech and all that - but when they start handing out leaflets to the public, I feel as if it's being taken too far and there should be consequences for their actions. This isn't me speaking as a gay male, because my opinion would be exactly the same on any other kind of discrimination such as racism. Fair enough have your own opinions - but broadcasting them so wide-scale and so publicly isn't right.

[HotelUser]

An inappropriate opinion? and who decides that then? ahh thats right, the opinions of others who disagree with that opinion. When you have a belief/opinion you will almost always think the other side is wrong and has a flawed argument - hence why we have opinions and debates.

If you feel an opinion is wrong, then debate it and destroy it - if you cant, then you reassess your own opinions.

And that kids, is liberty.

The majority of a societies ethics and morals decides that Dan. That could have something to do with how most people in ours hate Nazis, genocides, serial killers and all that bad stuff.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I completely agree with Catzsy, there is no problem whatsoever with people having their own opinions, free speech and all that - but when they start handing out leaflets to the public, I feel as if it's being taken too far and there should be consequences for their actions. This isn't me speaking as a gay male, because my opinion would be exactly the same on any other kind of discrimination such as racism. Fair enough have your own opinions - but broadcasting them so wide-scale and so publicly isn't right.

Well sure, thats an opinion - but what would you say to the opinion that homosexuality should be done behind closed doors? see, you'd rightly say that if you live in a free country you should be allowed to exercise maximum personal liberty. And while it is not on the same level as calling for people [homosexuals] to be executed, again - you hold that to be a serious extreme opinion as do most people. But the people calling for this may see homosexuality as an extreme which needs to be stomped out.

Therefore again, you come back to opinions being simply that, opinions - one side should not be outlawed.

The majority of a societies ethics and morals decides that Dan. That could have something to do with how most people in ours hate Nazis, genocides, serial killers and all that bad stuff.

Indeed, and thats fine - debate them all we can if we disagree with them and if we are right as most of us think, then we will beat them in arguments and debates and will continue to until the end of time.

Why ban an opinion which will not make people think again, when you can debate it and make people rethink their stance?

[HotelUser]

Well sure, thats an opinion - but what would you say to the opinion that homosexuality should be done behind closed doors? see, you'd rightly say that if you live in a free country you should be allowed to exercise maximum personal liberty. And while it is not on the same level as calling for people [homosexuals] to be executed, again - you hold that to be a serious extreme opinion as do most people. But the people calling for this may see homosexuality as an extreme which needs to be stomped out.

Therefore again, you come back to opinions being simply that, opinions - one side should not be outlawed.



Indeed, and thats fine - debate them all we can if we disagree with them and if we are right as most of us think, then we will beat them in arguments and debates and will continue to until the end of time.

Why ban an opinion which will not make people think again, when you can debate it and make people rethink their stance?

Because as history has taught us sometimes groups act on their opinions, before you have enough time to change their stance.