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

[benjamin]

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?

PDA is frowned upon by many people on straight people not just gays anyway - but it's a bit of a different situation. it's like saying black people can only be 'black' behind closed doors. it doesn't really work. but it is about extremism - the thing is, you're being incredibly narrow minded about the whole situation, and not listening to anyone else's opinions, or dismissing them regardless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

No, history has told us that when you attempt to ban free speech it often leads to that opinion gaining support with extreme groups gaining ground because they are seen as the victimised side of the debate. History also shows us that only civilisations who doubt themselves have attempted to ban free speech and burn books which offer differing 'extreme' opinions. I say again, words do not mean actions.

PDA is frowned upon by many people on straight people not just gays anyway - but it's a bit of a different situation. it's like saying black people can only be 'black' behind closed doors. it doesn't really work. but it is about extremism - the thing is, you're being incredibly narrow minded about the whole situation, and not listening to anyone else's opinions, or dismissing them regardless.

Indeed it is frowned upon and you haven't addressed my point on how you would feel if homosexuality were to be forced behind closed doors, the comparison with black people is also illogical as you can see it - you cannot see homosexuality and it is controllable to control your sexual feelings in public display. So again we keep coming to 'extreme' opinions - but many also find homosexuality an extreme, and disgusting act. But do we ban homosexuality? no we do not.

I'm not being narrow-minded at all as I accept many forms of opinions exist and always will exist, I may not agree with them but if I do not agree with them I will debate them, rather than taking the narrow minded route of banning them just because I disagree with them.

[benjamin]

No, history has told us that when you attempt to ban free speech it often leads to that opinion gaining support with extreme groups gaining ground because they are seen as the victimised side of the debate. History also shows us that only civilisations who doubt themselves have attempted to ban free speech. I say again, words do not mean actions.



Indeed it is frowned upon and you haven't addressed my point on how you would feel if homosexuality were to be forced behind closed doors, the comparison with black people is also illogical as you can see it - you cannot see homosexuality and it is controllable to control your sexual feelings in public display. So again we keep coming to 'extreme' opinions - but many also find homosexuality an extreme, and disgusting act.

But do we ban homosexuality? no we do not.

you seem to be very defensive in your argument - there's no need to, as i honestly do see your point of view. but the thing is - not everything is about logic, different topics have different situations, and to be completely honest, when it comes to homosexuality - times have changed. there isn't much else you can say.

[HotelUser]

No, history has told us that when you attempt to ban free speech it often leads to that opinion gaining support with extreme groups gaining ground because they are seen as the victimised side of the debate. History also shows us that only civilisations who doubt themselves have attempted to ban free speech.

I say again, words do not mean actions.

Then isn't it fortunate that for the most part in our society the limitations imposed to prohibit this godmode free speech only cripple the voices of those whom speak out in disagreement with the majority of our population

Also, words are the basis on which actions are created and act as momentum to fuel those actions.

The Hutu had all the free speech they could as for in Rwanda. If we could have minimized their propaganda we could have prevented the Tutsi genocide.

Free speech kills Dan, it's abuse can lead to horrible things.

[Jam]

If this is 'negative' then why does the media need to spread the 'negative' word around? Its all poppycock to begin with. The media are in the wrong, not the flyer guys.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you seem to be very defensive in your argument - there's no need to, as i honestly do see your point of view. but the thing is - not everything is about logic, different topics have different situations, and to be completely honest, when it comes to homosexuality - times have changed. there isn't much else you can say.

Of course i'm defensive about free speech and liberty, I will defend free speech as anyone who uses it should - and we all use it and should defend it whenever we can because as the famous quote goes "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The point on homosexuality, indeed times have changed and most people have come to accept it via reasoned argument and not by banning any criticism of homosexuality.

For the most part i'd say the majority do not have a problem with homosexuality, but a large portion still do and a smaller portion see it as a disgraceful act - the only way you will ever have a hope of changing minds is by reasoned argument, of course not all will change opinion but by banning opinion all you do it cement it as they then think 'ahh look, they see this as a threat'. Look at the BNP for example on Question Time, a total setup and support for the party afterwards shot up because of the way they were treated for their views.

If people debate them properly then their arguments simply fall apart.

Then isn't it fortunate that for the most part in our society the limitations imposed to prohibit this godmode free speech only cripple the voices of those whom speak out in disagreement with the majority of our population

Also, words are the basis on which actions are created and act as momentum to fuel those actions.

The Hutu had all the free speech they could as for in Rwanda. If we could have minimized their propaganda we could have prevented the Tutsi genocide.

Free speech kills Dan, it's abuse can lead to horrible things.

The majority of people can control their actions from their rhetoric/thoughts, the genocide there was caused by cultural differences - not by free speech. The same can be said for anything 'lets go over the top to prevent a seldom occuring/rare event from happening' - you could say with crime, why not install a camera in every home across the country and crime would end overnight - we don't because we value liberty and can see that we would rather have liberty than safety and security. What next? microchips?

[HotelUser]

Of course i'm defensive about free speech and liberty, I will defend free speech as anyone who uses it should - and we all use it and we are lucky for it. The point on homosexuality, indeed times have changed and most people have come to accept it via reasoned argument and not by banning any criticism of homosexuality.

For the most part i'd say the majority do not have a problem with homosexuality, but a large portion still do and a smaller portion see it as a disgraceful act - the only way you will ever have a hope of changing minds is by reasoned argument, of course not all will change opinion but by banning opinion all you do it cement it as they then think 'ahh look, they see this as a threat'. Look at the BNP for example on Question Time, a total setup and support for the party afterwards shot up because of the way they were treated for their views.



The majority of people can control their actions from their rhetoric/thoughts, the genocide there was caused by cultural differences - not by free speech.

No it was caused by a short period of cultural differences. There are 6-8 general stages of genocide and they ALL have direct connections with freedom of speech. Would you allow those to exercise the right to freedom of speech when it causes a genocide, Dan?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it was caused by a short period of cultural differences. There are 6-8 general stages of genocide and they ALL have direct connections with freedom of speech. Would you allow those to exercise the right to freedom of speech when it causes a genocide, Dan?

What a riduclous justification for banning free speech. Why not just ban all types of free speech in order to prevent anything bad occuring then? ban free speech fully and you'll never have to deal with organised crime again, protests, potential riots and potential coups. Do you really think in a country that is on the brink of civil war, speech is policable? so even in the event of potential genocide, it wouldn't be possible to police it [speech & thought].

Here's some delicious examples of regimes that banned free speech in the name of security and over-exaggerated threats such as ones you list 'oh but if we don't ban these opinions we could end up with a genocide' - complete and utter nonsense; Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, the Third Reich, Khamer Rogue Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan (oh yeah, isn't that the country you want to bring freedom to?) and the list goes on and on. Now that in itself is an exaggeration on my part, but again - the vast majority of people are sensible, why not treat people like grown ups?

Here is a question concerning 'preventative measures'; should we ban all Communist parties as we know what they have led to in the past? yes/no I mean we could go on and on;

- should we all be microchipped to prevent any crimes being committed?
- should we all be subject to 24 hour CCTV to prevent any crime/wrongdoing taking place?
- should we all carry ID cards to 'prevent a terrorist attack occuring'?
- should children with bad behaviour be locked up before they commit a crime, incase they ever do?
- should planes by grounded permanently to prevent anymore crashes/terrorist attacks leading to death?
- should democracy be scrapped incase a Nazi party gains office?

Infact why not just hand over all of our civil liberties and be subject to the state, for security/safety?

[HotelUser]

What a riduclous justification for banning free speech. Why not just ban all types of free speech in order to prevent anything bad occuring then? ban free speech fully and you'll never have to deal with organised crime again, protests, potential riots and potential coups. Do you really think in a country that is on the brink of civil war, speech is policable? so even in the event of potential genocide, it wouldn't be possible to police it [speech & thought].

Here's some delicious examples of regimes that banned free speech in the name of security and over-exaggerated threats such as ones you list 'oh but if we don't ban these opinions we could end up with a genocide' - complete and utter nonsense; Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, the Third Reich, Khamer Rogue Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan (oh yeah, isn't that the country you want to bring freedom to?) and the list goes on and on. Now that in itself is an exaggeration on my part, but again - the vast majority of people are sensible, why not treat people like grown ups?

Here is a question concerning 'preventative measures'; should we ban all Communist parties as we know what they have led to in the past? yes/no

I'm not advocating to abolish all freedom of speech. I'm saying that even freedom of speech should have its limits.

Limiting freedom of speech in the Rwanda case would have worked too or don't you know that ridiculous propaganda to compare the victim group to being "rats" or inhuman, to justify their "extermination" is a stage before the genocide's committed. Now, prohibiting the spread of such propaganda which would be putting limitations on free speech wouldn't help at all would it?!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well firstly you are advocating abolishing free speech as you want to ban opinions of which you do not like - thus, ending free speech.

I'm not advocating to abolish all freedom of speech. I'm saying that even freedom of speech should have its limits.

Limiting freedom of speech in the Rwanda case would have worked too or don't you know that ridiculous propaganda to compare the victim group to being "rats" or inhuman, to justify their "extermination" is a stage before the genocide's committed. Now, prohibiting the spread of such propaganda which would be putting limitations on free speech wouldn't help at all would it?!

Propaganda is beaten best by free speech, by proving it wrong as I say again - if propaganda is not subjected to debate then it becomes conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is always adopted when free speech is stifled because you then lose the alternative view and the mainstream view is simply adopted as it is taken for the truth. The points I raised you still have not responded to, instead you are continuing to exaggerate a case of genocide in a country which has enormous cultural differences and were tribalism is alive and well.

Most people claim they want free speech. Almost all of them don't really want it at all. It is amazing how quickly they start making exceptions. And, funnily enough, the exceptions always turn out to be people whose views they don't like. That is why it is so important that we protect, above all, the freedoms of those we disapprove of.

But do answer my question on the communist party along with those related to crimes and banning civil liberties in the name of security and safety, because throughout this thread when i've used examples they've simply been ignored - my guess is that because they show up the flawed logic of 'exceptions' in free speech, as the quote above points out.