Criticize Religion and you get censored. Is this conducive to a free democracy with church state separation?

LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Criticize Religion and you get censored. Is this conducive to a free democracy with church state separation?

What pisses me off the most about this is the fact that christians yell that they are being oppressed everytime some one cirticizes religion. They label it hate speech. What about the hate speech against gays from the christians? What about the hate speech against women from the christians? What about the hate speech against the atheists from the christians. TV networks show mass on sunday mornings, but when an actress such as Griffin criticizes jesus and god, then she gets censored? Is anyone else outraged at the double standards here?

 

Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/11/tv.emmys.griffin.ap/index.html LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Before Kathy Griffin won a creative arts Emmy last weekend for her reality show, "My Life on the D-List," she joked that an award would move her to the C-list. Kathy Griffin was pleased to win an Emmy, but her speech will likely be trimmed. She was right: "C" as in censored. The TV academy said her raucous acceptance speech will be edited when the event, which was taped, is shown Saturday on the E! channel. The main prime-time Emmy Awards air the next night on Fox. "Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast on Saturday night," the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences said in a statement Monday. In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus." She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, "This award is my god now!" The comedian's remarks were condemned Monday by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who called them a "vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech." According to the TV academy and E!, when the four hour-plus ceremony is edited into a two-hour program, Griffin's remarks will be shown in "an abbreviated version" in which some language may be bleeped. The program was in production and unfinished, an E! spokeswoman said Monday. Requests for comment were left Monday evening by phone and e-mail with Griffin's publicist. They were not immediately returned. The Catholic League, an anti-defamation group, called on the TV academy to "denounce Griffin's obscene and blasphemous comment" at Sunday's ceremony. The academy said Monday it had no plans to address the issue in the prime-time broadcast. The organization may have another delicate issue to consider, this one involving an off-color fake music video that aired last December on "Saturday Night Live" and won a creative arts Emmy for best song. Andy Samberg of "SNL" said Saturday that he had yet to be asked by the TV academy to perform the tune with Timberlake on the Fox broadcast, but he was willing. Timberlake, on a concert tour, is scheduled to be in Los Angeles next weekend. The subject of their "(Blank) in a Box" video: wrapping a certain part of the male anatomy and presenting it to a loved one as a holiday present. The academy has said that "show elements are in the process of being worked out."

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  Typical theist behavior.

 

Typical theist behavior. You can see them doing that shit on YouTube of all places.

Still, the fact that a celebrity actually stood up at a mass media event and said something like this is a fairly good sign. The more people who realize it's okay to do this sort of thing, the better.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Though I do not care for

Though I do not care for Kathy Griffin very much, I read her statements and cannot understand how her words are being twisted into 'hate speech'.

I understand that people who believe in jesus would not agree with what she said but it is by no means hateful or incites violence towards jesus believers...

{edit for typo} 


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
That is true and I agree. 

That is true and I agree.  But it's obvious that her voice wont' be heard because it will be censored.  Because the christians complained.  They are afraid that if people start to listen to rationality..they will loose their money making sheep factory.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Kathy Griffin makes an interesting speech

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Before Kathy Griffin won a creative arts Emmy last weekend for her reality show, "My Life on the D-List," she joked that an award would move her to the C-list.

Griffin

Kathy Griffin was pleased to win an Emmy, but her speech will likely be trimmed.

She was right: "C" as in censored. The TV academy said her raucous acceptance speech will be edited when the event, which was taped, is shown Saturday on the E! channel. The main prime-time Emmy Awards air the next night on Fox.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast on Saturday night," the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences said in a statement Monday.

In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus."

She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, "This award is my god now!"

The comedian's remarks were condemned Monday by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who called them a "vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech."

According to the TV academy and E!, when the four hour-plus ceremony is edited into a two-hour program, Griffin's remarks will be shown in "an abbreviated version" in which some language may be bleeped.

The program was in production and unfinished, an E! spokeswoman said Monday.

Requests for comment were left Monday evening by phone and e-mail with Griffin's publicist. They were not immediately returned.

The Catholic League, an anti-defamation group, called on the TV academy to "denounce Griffin's obscene and blasphemous comment" at Sunday's ceremony.

The academy said Monday it had no plans to address the issue in the prime-time broadcast.

The organization may have another delicate issue to consider, this one involving an off-color fake music video that aired last December on "Saturday Night Live" and won a creative arts Emmy for best song.

Andy Samberg of "SNL" said Saturday that he had yet to be asked by the TV academy to perform the tune with Timberlake on the Fox broadcast, but he was willing. Timberlake, on a concert tour, is scheduled to be in Los Angeles next weekend.

The subject of their "(Blank) in a Box" video: wrapping a certain part of the male anatomy and presenting it to a loved one as a holiday present.

The academy has said that "show elements are in the process of being worked out."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/11/tv.emmys.griffin.ap/index.html is the page I got it from 


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH, It's the idea that

BGH,

It's the idea that the christians want to ensure that no type of criticism of religion is presented in the public and social arena.  Doing so may start to drift the social sentiment away from religion.  They are afraid of that and since they have power, they can tell networks to censor any and all speech criticizing religion, labelling it under false pretense of hate speech. 

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't know in its

I don't know in its entirety what she said, but from the article it doesn't seem like 'hate' speech to me. 

What next?  Will they consider someone denying Jesus is the son of god as hate speech? 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I can see them bleeping if

I can see them bleeping if she said "fuck Jesus" or "Jesus sucks cock", but that's toatlly wrong if they bllep the whole part like that. Just because it offends Christians. Conservative Christians wake up in the morning with the intention of being offended at least once that day.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I don't

pariahjane wrote:

I don't know in its entirety what she said, but from the article it doesn't seem like 'hate' speech to me. 

What next?  Will they consider someone denying Jesus is the son of god as hate speech? 

I believe they already do.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
We need a court case where

We need a court case where someone can prove damage from the censoring.  A celebrity is the best bet because the rules for libel and slander are different for celebrities.  A good lawyer could prove that A) it is not hate speech and B) it's harmful to the celebrity's potential career to censor her speech since her speech IS her career, literally.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I don't

pariahjane wrote:

I don't know in its entirety what she said, but from the article it doesn't seem like 'hate' speech to me.

What next? Will they consider someone denying Jesus is the son of god as hate speech?

 Full quote ( http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1893856/posts )

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this," Griffin said. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now."

 

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"? 

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I don't know in its entirety what she said, but from the article it doesn't seem like 'hate' speech to me.

What next? Will they consider someone denying Jesus is the son of god as hate speech?

 Full quote ( http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1893856/posts )

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this," Griffin said. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now."

 

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"? 

The difference is that Jesus isn't considered an offensive, disparaging word. Jesus isn't considered a racist word.  If I say suck it, Wavefreak, is that hate speech?  It might not be nice, but it's certainly not hate speech.

Wow, that's really all she said?  Yikes. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: So the

wavefreak wrote:

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"? 

 

Except those are derogatory terms for homosexuals and blacks. Jesus isn't a derogatory term for Jesus. Maybe we should come up with one - ideas?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I don't know in its entirety what she said, but from the article it doesn't seem like 'hate' speech to me.

What next? Will they consider someone denying Jesus is the son of god as hate speech?

Full quote ( http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1893856/posts )

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this," Griffin said. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now."

 

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"?

The difference is that Jesus isn't considered an offensive, disparaging word. Jesus isn't considered a racist word. If I say suck it, Wavefreak, is that hate speech? It might not be nice, but it's certainly not hate speech.

Wow, that's really all she said? Yikes.

Does the legal standard for hate speech require that the words themselves be offensive or is the intent taken into consideration? Jesus, taken alone is not offensive, fag and nigger in the right context are not offensive (listen to people with street cred talking). So when is it offensive? When the context makes it offensive.

If, in the middle of a hearing I tell a senator "go fuck yourself", I will get cited with contempt. If I tell someone in an internet forum "go fuck yourself" in a thread of ribald humor, then it means little. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I don't know in its entirety what she said, but from the article it doesn't seem like 'hate' speech to me.

What next? Will they consider someone denying Jesus is the son of god as hate speech?

Full quote ( http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1893856/posts )

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this," Griffin said. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now."

 

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"?

The difference is that Jesus isn't considered an offensive, disparaging word. Jesus isn't considered a racist word. If I say suck it, Wavefreak, is that hate speech? It might not be nice, but it's certainly not hate speech.

Wow, that's really all she said? Yikes.

Does the legal standard for hate speech require that the words themselves be offensive or is the intent taken into consideration? Jesus, taken alone is not offensive, fag and nigger in the right context are not offensive (listen to people with street cred talking). So when is it offensive? When the context makes it offensive.

If, in the middle of a hearing I tell a senator "go fuck yourself", I will get cited with contempt. If I tell someone in an internet forum "go fuck yourself" in a thread of ribald humor, then it means little.

 

 

 

Did this thread get moved? I see it's in FA and I ain't supposed to be here.

 

Sry. 


hutch
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-05-27
User is offlineOffline
I don't see how you can

I don't see how you can possibly consider Kathy Griffins comments as hate speech. However a lot of the comments left about her on the website wavefreak linked to could definitely be seen as hate speech.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I would not have a problem

I would not have a problem is they bleep out Suck it and left it as "&%#^ $# Jesus, this award is my god now".  But if they edit the entire segment..that's censoring and it's wrong.  Also, by far this is not hate speech.  This is far from it.  This is a person's right to criticize the idea that her own actions are the reason for her rewards.  Not some sky daddy.  Under Free Speech, she is allowed to say that.  Now because we are an over sensitized society who look at sex in such a horrible manner (thanks to religion), the words Suck it can be offensive outside the religious connotations.  But this is clearly, a means to censor anyone who criticizes religious beliefs. 

 

I think a leter is due to E!  I will be working on mine soon.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The laws on hate speech are

The laws on hate speech are intentionally vague to the point of allowing almost any interpretation the court deems appropriate.

And, just to echo what everyone else has already says, Jesus is not a bad word.  Jesus is something that some people believe in.  The speech was not directed at any living people, so how could it possibly be hate speech?

They'll probably say it's like hating on your dead aunt, but it's not even that.  Your dead aunt existed, and we know that for certain.

There's no way to get around the fact that this is not hate speech.  It's non-religious speech that could be offensive to some.

There is NO right to not be offended.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
The bad news is that her

The bad news is that her off-color remark is being misconstrued as hate speech, and therefore censored.

 The good news is that it occured during the Emmys, which means its effect will only be felt by 7 people.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Did this

wavefreak wrote:
Did this thread get moved? I see it's in FA and I ain't supposed to be here.

 

Sry.

I do not know if it got moved.  Larry, did you want it moved?  Would you mind if it was moved to General Conversations?

 

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The bad news is that her off-color remark is being misconstrued as hate speech, and therefore censored.

The good news is that it occured during the Emmys, which means its effect will only be felt by 7 people.

LOL!!!!  And I won't be one of them! 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
FYI - I moved this thread to

FYI - I moved this thread to General Conversations to avoid confusion since it had been merged with another thread.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Bill Donohue needs to learn

Bill Donohue needs to learn to be silent when an intelligent person is talking.  Suck it Bill.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I do not mind it being

I do not mind it being moved.  That's fine.  Thanks for asking.  I was getting confused on where it was moved there for a sec.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
hutch wrote: I don't see

hutch wrote:
I don't see how you can possibly consider Kathy Griffins comments as hate speech. However a lot of the comments left about her on the website wavefreak linked to could definitely be seen as hate speech.

 

Yeah. I noticed that. I was going to point it out. People can be such ass hats without even trying. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: The

Hambydammit wrote:

The laws on hate speech are intentionally vague to the point of allowing almost any interpretation the court deems appropriate.

And, just to echo what everyone else has already says, Jesus is not a bad word. Jesus is something that some people believe in. The speech was not directed at any living people, so how could it possibly be hate speech?

They'll probably say it's like hating on your dead aunt, but it's not even that. Your dead aunt existed, and we know that for certain.

There's no way to get around the fact that this is not hate speech. It's non-religious speech that could be offensive to some.

There is NO right to not be offended.

 

 

I have problems with offensive speech in general. I don't think of atheists as damned to hell demon spawn (excpet Brian37 and his proclivity for cat BBQ). Saying "suck it Jesus" is deeply offensive to a large number of people. Hate speech? Probably not. It wasn't inciting any action (may it was an invitation for a little 69 ). But I don't understand why we as a culture find it so easy to be offensive. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

The laws on hate speech are intentionally vague to the point of allowing almost any interpretation the court deems appropriate.

And, just to echo what everyone else has already says, Jesus is not a bad word. Jesus is something that some people believe in. The speech was not directed at any living people, so how could it possibly be hate speech?

They'll probably say it's like hating on your dead aunt, but it's not even that. Your dead aunt existed, and we know that for certain.

There's no way to get around the fact that this is not hate speech. It's non-religious speech that could be offensive to some.

There is NO right to not be offended.

 

 

I have problems with offensive speech in general. I don't think of atheists as damned to hell demon spawn (excpet Brian37 and his proclivity for cat BBQ). Saying "suck it Jesus" is deeply offensive to a large number of people. Hate speech? Probably not. It wasn't inciting any action (may it was an invitation for a little 69 ). But I don't understand why we as a culture find it so easy to be offensive. 

Sometimes I think we've become a bit too sensitive or PC.  Yes, saying suck it, Jesus is offensive to some.  That doesn't mean she should be censored.  Everyone would be censored at some point, if that were the case. 

And kitty BBQ is excellent, you should try it some time.  Sticking out tongue

If god takes life he's an indian giver


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The delineating issue here

The delineating issue here is not so much her use of offensive language as it is the power the christian right has to dictate the type of dialogue that goes on publicly regarding religion. 

 Plain and simply, they do not want to even consider discussing anything that has to do with denying the existence of god.  However, they work tirelessly at ensuring evolution is discredited.  To me, this incident underscores this problem.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote: The

LeftofLarry wrote:

The delineating issue here is not so much her use of offensive language as it is the power the christian right has to dictate the type of dialogue that goes on publicly regarding religion.

Plain and simply, they do not want to even consider discussing anything that has to do with denying the existence of god. However, they work tirelessly at ensuring evolution is discredited. To me, this incident underscores this problem.

 

The power of the religious right is something of a red herring. Advertisers are paranoid not because they care about religious values, but because they don't want to lose money. Corporations are the lap dogs for whomever can grease the wheels of their profit machines. In the U.S., at this time, it seems the religious right has the power to threaten corporate profits. If bending to the religious starts to hurt the bottom line, the corporate world will abandon it faster than George Bush can offend a thinking man.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The power of the

Quote:
The power of the religious right is something of a red herring. Advertisers are paranoid not because they care about religious values, but because they don't want to lose money. Corporations are the lap dogs for whomever can grease the wheels of their profit machines. In the U.S., at this time, it seems the religious right has the power to threaten corporate profits. If bending to the religious starts to hurt the bottom line, the corporate world will abandon it faster than George Bush can offend a thinking man.

True, advertisers are dominated by profit, but it's also true that there are a lot of Christians in these companies, and many of them are in high positions.  It's naive to think there isn't a good bit of down home censorship going on for purely religious reasons.

You make a strong point, though.  The battle for sanity in America is a battle on at least three fronts.

Historically, that's a pretty bad way to fight a war, but that's why I concentrate on only one front.  If we erode the power base of the religious right from within, they will lose power with the media.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The power

wavefreak wrote:

The power of the religious right is something of a red herring. Advertisers are paranoid not because they care about religious values, but because they don't want to lose money. Corporations are the lap dogs for whomever can grease the wheels of their profit machines. In the U.S., at this time, it seems the religious right has the power to threaten corporate profits. If bending to the religious starts to hurt the bottom line, the corporate world will abandon it faster than George Bush can offend a thinking man.

 

I can definitely agree with that wavefreak, but I think that this not only goes on in the corporate world but also, in the public policy world.  Our politics are being hijacked by these people, and this is just another example of the power the christian right possesses. 

The corporations are afraid to loose money, yes, so they cater to the christian right because they are afraid of being boycotted.  Now the problem is that there are too many people who are brainwashed by this idea called theism, this is exactly what folks like Donahue want.  By doing so they can keep the public debate silenced and out of the mainstream regarding the negation of the existence of a sky daddy.  

It's like a vicious self nurturing cycle of delusion. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


EllKay
EllKay's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm impressed by Kathy for being honest about this

More people need to speak out against the tyranny which christianity places over "public" America.

 

 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I don't know in its entirety what she said, but from the article it doesn't seem like 'hate' speech to me.

What next? Will they consider someone denying Jesus is the son of god as hate speech?

Full quote ( http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1893856/posts )

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this," Griffin said. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now."

 

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"?

 

Technically, it would be more akin to saying "Suck it, Malcolm X." She was addressing a single figure, rather than a group of people.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Does the

wavefreak wrote:

Does the legal standard for hate speech require that the words themselves be offensive or is the intent taken into consideration? Jesus, taken alone is not offensive, fag and nigger in the right context are not offensive (listen to people with street cred talking). So when is it offensive? When the context makes it offensive.

Wavefreak - I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the words "fag" and "nigger", given the right context, are unoffensive. I would say that there is no context where these words are not offensive. When you refer to people with "street cred", I assume you are referring to black people who throw the word "nigga" around casually. This is actually becoming a big issue in the black community. See this story about black comedian Eddie Griffin (no relation to Kathy, I'm guessing ;-]) whose performance at an event for Black Enterprise magazine was cut short due to his use of the word:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3562928

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


RickRebel
RickRebel's picture
Posts: 327
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote: Now the

LeftofLarry wrote:
Now the problem is that there are too many people who are brainwashed by this idea called theism, this is exactly what folks like Donahue want. By doing so they can keep the public debate silenced and out of the mainstream regarding the negation of the existence of a sky daddy.

They can try to keep the public debate silenced but the Pandora's box of logic and reason has been opened. I think we're going to continue to see an increase in the scrutinizing of faith, prayer, miracles, and the existence of invisible deities not just on the internet but in the mainstream media. Atheism will become more respected as the "religion" of common sense and censoring atheist views will be less tolerated.

 

Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  Someone needs to raise

 

Someone needs to raise enough money for an "educating atheists" television network. KG can be one of the earliest guests, and she'll be allowed to relive the speech, uncensored, and with gusto.

 

Also, we'd have to implement a strict death policy for anyone taking offers from Viacom. Just saying. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"?

Gays and people with brown skin are verifiably real people.
jesus is a religious icon and a myth and it cannot legally be protected because of the 1st amendment.

No, it is not hate speech. 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: wavefreak

AiiA wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"?

Gays and people with brown skin are verifiably real people.
jesus is a religious icon and it cannot legally be protected because of the 1st amendment

Your logic is flawless. But you are dealing with a segment of the population that doesn't value logic as highly as you. "Suck it Jesus" is offensive enough to enough people that it your logic will be discarded out of hand.

When does offensive speech cross the line into hate speech? I'm not particularly enamored with Christian's ideas of their rights, but it seems there is a bit of hypocrisy here.  Who gets to decide when speech is hateful and when it is simply insensitive?  Don Imus said "nappy headed ho's" and lost his job. But taken in context what he said was appallingly ignorant, not hateful. So shouldn't Kathy lose her job as well?

 The distinction of Jesus not being a specific person or even a real person is a distraction to the core issue. What was said, even if in my mind was not particularly hateful, was indeed patently offensive to a significant sub-group of our culture. Just because we think this sub-group is off their rocker does not grant us license to be offensive.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kathy Griffin "blasphemes" at Emmy's and gets censored

Quote:

Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Before Kathy Griffin won a creative arts Emmy last weekend for her reality show, "My Life on the D-List," she joked that an award would move her to the C-list.

She was right: "C" as in censored. The TV academy said her raucous acceptance speech will be edited when the event, which was taped, is shown Saturday on the E! channel. The main prime-time Emmy Awards air the next night on Fox.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast on Saturday night," the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences said in a statement Monday.

In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus."

She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, "This award is my god now!"

The comedian's remarks were condemned Monday by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who called them a "vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech."

According to the TV academy and E!, when the four hour-plus ceremony is edited into a two-hour program, Griffin's remarks will be shown in "an abbreviated version" in which some language may be bleeped.

The program was in production and unfinished, an E! spokeswoman said Monday.

Requests for comment were left Monday evening by phone and e-mail with Griffin's publicist. They were not immediately returned.

The Catholic League, an anti-defamation group, called on the TV academy to "denounce Griffin's obscene and blasphemous comment" at Sunday's ceremony.

The academy said Monday it had no plans to address the issue in the prime-time broadcast.

The organization may have another delicate issue to consider, this one involving an off-color fake music video that aired last December on "Saturday Night Live" and won a creative arts Emmy for best song.

Andy Samberg of "SNL" said Saturday that he had yet to be asked by the TV academy to perform the tune with Timberlake on the Fox broadcast, but he was willing. Timberlake, on a concert tour, is scheduled to be in Los Angeles next weekend.

The subject of their "(Blank) in a Box" video: wrapping a certain part of the male anatomy and presenting it to a loved one as a holiday present.

The academy has said that "show elements are in the process of being worked out."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/11/tv.emmys.griffin.ap/index.html

 

 eta: Damn - whoever did that was fast. I was just going to merge the threads and it was done. Maybe it was magic?! O_O

 

 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:

kellym78 wrote:

eta: Damn - whoever did that was fast. I was just going to merge the threads and it was done. Maybe it was magic?! O_O

LOL.

Sorry, I saw it and figured no one caught it yet so I moved it.

You can call me magic if you want, but I prefer "Slight Of Hand".

LOL.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: AiiA

wavefreak wrote:
AiiA wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

So the question is if "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is hate speech, is "suck it Jesus"?

Gays and people with brown skin are verifiably real people.
jesus is a religious icon and it cannot legally be protected because of the 1st amendment

Your logic is flawless. But you are dealing with a segment of the population that doesn't value logic as highly as you. "Suck it Jesus" is offensive enough to enough people that it your logic will be discarded out of hand.

Not that I am disagreeing with you, but someone needs to remind the United Daycare of America that just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's wrong.

Quote:

When does offensive speech cross the line into hate speech? I'm not particularly enamored with Christian's ideas of their rights, but it seems there is a bit of hypocrisy here. Who gets to decide when speech is hateful and when it is simply insensitive? Don Imus said "nappy headed ho's" and lost his job. But taken in context what he said was appallingly ignorant, not hateful. So shouldn't Kathy lose her job as well?

No.

Imus' speech was ignorant and offensive, and he got the axe because he used racially loaded words to describe a group of black women. The problem is that basically no one calls white women "hos" or any white person "nappy-headed". I would be willing to lay odds that if he'd called them "no-talent lackwits" he'd still have his job. So, he got canned for being ignorant, annoying and lacking in vocabulary.

Offensive speech becomes hate speech when you start to incite violence against a group of people. Insulting one specific person, living or dead, cannot possibly be hate speech (although I'm sure we can all come up with a great example of people who would like to equate insulting them personally with insulting a whole group). If it had been "suck it, Christians!" it still wouldn't be hate speech, because it's not inciting violence.

Quote:

The distinction of Jesus not being a specific person or even a real person is a distraction to the core issue.

I disagree. Getting censored for something said about one specific (ostensibly) dead person is a distraction from the issue of the definition of hate speech.

Quote:
What was said, even if in my mind was not particularly hateful, was indeed patently offensive to a significant sub-group of our culture. Just because we think this sub-group is off their rocker does not grant us license to be offensive.

So let me ask: so what? So what if it was offensive? Who ever told anyone they had a right to be comfortable, unchallenged and inoffensible? In the US, the Constitution gives people the right to be offensive. Granted, Kathy could have her Emmy taken away and lose her gig on whatever her TV network is for what she said, but that's a separate issue.

People don't want to be offended when they don't like the painful process of thinking. When you get offended about something, your first thought should be "is that person right?" If they're not right, THEN think about getting offended. If they are right, well, you've got more thinking to do. I'll admit I don't go LOOKING for things to offend me or that are distasteful, but I certainly don't go crying for redress of grievances just because someone said something bad about my role model.

I see it like this: if you are saying bad things about people regarding the things they cannot change about themselves (race, ethnicity, orientation, gender, etc.), that's possible hate speech. If you're saying bad things about a person regarding things they CAN change (hair colour, speech, religion, etc.), that may be offensive, but it cannot be considered hate speech. If we can't criticize the choices people make, what does that leave us? No criticism?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Right, it must be all of

Right, it must be all of those crazy moderate Christians because the Catholic League are in no way an oversensitive pressure group with a track record of protesting against anything even vaguely anti-Catholic (including South Park) and are actually totally representative of moderate Christians.

Also the bleeping out of the appropriate words has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's a show going out on prime time over the Fox network which we know would never censor anything else on the show, for example the Dick in a Box song, because they value freedom of speech over advertising revenue.

Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit but it's kind of appropriate here.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
What bothers me is that it

What bothers me is that it seems that being offensive is OK as long as the targets are twits.  One thing I have noticed that cuts across ALL beliefs - atheist, theist, christian, pagan or whatever - is the dynamic of contempt. When a person allows contempt to become a part of their thinking it inevitably leads to decisions and actions that are hurtful. Contempt, bitterness, and other destructively negative mind sets are a cancer. While it is VERY frustrating to deal with the inanity of our culture, once you set yourself above others and sneer in contempt at their un-enlightened miserableness, then you have lost.

If atheism is true, and we manage to not nuke ourselves, then the delusion of theism will fade away. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will sowly wither and die. But if you try and kill it, it will rise up like a dragon and fight back with all its irrational fury. And then we may end up nuked.

 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Having the comments

Having the comments censored, while wrong, is going to get more press than if they hadn't.  After all, how many people will watch the show versus how many will hear about the censorship on the internet?

Perhaps a few will stop and think just WHY Kathy Griffin said what she did. 

If Kathy Griffin can't un-thank (dis-thank?) jesus, the network should be sure no one can thank jesus either.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I think she should issue a

I think she should issue a public apology for forgetting to also tell the pope to suck it.

 I'm reminded of a button...

  


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
RickRebel wrote: They can

RickRebel wrote:

They can try to keep the public debate silenced but the Pandora's box of logic and reason has been opened. I think we're going to continue to see an increase in the scrutinizing of faith, prayer, miracles, and the existence of invisible deities not just on the internet but in the mainstream media. Atheism will become more respected as the "religion" of common sense and censoring atheist views will be less tolerated.

I agree, however, the christian right still holds a monopoly when it comes to public debate and discourse.  I think we are moving in the right direction but it's situations such as this that make me wonder how much of an impact are we actually making.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Having the

Susan wrote:

Having the comments censored, while wrong, is going to get more press than if they hadn't.  After all, how many people will watch the show versus how many will hear about the censorship on the internet?

Perhaps a few will stop and think just WHY Kathy Griffin said what she did. 

If Kathy Griffin can't un-thank (dis-thank?) jesus, the network should be sure no one can thank jesus either.

 And again, I don't think this would've been an issue unless christian groups wouldn't have made it an issue.  Which is exactly what's wrong with this country.  Spiritual leaders have too much power both politically and socially.  This has got to change.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Some people are missing a

Some people are missing a huge point here.

The "academy" and the network aring the award cerimony ARE PRIVATE ENTITIES and not owned by the goverment, and as such can censore anything they want.

There is a differance between the public being invited to a private event or private business, and say a public school or public courtroom. That cerimoney was NOT PUBLIC, the goverment did not set it up or run it.

I agree calling it hate speech is redicious when all she was saying is there are more important things in life than the awards we get as entertainers. BUT, having said that, as stupid as the award orginizers and politically correct left wing nuts are, still are intitled by law to run their businesses the way they choose.

You want to have an effect, find the e-mail of the event organizers and e-mail them expressing concern over their censorship. Use your own voice to combat this, of course, because it can creep into goverment law eventually. But censorship by a private business is perfectly legal and does not nessarlly effect free speech as far as law is concerned.

Kathy can if she wishes go to other events or say the same thing on Bill Marr or on her own website. The goverment cannot censor her. But those event organizers are not the goverenment. 

It is perfectly legal for a business to tell it's employees not to discuss religion with customers and sometimes even between employees. But that falls under a broad scope of basically stopping any non-work related talk that may slow down productivity. If you are talking you may not be working. 

So you guys are right in complaining about this censorship but do not confuse business censorship with government censorship. This business's cenorship is stupid and they should be called on it, but it is still perfectly legal.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And this is exactly why I

And this is exactly why I hate the usage of the term "hate speech", people fail to realize that they may not be the ones in power deciding who gets to say what and what is hatefull vs offensive.

If FOR EXAMPLE ONLY Kathy had gone up and said, "Christians should be tortured" that would be illegal because it is a call to violence. What she said even if hatefull (which it wasnt) but even if, SHOULD STILL BE PROTECTED by the first Amendment.

Her rights are not violated by the event organizers cutting out that line. She still has the right to go other places to other media our use her own media to say the same thing.

I really cannot stand pollitically correct idiots insisting on making "hate speech" as part of legal lingo. That is dangerous because the people who want it may consider YOU to be commiting hate speech.

There is a differance between say, a moderator booting someone(private person) and a goverment official such as a policeman, prosicutor, or judge shutting down this site.

We must remember that BOTH atheists and Christians are capable of crying foul and bigotry even if they are merely being offensive. But remember, Christians outnumber atheists so I do not think it is within our intrest to demand "hate speech" laws and give goverment the power to shut sites like this down. 

Emagine those same Catholics if they wrote laws based on "hate speech" and what they would do to this site if they could. Emgagine if what Scientologists like Tom Cruise would do to shows like South Park if Judges could inforce "hate speech" as determined by Scientologists. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
This is the kind of

This is the kind of censorship we should be worried about:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSL1055133420070910 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: What was

Quote:

Quote:
What was said, even if in my mind was not particularly hateful, was indeed patently offensive to a significant sub-group of our culture. Just because we think this sub-group is off their rocker does not grant us license to be offensive.

I am glad you had no hand in writing the Constitution.

Dont mix apples and oranges. Kathy Griffen had every right to say what she said, and the event organizers have every right clip it. No one's rights were being violated, not hers and not the event organizers. Both had choices, she chose to say it, and they chose to clip it.

What GOVERNMENT does not have the right to do, is demand Kathy Griffen never say that anywhere. What the GOVERMENT does not have the right to do is tell the event organizers that they must let her say it.

Do not confuse "what people should do, or what you think they should do" with what is actually legal by law. What she did was legal and what the event organizers did was legal. No one broke the law. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Do not

Brian37 wrote:

Do not confuse "what people should do, or what you think they should do" with what is actually legal by law. What she did was legal and what the event organizers did was legal. No one broke the law.

 

I'm not taling about what is legally or constitutionally right.  'm just saying that offensifness such not be lauded in a civil society.