Really?  I mean what exactly are you going to do about the fact you find his theism offensive?  I suppose you could call him names but then us folks in this civil society would just think you were being an arse.

Absolutely.  There's nothing wrong with civil discussion and debate whatsoever but that's not the same as being rude and boorish.  After all it's quite possible to make a point without resorting to crudities.

This is fucking ridiculous!! Anywhere else in the world and no one would give a fuck, in fact they'd probably just laugh. There is no way that that could in anyway be classed as hate speech.

Kathy Griffin's acceptance speech:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/09/13/sbt.griffin.panel.cnn

{fixed}

You mean, would I still think it was hilarious?  Absolutely.  Although, if she had said, "Suck it, Mohammed," I'd feel bad that she'd have to hide for the rest of her life, due to the fact that some nutcase cleric would issue a fatwa on her.   

This whole "hate speech" nonsense highlights exactly why such laws are so problomatic. They are abused. The law is abused. What starts out as a very well intentioned piece of legislation aimed and preventing racist verbal attacks or stiring up anti-semitism quickly becomes corrupted and use to stiffle and criticism of any group. The definitions of what is covered by hate speech is just to vague. It all depends upon context, interpretation, the target audience, background and the intent of the speaker. This is all open to ambiguity and interpretation. In short its a matter of opinion. This leaves the daw open for abuse of these well intentioned laws.

This is exactly what we see here. It obvious no charges will be pressed but the xtians get the opportunity to go out their way to be offended (as they often do) and now they can cite it a "hate speech" and feel all victimised which is after all what they do best. 

I get offended when people have the sheer nerve to consider that "suck it Jesus" might be in the same category as "suck it nigger" or "suck is fags" the whole notion is utterly offensive to me. It is offensive because, as I said, it belittles racism and homophobia. It belittles the suffering and torment these groups have suffered over the years (mostly at the hands of Christians BTW). So when I see a theist even trying to equate them it makes me angry. Maybe I went off on one, maybe I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. But maybe the number of times I hear theists crap on about being persecuted really winds me up. The Muslims have even managed invented their own word for criticism of Islam, its now known as Islamophobia! Apparently this means that its the same as racism, sexism, homophobia and all other types of bigotry. Any criticsim of Islam is now phobic hate speach apparently.

Its madness. All it is is a cynical atempt at censorship and the stiffling of debate.  Its is using the system to stop people disagreeing with you. It is exactly the same insidious crap the CSE are trying to pull by abusing the copyright laws, its what Christianity managed to pull with the blaphemy laws here in the UK. Just as the CSE are abusing the copyright laws so the theists are atempting to abuse the tollerant atitudes prevelant in our liberal democracies. They are abusing the social laws that state that intollerence is wrong. Theists are basically scamming the system, we do not tollerant intollerance and so if you can somehow falsly make something out to be "hate speech" you have a means to censor it.

The Muslims have a disinct advantage in pulling off this scam as the majority of them have a diffrent skin pigment to the white population. This means that they can play the racism card as well. But the Christians ain't far behind in their abuse of the system. So sorry to come on so strong, sorry if I went off on a rant but free speech is a subject that is rather dear to me and when people attack it I tend to get annoyed.

Here endeth the sermon.

But also to quote yourself

 This is the bit I am talking about. To even consider that "suck it Jesus" is in the same category as "suck it fags", or "suck it niggers" is a just wrong and deeply offensive to anyone who has been unfortunate enough experiance geniune hate speach and persecution.

It may well have done. Unfortunatly you keep very bad company and you may well be tarred with the same brush. Having debated with theists for many years it is my informed opinion that they are the first to cry blue murder and take offense if someone dares to voice any opinion that differs from theirs. Sorry but thats just the way theists are in my experiance. There are exceptions I agree. Perhaps you are one of those exceptions. Perhaps.

errrr thats right but what on earth does that observation have to do with the price of fish?

 Wavefreak was complaining that I may have judged him because he was a theist. To be honest I did judge him because he was a theist. That judgement is based on a not inconsiderbale amount of experiance in debating with theists over the years. I do judge theists, I judge them on the merits of their beliefs, I find  their beliefs distinctly lacking in merit and hence my judgement of them is negative. Also the atitutude of MOST theists I encounter is to get overly offended when someone points out that the stupidity of their beliefs. On the whole theists seem incapable of having a reasonable discusion without getting "offended". I can understand this I really can when the position you are desperate to defend is so lacking in evidence, so lacking in rational support the only real option left open is offence either that or to admit that you are irrational or just plain wrong. Thats just my experiance of theists over the years. They are generally, in my experiance, dishonest, whinney, fucktards. Wavefreak may have been judged too harshly, he may be differrent....time will tell.

A fuckin men to that!

My point, poorly made, is that "suck it Jesus" is as deeply offensive to some people (fundies) as "fag" or "nigger". The arguments offered that there is a fundamental difference in "suck it Jesus" and "suck it fag" don't hold water because no matter how you cast the debate, it is STILL deeply offensive to fundies. Should fundies be as deeply offended? Perhaps not, but they are. And so I rue the fact that our culture finds it so easy to be offensive, and am bothered by the fact that depending on your point of view, offending certain sub-groups is OK.

Fundies can be offensive - sometimes VERY offensive. And, IMHO, they do not have that right. And, IMHO, none of us have that right, either.

How about Suck it, Zues?

No the argument does not hold water. It does not hold water as long as you have the rights to free speech and the right to examine all beliefs critically. The only way that you can make the argument hold water is if

1: You allow that some beliefs are special and imune from criticsm.

2: You then allow censorship on criticism of those beliefs.

Belief in God and belief in Jesus is just that A BELIEF. In a free country with free speech such beliefs, in fact ALL BELIEFS, should and MUST be open to criticism, mockery and attack. The fact that people who hold those beliefs might be offended is irrelevant. Their offence does not mean that such criticism or mockery be banned. Can you think of one other set of beliefs that we would even consider censoring mockery of? Can you imagine what would happen if republicans got offended at criticism or mockery of their conservative beliefs and tried to censor lliberals from mocking them?

When the criticism and mockery is of something they believe they have no business being offended. If they are though shit. If they can't defend their beliefs against such criticsim, if they have to retreat behind "offense" then they should really examine those beliefs very carefully and ask themselves whether they should really believe them.

Yes they are offensive because they attack the way people are not just what they believe. I never get offended when they attack my beliefs that God does not exist. I never get offended when anyone attacks any of my beliefs. I will defend those beliefs on their merits, I will debate and argue with the best of them. I may even get a bit hot under the collar from time to time in a heated debate but offended? No way. I will, however, take offense when people attack others for the way that they are. When people descriminate against others because of their race, their sex or sexuality then I take offence.

They do have the right to voice their opinions no matter how offensive. They do not have the right to be offended when their beleifs are critcised NO ONE DOES.

Its really simple

Beliefs ARE open to all criticism and no one has the right to get offended if those beliefs are criticised or even mocked. They certainly don't have the right to censor that mockery.

Mockery and criticsim of the way you actually are (rather than what you think) can be offensive.

Dude, its trademarked. I've been here for months...

"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 (she said Kiss my ass Jesus) 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.

We already know what the author of the statement thought.  This is not an unbiased sentence.

Note the writer of the statement wrote "offensive remarks" as if it is fact that they are offensive to everyone.

How annoying. 

First, a hello to EllKay!

I have a problem with censoring of any "hate speech"--even if it is hate speech, according to a general definition--in the USA, because free speech means offensive speech is protected.  Some things people say are vile and disgusting, but they have a right to say them!

 I really hope this doesn't hurt Kathy's career.  I guess her career isn't a big one, although I think she's done better in recent years, but you know how people are when you criticize religion.

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.

Like the Pope in the profitable company of Christianity

Well if they really followed the teachings of Jesus they would have to hate every member of their family or they couldn't be His Disciple.

 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." – Luke 14.26

If you don't want me to start pointing out how the teachings of the Bible are psychotic, murderous, and flat out insane then don't say that Christians doing "bad" things need to follow what the bible says more closely.

I don't even need to argue.  Just read your bible.  Case done.

Apparently quoting scripture is taken as insulting and a form of attacking a christian even within their own perception.

You may want to rethink your idea that humanity gets morality from the bible.