Ex-gay bus advert ban upheld

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Ex-gay bus advert ban upheld

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21894518

London: Transport bosses were right to ban a Christian group's bus advert suggesting gay people could be helped to change their sexuality, it has been ruled.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Huh ? But

Anonymouse wrote:
Huh ? But that makes no sense. So then the freedom of whoever wants to kill me is more important than any action I want to take to stop them ? 

That makes no sense. We are discussing freedom of speech, not freedom of violence.

Anonymouse wrote:
If there is no way to prove if it works or not, then it's a fact that it's completely useless. 

Your opinion.

Anonymouse wrote:
So we don't need the legislation anymore ? Just talking will do ?  I'm sorry, but that sounds almost adorably naive.

You're the naive one if you think a minority can pass legislation the majority doesn't agree with. When the majority shares our views on this you can expect legislation, not before.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:I didn't

Anonymouse wrote:
I didn't just reject them. I asked for reasonable arguments. Something beyond "because the bible says so". There was, and still is, nothing at all. I'm suggesting that should mean something.

Well unfortunately there's still hundreds of millions of people who view religious texts as valuable sources of knowledge and morality. "The bible says so" is good enough for them.

Anonymouse wrote:
No, not "wrong". That actually happened, and it didn't just wake up my folks. Quite a lot of people watched that show.

Irrelevant, you're still wrong. Show me stats proving every parent who watched that show decided not to send their kids to the camp. That every child who argued intelligently against going was successful.
You can't. If it were so easy, they'd have been shut down simply out of a lack of business.

Anonymouse wrote:
There were only a few of these guys around where I live, and now there are even less

Yet they are still there, so kids are still being sent.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Are you

Anonymouse wrote:
Are you being serious ? 

Very.

Anonymouse wrote:
why is it a "horrible place" ? 

Because you can be thrown in jail just for talking.

Anonymouse wrote:
Hey, did you know Canada has hate speech laws ? Does that make you guys enemies of freedom ? 

Yep. Noone's perfect. I'm quite confident I could successfully challenge those laws in court however, should it be necessary.

Anonymouse wrote:
Then please enlighten me : What's happening in all these countries with hate speech legislation (including yours, btw) that I am ignoring ?

Legal slavery in the form of a so-called justice system and the steady march to a world not unlike that found in "1984".

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Never

Beyond Saving wrote:
Never said it wasn't.

Never said you did.

Beyond Saving wrote:
But it is legal and anything that is legal should be able to advertise. If it is so terrible that it should be illegal, then have that argument. But if you are going to have that argument, those who think it should be legal ought to be free to argue for it. You can't have a legitimate political debate if you use the force of government to shut one side up.

Like I keep saying, if they have any arguments that haven't been debunked already, then let's hear it it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think under that definition what you said here is clearly hate speech. Should it be banned? 

Was I talking about something horrible that actually happened, or was I just randomly spouting irrational hatred ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Hard to do when you don't want them to speak.

If all they have to say is that I need to be killed, then yes, they need to shut the fuck up. If they have anything else, then again, bring it. So far, nothing.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think all bigotry should be out in the open so I can more easily choose not to associate with bigots.

How are people unfamiliar with this even supposed to know it IS bigotry in the first place, when it's presented the same way as an ad for fucking toothpaste ? 

We can't just follow that bus around and hand out leaflets to anyone who even looks at it. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Your link isn't working,

Weird. Works for me.

Try this one :  

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2009/03/2314/

Beyond Saving wrote:
but if I remember correctly it was some African country that passed the law? We are talking about a group in the UK, running an advertisement in the UK. If they did any actions overseas that may be illegal under UK law they should be prosecuted. I fail to see how that has any relevance to whether or not they should be allowed to purchase an ad.

All the ex-gay therapy crap is  coming from America, and now that they've shown what they would do when offered more political influence, I fail to see what excuse anyone could have left to just let them pose as a legitimate business. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Their ad said almost exactly the same thing as the gay pride one which said "Some people are gay, get over it." The 'hate speech' read "Not gay! Ex-gay, post gay and proud. Get over it." As someone who is neither ex-gay nor gay the only difference I see is that you don't like the people who purchased the second ad.

Then you would be ignoring that fact that the second ad implies that being gay is something that you can overcome, a problem you can be proud to have conquered. While the first ad is simply a reaction against the irrational hatred that this "ex-gay therapy" is trying to legitimize again. 

I would respectfully suggest that that would be quite a lot of ignoring. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
If I purchased an ad that said, "Not gay! Not ex-gay! Heterosexual and proud. Get over it." is that hate speech?

Nope. It would be a waste of money. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Or perhaps one that said, "Don't give a fuck if you are gay or ex-gay. Shut up and get over it."

That one would just suggest that you don't really want to deal with the problem of irrational hatred. Fair enough, but still a waste of money. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Because quite frankly I am sick of all the hysterics and ads from both sides.

*sigh* Look, it's not my intention to get on your or anyone else's nerves, and sure, if all you hear is "ban ! ban ! ban !", then yeah, it can seem hysterical, I guess.

But I have spent A LOT of time going over every single argument in favor of this stuff, and the only thing that keeps coming up is bible verses.

They have nothing except irrational hatred, and it's not in any way "hysterical" to keep exposing this fact, even when people don't want to hear it.

Beyond Saving wrote:
For now. Are inclusive liberal groups always going to be in control? Or someday is a bible thumper going to take over and call atheist advertisements 'hate speech'? The only guarantee is that countries will not survive forever.

The bible thumper and other populists have had their hate-mongering tools severely limited in countries with these laws, and yes, we have already seen positive results from this. Neo-nazi parties that grew frighteningly popular in Europe in the 80s have now completely disappeared, or have shrunk down to almost nothing. 

Oh, and btw, can we agree that what radio milles collines did during the Rwanda massacre, qualifies as hate speech ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yeah, something I would be extremely concerned about if I lived there. I don't see why the government needs to pass more laws when many people involved in the scandal were arrested and are facing charges. What they did was already illegal, they got caught and are being prosecuted. Yet politicians can't pass on a scandal that will give them a reason to grab more power. Their citizens should be throwing fits. Unfortunately, too many people treat free speech cavalierly and tolerate these infringements.

Okay, then what would you have done if you had been presented with that report ? Nothing ?

Beyond Saving wrote:
That is exactly why government power should be heavily restrained even when you think you are using it for good. A powerful government will sooner or later fall into the hands of people who will abuse that power. Controlling speech content and who can speak is one of the many ways governments build their power.
 

But this is happening in a country that doesn't have hate speech laws. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That makes no

Vastet wrote:
That makes no sense. We are discussing freedom of speech, not freedom of violence.
 

Yeah, incitement to violence. Through "speech". Hate speech. Look, are you saying there is no such thing as hate speech ? 

Vastet wrote:
Your opinion.
 

Okay, well, if it's just my opinion,  then give me an example of something that you can't prove works or not, that isn't completely useless. 

Vastet wrote:
You're the naive one if you think a minority can pass legislation the majority doesn't agree with. When the majority shares our views on this you can expect legislation, not before.
 

Well, both out countries already have hate speech laws, so we're good.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Well

Vastet wrote:
Well unfortunately there's still hundreds of millions of people who view religious texts as valuable sources of knowledge and morality. "The bible says so" is good enough for them.
 

It's worth my time to point out the horrible consequences of basing your morality on a religious hit list. 

Anonymouse wrote:
Irrelevant, you're still wrong. Show me stats proving every parent who watched that show decided not to send their kids to the camp. That every child who argued intelligently against going was successful. You can't. If it were so easy, they'd have been shut down simply out of a lack of business.
 

I don't understand how it can be "irrelevant" when the lack of rationality of these people is exposed for anyone to see. Do I really need stats to prove that facts are important ? 

Anonymouse wrote:
Yet they are still there, so kids are still being sent.
 

To be precise, there's one left in my country, and he doesn't take kids. Not anymore, he doesn't. 

Now let's wait and see what happens with those American laws that are planning to take away their "freedom" to treat kids.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Very.Then I

Vastet wrote:
Very.

Then I guess they're the kind of "Nazis" who have lost all interest in that whole "master race" crap. The kind of nazis who aren't actually nazis at all.

Vastet wrote:
Because you can be thrown in jail just for talking.

For denying the holocaust ever happened, you mean ? Do you seriously think that law simply exists because they want to be horrible, or could it be that the people who made and supported that law may have a more realistic view of the situation in their country than you do ? 

Vastet wrote:
Yep. Noone's perfect.

Yikes. Never thought of Canada as part of the new third reich. You learn something new every day, I guess. 

Vastet wrote:
I'm quite confident I could successfully challenge those laws in court however, should it be necessary.

Hey, go for it. Having trouble imagining a situation in which that might be necessary, though.

Anonymouse wrote:
Legal slavery in the form of a so-called justice system and the steady march to a world not unlike that found in "1984".
 

How is the justice system "enslaving" me, and has this "steady march" arrived at any facts yet ? Where's my room 101 ? 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

For what it's worth, my take on this is that it is not, per se, a 'hate crime' advert, but IS false advertising.

 

The advert gives the impression that they can provide a service that successfully converts people from being gay to being 'non-gay'. However I've not heard of any successful clinical trials or research that can validate this. Further, if a pharmaceutical company brought out an 'anti gayness drug' but advertised it as "side effects may include self-doubt, self-denial, self-loathing, depression, reduced sex drive and suicidal tendencies" I doubt it would get to the 'advertising on buses' stage.

 

Same reason we don't get adverts about successful homeopathy treatments or deadly accurate star sign readings over 'ere.

 

 

Yeah, it should probably be mentioned that it's just me who figures this ex-gay therapy stuff amounts to hate speech, and that's certainly not the opinion of the people who quite rightly banned this ad. 

They probably found an entirely different reason and legal means to ban it. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse, you asked what

Anonymouse, you asked what could go wrong with anti-racism etc laws?

 

Remember this?

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33905

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Yeah,

Anonymouse wrote:
Yeah, incitement to violence

Inciting violence is already a crime on its own, and therefore has no bearing on the discussion.

Anonymouse wrote:
Okay, well, if it's just my opinion,  then give me an example of something that you can't prove works or not, that isn't completely useless. 

First prove this can't be proven to work or not. Prove it is useless when there is testimony to the contrary.

Better yet, prove it doesn't work yourself. That'd be awesome. Then you have something solid we can all take to the governments and the courts and the media.

Anonymouse wrote:
It's worth my time to point out the horrible consequences of basing your morality on a religious hit list. 

What does this have to do with anything I've ever said?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:I don't

Anonymouse wrote:
I don't understand how it can be "irrelevant" when the lack of rationality of these people is exposed for anyone to see. Do I really need stats to prove that facts are important ?

The day all people are rational all the time is not today. Yes, you need stats.

Anonymouse wrote:
To be precise, there's one left in my country, and he doesn't take kids. Not anymore, he doesn't. 

One left that you know of, who doesn't teach kids that you know of.

Anonymouse wrote:
Then I guess they're the kind of "Nazis" who have lost all interest in that whole "master race" crap. The kind of nazis who aren't actually nazis at all.

Don't agree with us we'll throw you in work camps. We even figured out killing people is costly and inefficient, so you don't have to worry about gas chambers.
Still Nazi's.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:For denying

Anonymouse wrote:
For denying the holocaust ever happened, you mean ? Do you seriously think that law simply exists because they want to be horrible, or could it be that the people who made and supported that law may have a more realistic view of the situation in their country than you do ? 

Or maybe they are still Nazi's and you just don't want to admit it? They are so desperate to not admit it they made any dissent a crime.

Anonymouse wrote:
Yikes. Never thought of Canada as part of the new third reich. You learn something new every day, I guess.

Your exaggerations are hardly constructive.

Anonymouse wrote:
Hey, go for it. Having trouble imagining a situation in which that might be necessary, though.

Me too. Far as I know hate crime laws are almost never actually used here. Whenever they are it's always one amongst many charges, so I doubt they ever stick. Prosecutors will stick with the charges they know will work, not the ones that can get a whole case thrown out.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:How is the

Anonymouse wrote:
How is the justice system "enslaving" me, and has this "steady march" arrived at any facts yet ? Where's my room 101 ? 

A willing slave is still a slave. Also, check out stats on how many people per capita are in prison for victimless crimes.
Give it a couple more decades and you'll have your room.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Like I keep

Anonymouse wrote:

Like I keep saying, if they have any arguments that haven't been debunked already, then let's hear it it.

Should being wrong be illegal?  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Was I talking about something horrible that actually happened, or was I just randomly spouting irrational hatred ? 

So all irrational speech should be illegal? Who determines whether something is irrational hatred or fact? I think it is exceptionally dangerous to give any human or groups of humans that power. They are not always going to be on your side. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Hard to do when you don't want them to speak.

If all they have to say is that I need to be killed, then yes, they need to shut the fuck up. If they have anything else, then again, bring it. So far, nothing.

The ad you want banned said nothing about killing anyone. If the ad said "gays are evil, kill them" maybe you have a point. It didn't. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think all bigotry should be out in the open so I can more easily choose not to associate with bigots.

How are people unfamiliar with this even supposed to know it IS bigotry in the first place, when it's presented the same way as an ad for fucking toothpaste ? 

We can't just follow that bus around and hand out leaflets to anyone who even looks at it. 

You could buy a bus ad. How are people supposed to know it is bigotry if they don't even know it exists? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Their ad said almost exactly the same thing as the gay pride one which said "Some people are gay, get over it." The 'hate speech' read "Not gay! Ex-gay, post gay and proud. Get over it." As someone who is neither ex-gay nor gay the only difference I see is that you don't like the people who purchased the second ad.

Then you would be ignoring that fact that the second ad implies that being gay is something that you can overcome, a problem you can be proud to have conquered. While the first ad is simply a reaction against the irrational hatred that this "ex-gay therapy" is trying to legitimize again.

All the second ad claims is that they are ex-gay. It doesn't even suggest that you should become ex-gay too anymore than a gay pride ad suggests you should be gay. I think the only implication you get is from your personal experience and being forced by your parents to go to such therapies. Is it so inconceivable that a gay adult may wish to change and want to go to them? Is it so terrible to you that someone may have decided to make a major change in their lifestyle and proud that they successfully did it? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
If I purchased an ad that said, "Not gay! Not ex-gay! Heterosexual and proud. Get over it." is that hate speech?

Nope. It would be a waste of money.

What is the difference between someone being proud of being "ex-gay" and me being proud of being heterosexual? Would it be different if I ran an ad saying "Ex-hetero! Gay and proud. Get over it."? It seems to me that your definition of 'hate speech' has far more to do with the people speaking than the words that they say. Should everyone who is ex-gay be banned from purchasing any ad? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Because quite frankly I am sick of all the hysterics and ads from both sides.

*sigh* Look, it's not my intention to get on your or anyone else's nerves, and sure, if all you hear is "ban ! ban ! ban !", then yeah, it can seem hysterical, I guess.

But I have spent A LOT of time going over every single argument in favor of this stuff, and the only thing that keeps coming up is bible verses.

They have nothing except irrational hatred, and it's not in any way "hysterical" to keep exposing this fact, even when people don't want to hear it.

I get it. And if I was gay, the gay marriage argument going on right now would probably be very important to me. I do think you are being hypersensitive over this ad, even though you might have good reasons to be sensitive because yeah, they are bigots.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

The bible thumper and other populists have had their hate-mongering tools severely limited in countries with these laws, and yes, we have already seen positive results from this. Neo-nazi parties that grew frighteningly popular in Europe in the 80s have now completely disappeared, or have shrunk down to almost nothing. 

And will they disappear forever? If history is an indication they will resurface in the future. Trends like these have tended to come and go, I see no reason why the future will be different. Perhaps the victim group will be someone other than gays, but it is highly likely that at some point in the future, some minority is going to be victimized by the people in power. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh, and btw, can we agree that what radio milles collines did during the Rwanda massacre, qualifies as hate speech ? 

Call it whatever you want. The crime they should be jailed for is accessory for the murders, not for the speech. If you use your speech to aid in the commission of a violent crime it should be illegal, but not on the basis that it is hateful, on the basis that it lead to real physical harm. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yeah, something I would be extremely concerned about if I lived there. I don't see why the government needs to pass more laws when many people involved in the scandal were arrested and are facing charges. What they did was already illegal, they got caught and are being prosecuted. Yet politicians can't pass on a scandal that will give them a reason to grab more power. Their citizens should be throwing fits. Unfortunately, too many people treat free speech cavalierly and tolerate these infringements.

Okay, then what would you have done if you had been presented with that report ? Nothing ?

I think that often the best thing a government can do is nothing. Imo, government intervention usually causes far more harm than whatever problem those idiots are attempting to fix. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Don't agree

Vastet wrote:

Don't agree with us we'll throw you in work camps. We even figured out killing people is costly and inefficient, so you don't have to worry about gas chambers.

I agree: people really shouldn't be jailed for denying reality--unless their denial will cause significant harm.

 

Vastet wrote:

Inciting violence is already a crime on its own, and therefore has no bearing on the discussion.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you use your speech to aid in the commission of a violent crime it should be illegal, but not on the basis that it is hateful, on the basis that it lead to real physical harm.

I may be missing something, but I think the above two statements describe quite accurately what "hate speech" is: speech calling for violence against a specific group (or groups) of people, that is very likely to lead to physical harm if allowed to continue.

Also, emotional harm is just as real and damaging as physical harm. Sadly, I'm not sure it's possible to make decent laws against inflicting serious emotional harm...

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet wrote: Or maybe

 

Vastet wrote:
Or maybe they are still Nazi's and you just don't want to admit it? They are so desperate to not admit it they made any dissent a crime.  

 

This is the most ludicrous sweeping generalisation of a sentence I've read on these boards for some time. If you ever went to Germany you'd realise the ridiculousness of it. I love how you follow it up by commenting that someone else's exaggerations are hardly constructive..


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I may be

blacklight915 wrote:

I may be missing something, but I think the above two statements describe quite accurately what "hate speech" is: speech calling for violence against a specific group (or groups) of people, that is very likely to lead to physical harm if allowed to continue.

Yet there are already laws against that and have been in every major country. Incitement is illegal regardless of whether your target is a certain group or an individual or even property. Incitement is the act of encouraging, pressuring, persuading, instigating or threatening someone to get them to commit a crime. For example, if I somehow convince you to go rob a bank, I could face charges even if I didn't actually go to the bank myself. I remember a fairly widely reported case a few years ago where a mother convinced her daughters to go rob a bank and she was jailed for incitement, even though she did not participate in the actual crime.

In the US, for a law against incitement to be Constitutional it has to be speech that is likely to cause "imminent lawless action". Even words that advocate for violence are protected unless it can be demonstrated that it is intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action. Imminent meaning that it can't be a possibility of criminal action at some uncertain time in the future, but something that is intended to happen soon. As such, the example of the radio station telling people where to go murder people in Rwanda is clearly incitement under US laws, because it was intended to encourage people to commit murder and had the ability to do so.

The relevant opinion in Supreme Court law is Brandenburg v. Ohio http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492 which involved a KKK meeting where there were several speeches given advocating 

Quote:

We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.

Other speeches included the phrases 

Quote:

 

"How far is the nigger going to -- yeah."

"This is what we are going to do to the niggers."

"A dirty nigger."

"Send the Jews back to Israel."

"Let's give them back to the dark garden."

"Save America."

"Let's go back to constitutional betterment."

"Bury the niggers."

"We intend to do our part."

"Give us our state rights."

"Freedom for the whites."

"Nigger will have to fight for every inch he gets from now on."

I think we can all clearly agree this is hate speech, but it is not incitement and hence perfectly legal in the US (it is not legal in many countries). Hate speech laws on the other hand do not require that the speech is intended or actually can lead to a crime being committed. They outlaw the speech because the speech itself is offensive and hateful. Hence, an anti-gay group that says gays deserve to burn in hell and are evil unnatural people etc. are engaging in hate speech.

I think it is perfectly clear that the advertisement in question in this thread does not amount to incitement. I am not even sure it qualifies as hateful since it makes no reference to anyone or any group other than themselves. It is concerning to me that people think it would be ok to ban something like that simply because they are offended by it.

 

blacklight915 wrote:

 

Also, emotional harm is just as real and damaging as physical harm. Sadly, I'm not sure it's possible to make decent laws against inflicting serious emotional harm...

Not without being tyrannical. I doubt too many people feel a terrible amount of emotional harm when some crackpot is out there spewing their hate speech. The people capable of inflicting significant emotional harm are the people you are close to and love: your family, friends, people you look up to and people you respect. I doubt any gay person really gives a flying fuck what some fundy group "Core Issues" thinks about them any more than anyone on this site gives a fuck about what Jean Chauvin thinks about them. It is when their parents, siblings or friends say harmful things or reject them is when it causes real significant harm. I don't see how that problem could ever be addressed at a legal level. That is something that people have to learn to deal with in their personal lives and that process is neither easy nor painless. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Anonymouse, you asked what could go wrong with anti-racism etc laws?

 

Remember this?

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33905

 

 

Yeah, I remember. Read the whole thread. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Inciting

Vastet wrote:
Inciting violence is already a crime on its own, and therefore has no bearing on the discussion.
 

If we agree that inciting violence is a crime, then I don't really see how we can disagree on the necessity of hate speech laws. 

Vastet wrote:
First prove this can't be proven to work or not. Prove it is useless when there is testimony to the contrary. Better yet, prove it doesn't work yourself. That'd be awesome. Then you have something solid we can all take to the governments and the courts and the media.
 

You just said it yourself : "testimony to the contrary". That's all there is, "testimony", no proof. Unless you have some magical method that can determine if the people who claim it works aren't simply lying, or were never even gay or bi in the first place, then you have absolutely nothing.

If that's not "solid" enough, then why don't you just believe everything that only has "testimony' to support it ? 

Vastet wrote:
What does this have to do with anything I've ever said?
 

It doesn't ? Well, that's a relief. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The day all

Vastet wrote:
The day all people are rational all the time is not today. Yes, you need stats.

How are people even going to get the chance to be "rational" if they don't get confronted with the facts ? 

Vastet wrote:
One left that you know of, who doesn't teach kids that you know of.

If I can't find one here, then anyone looking to send their kids to one certainly won't be able to. 

Vastet wrote:
Don't agree with us we'll throw you in work camps. We even figured out killing people is costly and inefficient, so you don't have to worry about gas chambers. Still Nazi's.

Okay, now you're just being ridiculous. That is not how the hate speech laws in Germany work. 

Are you seriously comparing their hate speech laws to being sent to work camps ? 

Vastet wrote:
Or maybe they are still Nazi's and you just don't want to admit it?

Well, I'm kinda struggling to understand how a country were nazism is illegal is somehow still ruled by nazis. 

Vastet wrote:
They are so desperate to not admit it they made any dissent a crime.

No, they made DENYING it a crime. 

Vastet wrote:
Your exaggerations are hardly constructive.

MY exaggerations ??? Dude, I asked you if having hate speech laws made you the "enemies of freedom". You said yes ! 

Vastet wrote:
Me too. Far as I know hate crime laws are almost never actually used here. Whenever they are it's always one amongst many charges, so I doubt they ever stick. Prosecutors will stick with the charges they know will work, not the ones that can get a whole case thrown out.

The point is the laws are in place, which means that any populist trying to use hate speech to gain political power is going to be stopped before he can get anywhere. 

Vastet wrote:
A willing slave is still a slave.

Yeah, unfortunately just calling me a slave doesn't make me one.

Vastet wrote:
Also, check out stats on how many people per capita are in prison for victimless crimes.

Still less than in the "land of the free". 

Vastet wrote:
Give it a couple more decades and you'll have your room.

And if it hasn't happened by then ? Give it even more decades ? Now where have I heard that excuse before ? 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Should

Beyond Saving wrote:
Should being wrong be illegal?

If other people are made to suffer for it, then yes. If not, then you can be as wrong as you like. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
So all irrational speech should be illegal?

No.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Who determines whether something is irrational hatred or fact?

If we really are unable to tell the difference, then we're all in very deep shit indeed. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think it is exceptionally dangerous to give any human or groups of humans that power. They are not always going to be on your side. 

Hate speech laws are about taking the power of hate away from people seeking political power, so they are actually trying to prevent the danger that you're describing.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The ad you want banned said nothing about killing anyone. If the ad said "gays are evil, kill them" maybe you have a point. It didn't. 

The ad is suggesting I need to be fixed. What other arguments are there, beyond the biblical instruction to kill, that would even vaguely support that idea ? 

Like I keep saying, I've been asking for reasonable arguments for years. It always comes down to the bible. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
You could buy a bus ad. How are people supposed to know it is bigotry if they don't even know it exists?  

You can know something exists without it being announced on a bus ad. And I don't need dueling bus ad campaigns to know that christian groups can afford better ad companies than I can. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
All the second ad claims is that they are ex-gay. It doesn't even suggest that you should become ex-gay too anymore than a gay pride ad suggests you should be gay.

It said "not gay ! ex gay, post gay and proud". It suggests that you can become "ex-gay", and by saying this is something to be proud of, it suggest that staying gay is something you should be ashamed of. 

All the gay pride slogan says is that there is no reason to be ashamed. Unless I missed the slogan where they suggest that being straight is something you can change, and should be proud of doing so.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think the only implication you get is from your personal experience and being forced by your parents to go to such therapies.

Since that actually happened, and not just to me, is it then really unfair of me to recognize those implications in their ads ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is it so inconceivable that a gay adult may wish to change and want to go to them?

If this gay adult can give me a reason that doesn't come down to them simply not being able to deal with irrational hatred anymore, then I would love to hear all about it.

Again, I've been looking for a reason like that for years. Still nothing. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is it so terrible to you that someone may have decided to make a major change in their lifestyle and proud that they successfully did it? 

They can change their "lifestyle" all they want, but if they have a reason to change their sexual orientation, that isn't just a desperate need to get away from the irrational hatred, then again, I would like to hear all about it before I congratulate them.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
What is the difference between someone being proud of being "ex-gay" and me being proud of being heterosexual? 

The same difference as between someone being proud to be "ex-heterosexual", and me being proud to be gay.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Would it be different if I ran an ad saying "Ex-hetero! Gay and proud. Get over it."?

People would be confused by the "ex-hetero", as it would seem to suggest you changed from one to the other. Link that to equally suspect "ex-hetero" therapy, and you'd have exactly the same problem.

Beyond Saving wrote:
It seems to me that your definition of 'hate speech' has far more to do with the people speaking than the words that they say.

Then you're forgetting that I explained already that my problem is that they have no facts to support their claims. All they have is the bible. Specifically a bit that most definitely is hate speech.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Should everyone who is ex-gay be banned from purchasing any ad? 

No, but if they really want to advertise their "therapy" and not just attack gay people, then why not be honest and also advertise the fact that it's impossible to prove if it works or not, has been shown to cause harm, is not recognized by the APA, and since homosexuality isn't actually a disorder to begin with, offering "therapy" for it doesn't even begin to make sense.

It would be a slightly bigger poster, but all those facts would take care of the confusion and ambiguity.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I get it. And if I was gay, the gay marriage argument going on right now would probably be very important to me. I do think you are being hypersensitive over this ad, even though you might have good reasons to be sensitive because yeah, they are bigots.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I know that you also are not a bigot, and that I'm grateful you're taking the time to put your way of viewing this into words. If there's anything I need to learn on this site, it's how to talk to "rightwing" people without having them explode at me.

I need to learn this because I'm going to marry someone like that soon. I'd like to get through the wedding without his dad trying to strangle me. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
And will they disappear forever? If history is an indication they will resurface in the future. Trends like these have tended to come and go, I see no reason why the future will be different. Perhaps the victim group will be someone other than gays, but it is highly likely that at some point in the future, some minority is going to be victimized by the people in power. 

And that is exactly why hate speech laws are needed, because they take away the tools of hate-mongering from ALL political extremists, left or right, no matter who they're trying to victimize. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Call it whatever you want. The crime they should be jailed for is accessory for the murders, not for the speech. 

That's the problem right there. Under the existing laws, there was either nothing illegal about what they did, or the punishment wouldn't fit the crime. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you use your speech to aid in the commission of a violent crime it should be illegal, but not on the basis that it is hateful, on the basis that it lead to real physical harm. 

How is it not hateful to use speech to cause real physical harm ? What else but pure hatred could have caused normal people to commit those crimes ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think that often the best thing a government can do is nothing. Imo, government intervention usually causes far more harm than whatever problem those idiots are attempting to fix. 
 

Fair enough, but can we also agree that there are situations where doing nothing could simply be cowardice ? 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Vastet

Anonymouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Me too. Far as I know hate crime laws are almost never actually used here. Whenever they are it's always one amongst many charges, so I doubt they ever stick. Prosecutors will stick with the charges they know will work, not the ones that can get a whole case thrown out.

The point is the laws are in place, which means that any populist trying to use hate speech to gain political power is going to be stopped before he can get anywhere. 

Damn, just typed up a really long response and lost it all when I clicked to post it. Short version: Unfortunately, these laws are not used to stop budding Hitlers. They are used to harass people with unpopular political views, to make money and to shut them up. One attorney, Richard Warman has pressed a dozen or so of these cases- every single one decided in his favor. This guy has made a living trolling racist internet sites and finding people who live in Canada so he can sue them. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warman

Several of the cases are here

http://cafe.nfshost.com/documents.html

http://nspcanada.nfshost.com/PDFs/WarmanVsTremaineDecision.pdf

Most of these cases amount to ignorant SOBs sitting around in the swastika underwear and bitching about Jews and Blacks on the internet. It is completely absurd. If you read the actual comments posted on the internet, they are about as offensive as things said by our local anti-semite Nony. Offensive yes, so terrible they should be illegal? No. Hell, comments made by Jean Chauvin here are a lot more offensive and more directed towards harming people and I don't think those should be illegal either, do you? None of the comments were specific threats (in fact, none even suggested genocide as an option). 

If there ever is a populist Hitler type figure, do you think a tribunal that fines him $5,000 is going to stop him? By definition, if the movement is populist there is a large number of people who agree with the hate- enough that they will construe it so that the other side is the one filled with hate and the other side are the ones who need to be shut up by the tribunal. Giving the government the power to control what anyone says on the internet is extremely dangerous and if you think that the government will always agree with you and be on your side you are extremely naive.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Damn,

Beyond Saving wrote:
Damn, just typed up a really long response and lost it all when I clicked to post it.

That sucks. Sorry about that. I'll try to keep it shorter myself.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Short version: Unfortunately, these laws are not used to stop budding Hitlers. They are used to harass people with unpopular political views, to make money and to shut them up. One attorney, Richard Warman has pressed a dozen or so of these cases- every single one decided in his favor. This guy has made a living trolling racist internet sites and finding people who live in Canada so he can sue them. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warman

Several of the cases are here

http://cafe.nfshost.com/documents.html

http://nspcanada.nfshost.com/PDFs/WarmanVsTremaineDecision.pdf

Most of these cases amount to ignorant SOBs sitting around in the swastika underwear and bitching about Jews and Blacks on the internet. It is completely absurd. If you read the actual comments posted on the internet, they are about as offensive as things said by our local anti-semite Nony. Offensive yes, so terrible they should be illegal? No. Hell, comments made by Jean Chauvin here are a lot more offensive and more directed towards harming people and I don't think those should be illegal either, do you? None of the comments were specific threats (in fact, none even suggested genocide as an option). 

There is not a single law that can't be abused. And if you're suggesting that this guy never ever stopped someone who could have been potentially dangerous, and they were all clowns like Jean, then I guess we both have a lot of reading to do.

Beyond Saving wrote:
If there ever is a populist Hitler type figure, do you think a tribunal that fines him $5,000 is going to stop him?

We took one of our neo-nazi parties to trial under the anti-racism laws, and that worked pretty well, thank you. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
By definition, if the movement is populist there is a large number of people who agree with the hate- enough that they will construe it so that the other side is the one filled with hate and the other side are the ones who need to be shut up by the tribunal.

Again, these laws are designed to stop a movement like that before it gets large enough to grab power. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Giving the government the power to control what anyone says on the internet is extremely dangerous and if you think that the government will always agree with you and be on your side you are extremely naive.
 

And I would suggest that it is even more naive to think that you can keep hate-mongering populists from becoming the government just by talking to them. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Beyond

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Should being wrong be illegal?

If other people are made to suffer for it, then yes. If not, then you can be as wrong as you like. 

Define suffer. How exactly are other people suffering because of this bus ad? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Who determines whether something is irrational hatred or fact?

If we really are unable to tell the difference, then we're all in very deep shit indeed. 

Have you ever been to a trial in person? We struggle over determining the definition of everything from what is physical evidence and whether or not testimony is hearsay. It is irrational to think that a group of humans are going to have a consistent definition of any word and when you are talking about words as subjective as "irrational" and "hatred" humans ideas of the definitions can be very broad indeed. These particular religious groups believe that it is "loving" to convince someone to avoid gay lifestyles because they honestly believe that you are going to burn in hell for eternity if they fail to save you.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think it is exceptionally dangerous to give any human or groups of humans that power. They are not always going to be on your side. 

Hate speech laws are about taking the power of hate away from people seeking political power, so they are actually trying to prevent the danger that you're describing.

And do laws always achieve what they attempt to achieve? I don't really question the motive and I think most people who support these laws like yourself have really good intentions. What I question is whether the law can be effective long term and whether it can be abused when less than honest people achieve positions of power. In the case of laws banning speech on the basis of it being offensive, I see thousands of ways it can be abused in the future. Given human history, I think it is safe to say that if power can be abused it is only a question of when it will happen, not if it will happen.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The ad you want banned said nothing about killing anyone. If the ad said "gays are evil, kill them" maybe you have a point. It didn't. 

The ad is suggesting I need to be fixed. What other arguments are there, beyond the biblical instruction to kill, that would even vaguely support that idea ? 

Like I keep saying, I've been asking for reasonable arguments for years. It always comes down to the bible. 

It is suggesting you can be changed, the ad itself does not suggest that you need it. It didn't say "we need to fix all the gays" it said, I used to be gay, now I am not and I am proud of it. I'm sure there are many people in the organization who believe that you need to be fixed, but that is not what the ad that was banned says.

Does an argument have to be reasonable for it to be legal? That would outlaw 99.99% of political ads in the US and my guess probably in the UK too. Political ads are not known for being sources of reasoned discussion.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
You could buy a bus ad. How are people supposed to know it is bigotry if they don't even know it exists?  

You can know something exists without it being announced on a bus ad. And I don't need dueling bus ad campaigns to know that christian groups can afford better ad companies than I can. 

Oh, so because they have more money than you the government has to intervene? Note that in this case the gay rights ad to which they were responding ran several months prior. I don't think the gay rights movement is particularly hurting for money.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
All the second ad claims is that they are ex-gay. It doesn't even suggest that you should become ex-gay too anymore than a gay pride ad suggests you should be gay.

It said "not gay ! ex gay, post gay and proud". It suggests that you can become "ex-gay", and by saying this is something to be proud of, it suggest that staying gay is something you should be ashamed of. 

All the gay pride slogan says is that there is no reason to be ashamed. Unless I missed the slogan where they suggest that being straight is something you can change, and should be proud of doing so.

Advertisements all over the place tell me I should be ashamed of my gambling, my drinking and my atheism suggesting places I should go to change myself. Do all of those qualify as hate speech towards gamblers, alcoholics and atheists? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think the only implication you get is from your personal experience and being forced by your parents to go to such therapies.

Since that actually happened, and not just to me, is it then really unfair of me to recognize those implications in their ads ? 

If the organization is regularly administering the sessions to people who are forced to be there against their will then the law you should be seeking is a law to prevent anyone from being forced into one against their will. Not against the speech. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is it so inconceivable that a gay adult may wish to change and want to go to them?

If this gay adult can give me a reason that doesn't come down to them simply not being able to deal with irrational hatred anymore, then I would love to hear all about it.

Again, I've been looking for a reason like that for years. Still nothing.

What difference does their reason make? They are an adult that weighed their options and decided that attempting to change their sexual preference is something they want to attempt. It might be a terrible idea and for bad reasons, so what? Why should you have the power to decide for others that their ideas are terrible and their reasons are bad?

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is it so terrible to you that someone may have decided to make a major change in their lifestyle and proud that they successfully did it? 

They can change their "lifestyle" all they want, but if they have a reason to change their sexual orientation, that isn't just a desperate need to get away from the irrational hatred, then again, I would like to hear all about it before I congratulate them.

I would assume that if someone wanted to change their gay lifestyle that an attempt to change their sexual orientation would go hand in hand. After all, someone who has a gay orientation would probably be pretty miserable attempting to live a heterosexual family unit lifestyle.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
What is the difference between someone being proud of being "ex-gay" and me being proud of being heterosexual? 

The same difference as between someone being proud to be "ex-heterosexual", and me being proud to be gay.

Which wouldn't offend me in the slightest. I would just say "good for you", just like I have congratulated people who have decided to become ex-alcoholics and as such no longer hang around me. 
 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
It seems to me that your definition of 'hate speech' has far more to do with the people speaking than the words that they say.

Then you're forgetting that I explained already that my problem is that they have no facts to support their claims. All they have is the bible. Specifically a bit that most definitely is hate speech.

I thought we already established that being wrong shouldn't be illegal. Whether they have facts supporting what they say or not is irrelevant. Perhaps someone might have grounds for a lawsuit if they pay for the therapy expecting to be converted and are not- the same way you might sue any other business that promises one thing and is unable to deliver the promised results. Again, focus your lawsuits on the fraud for which there are already a sufficient number of laws rather than focusing on banning certain types of speech. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I get it. And if I was gay, the gay marriage argument going on right now would probably be very important to me. I do think you are being hypersensitive over this ad, even though you might have good reasons to be sensitive because yeah, they are bigots.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I know that you also are not a bigot, and that I'm grateful you're taking the time to put your way of viewing this into words. If there's anything I need to learn on this site, it's how to talk to "rightwing" people without having them explode at me.

I need to learn this because I'm going to marry someone like that soon. I'd like to get through the wedding without his dad trying to strangle me.

Good luck. I wasn't even able to make it through my wedding without her dad wanting to strangle me. Then I wasn't able to make it through the marriage without her wanting to strangle me. That is why I don't get the whole anti-gay marriage movement, the tribulations of marriage hardly depend on which combination of males and females are participating.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
  

Beyond Saving wrote:
And will they disappear forever? If history is an indication they will resurface in the future. Trends like these have tended to come and go, I see no reason why the future will be different. Perhaps the victim group will be someone other than gays, but it is highly likely that at some point in the future, some minority is going to be victimized by the people in power. 

And that is exactly why hate speech laws are needed, because they take away the tools of hate-mongering from ALL political extremists, left or right, no matter who they're trying to victimize.

I think you way overestimate the effectiveness of speech laws against a widespread populist hate movement. The hate movements in the past that have been very destructive were not considered political extremists at their time. The people calling for equality and love were the political extremists. I suggest that such laws are only effective as long as hate groups are extremists with no power and they are only effective at keeping you from being offended by people who are extreme and have no power. As soon as there is a large populist movement that gains power, then they will have control of the tribunals that decide what constitutes hate speech and the people on your side will be the extremists.

As someone who is a political extremist simply because I believe government power should rarely be used to restrict freedom I am extremely concerned that these types of laws could easily be abused to suppress me even though I don't have a hateful bone in my body. The trip from populist to extremist can be pretty short. 40 years from now, you might find yourself in the position of being the extremist and some group you don't approve of is the populist and in control of defining hate speech.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Call it whatever you want. The crime they should be jailed for is accessory for the murders, not for the speech. 

That's the problem right there. Under the existing laws, there was either nothing illegal about what they did, or the punishment wouldn't fit the crime. 

I am not the slightest bit knowledgeable about the laws of Rwanda. Under US law, what they did is illegal and could lead to lifetime jail sentences, so such laws can be passed without infringing on free speech. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you use your speech to aid in the commission of a violent crime it should be illegal, but not on the basis that it is hateful, on the basis that it lead to real physical harm. 

How is it not hateful to use speech to cause real physical harm ? What else but pure hatred could have caused normal people to commit those crimes?

My point is that whether or not it is hateful is irrelevant. The particular crimes in Rwanda probably were caused by hate, but that does not mean that all hate speech should be illegal because clearly, not all hate speech leads to crimes.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think that often the best thing a government can do is nothing. Imo, government intervention usually causes far more harm than whatever problem those idiots are attempting to fix. 
 

Fair enough, but can we also agree that there are situations where doing nothing could simply be cowardice ? 

I wouldn't say it is impossible. But in this particular case of regulating journalism in the UK, I think that things would be much better if the government didn't pass any new laws and solely focused on punishing the people who broke existing laws. Throwing dozens of journalists in jail certainly sends a pretty strong message to anyone who might have considered pursuing similar breaches of privacy.

I think the fundamental problem is that government imagines it can prevent a crime before it happens and attempts to implement regulations with the goal of doing so. Yet time and again, we see that people who want to break the law will find a way to snowball the regulators and the only people who really have problems are those attempting to be honest. Then there are always those who are generally being honest and make a mistake that runs afoul of some regulation and they get punished. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Vastet wrote:
Or maybe they are still Nazi's and you just don't want to admit it? They are so desperate to not admit it they made any dissent a crime.  

 

This is the most ludicrous sweeping generalisation of a sentence I've read on these boards for some time. If you ever went to Germany you'd realise the ridiculousness of it. I love how you follow it up by commenting that someone else's exaggerations are hardly constructive..

Your opinion. In fact, I didn't exaggerate one bit. Any country which throws people in jail for expression is as Nazi-like as any country which currently exists. Your ridiculously unsupported assertions are irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:If we agree

Anonymouse wrote:
If we agree that inciting violence is a crime, then I don't really see how we can disagree on the necessity of hate speech laws. 

Double jeopardy. You can't be charged for the same crime twice. It's in many if not most national constitutions.

Anonymouse wrote:
You just said it yourself : "testimony to the contrary". That's all there is, "testimony", no proof.

While not proof, testimony is evidence. Where's yours?

Don't think for one second that I'm taking a position against yours that these 'camps' are abusive and incapable of changing sexual preference. The difference is that I acknowledge I can't prove it, that this is my opinion.

Anonymouse wrote:
How are people even going to get the chance to be "rational" if they don't get confronted with the facts ? 

Oh please. We confront theists with facts day in and out and only a very very few ever allow themselves to think about it and embrace reality. How is confronting more theists on more issues with more facts...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
... going to accomplish

... going to accomplish anything?

Anonymouse wrote:
If I can't find one here, then anyone looking to send their kids to one certainly won't be able to.

lol. I don't believe you. Not even for a fraction of a second.

Anonymouse wrote:
Okay, now you're just being ridiculous. That is not how the hate speech laws in Germany work. 

That's EXACTLY how it works. Your and mosquito's naivete is troubling.

Anonymouse wrote:
MY exaggerations ??? Dude, I asked you if having hate speech laws made you the "enemies of freedom". You said yes ! 

Truth hurts.

Anonymouse wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately just calling me a slave doesn't make me one.

Yeah, unfortunately just denying being a slave doesn't mean you aren't one.

Anonymouse wrote:
Still less than in the "land of the free". 

Being better than America is only a bragging point against Americans.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I've changed my mind on

 I've changed my mind on whether it's merely false advertising or actually can be construed to be offensive to gay people as an advert (rather than by association with the ex-gay movement more generally).

My initial thought was that it approached the subject in much the same way as a gender reassignment surgery may advertise its services - i.e. on the basis that the patient had made a personal decision to change themselves, and providing that option for them.

However, the term "Get over it!" bothered me. At first I considered it merely a jibe back towards the original gay advert ("Some people are gay. Get over it." - meaning get over your discriminatory issues about this), but actually, in this context I believe it is meant to mean "Get over it" as in 'get over your gayness' which implies that there's something incorrect that needs to be gotten over.

I now believe that this advert is inherently offensive to the gay community because of this.

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Vastet wrote:
Or maybe they are still Nazi's and you just don't want to admit it? They are so desperate to not admit it they made any dissent a crime.  

 

This is the most ludicrous sweeping generalisation of a sentence I've read on these boards for some time. If you ever went to Germany you'd realise the ridiculousness of it. I love how you follow it up by commenting that someone else's exaggerations are hardly constructive..

Your opinion. In fact, I didn't exaggerate one bit. Any country which throws people in jail for expression is as Nazi-like as any country which currently exists. Your ridiculously unsupported assertions are irrelevant.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2007/07/10/ot-nazi-party-070710.html

In Canada you can be fined for hosting a Nazi website, and ordered to cease and desist from maintaining or keeping it active. You can also be arrested for such acts (Look it up - Terry Tremaine's your man.)

Oh, and you can also go to prison for hate speech - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra

 

So are Canadians Nazis?

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 I've changed my mind on whether it's merely false advertising or actually can be construed to be offensive to gay people as an advert (rather than by association with the ex-gay movement more generally).

My initial thought was that it approached the subject in much the same way as a gender reassignment surgery may advertise its services - i.e. on the basis that the patient had made a personal decision to change themselves, and providing that option for them.

However, the term "Get over it!" bothered me. At first I considered it merely a jibe back towards the original gay advert ("Some people are gay. Get over it." - meaning get over your discriminatory issues about this), but actually, in this context I believe it is meant to mean "Get over it" as in 'get over your gayness' which implies that there's something incorrect that needs to be gotten over.

I now believe that this advert is inherently offensive to the gay community because of this.

 

I interpreted the "Get over it." part to be a hit back at people who insist that it is completely impossible to change your sexual orientation and that anyone who claims they have changed from homosexual to heterosexual is lying and either has never been changed or was not gay to begin with. Or seem to believe that there is no good reason why a person would want to make the change and so they look down on anyone who wanted/wants to.

It seems to me that many gay activists have a visceral (dare I say almost hateful) reaction to anyone who claims to be "ex-gay". Many gays seem to be offended by the very idea that someone might be ex-gay. Is that really all that different than someone who is offended that other people are gay? I don't think so. In both cases you are being offended by how a person decides to describe their sexual orientation and in both cases I think it is completely appropriate to tell them to "get over it".     

I get your point though, that from a certain interpretation it could be read as offensive. Which brings up two questions: First is simply being offensive enough of a reason for it to be prohibited? Second, if simply being offensive is enough of a reason and a phrase can legitimately be interpreted two or more ways- some of which are offensive and others which are not- how do you decide which interpretation you base your decision on?  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I do believe that society

 I do believe that society has a responsibility to its citizens that they may go about their lives without being subjected to material that is likely to cause them offence (within the boundaries of that extraordinarily broad definition you tackled earlier).

 Take an example. say I am ethnically Orange, and one day in my community a bunch of billboards pop up all over my community saying "Orange people smell like shit". That's unsubstantiated and likely to cause me and my community offense. My kid comes home one day telling me that all the blue kids were laughing at her and pointing and telling her she smelled bad. I would feel like I would be within my rights to contend that this advert is causing harm to my family and community, and should be removed. So to your first point - I would contend that for situations such as this, where defamatory remarks are made and publicly promoted based on the creed, gender etc etc of a subset of society with no corroborated and verified evidence to back it up, then yes, I believe it is enough to be legislated against. to the second point, well that's more tricky, and is based around intent and whether it is reasonably likely to cause offence.. that's what the law courts are for.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
That guy tearing up a koran

That guy tearing up a koran offended muslims. I guess he can't do that anymore right?

 

Atheist ads also offend christians

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:That guy

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
That guy tearing up a koran offended muslims.

Actually, the muslims didn't press charges, and again, the guy was a recently convicted arsonist with an 18 month suspended sentence.

But yeah, the judge was an idiot. 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I guess he can't do that anymore right?

Oh yes, he most certainly can. 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Atheist ads also offend christians

 

 

Show me an ad where a licensed therapist offers a "cure" for being religious.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
That guy tearing up a koran offended muslims.

Actually, the muslims didn't press charges, and again, the guy was a recently convicted arsonist with an 18 month suspended sentence.

But yeah, the judge was an idiot. 

 

 

Doesn't matter who pressed the charges, he was still charge for offending somebody

 

Quote:

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I guess he can't do that anymore right?

Oh yes, he most certainly can. 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Atheist ads also offend christians

 

 

Show me an ad where a licensed therapist offers a "cure" for being religious.

 

 

 

Here's a start:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/still_dont_think_that_theism_is_a_mental_disorder

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/still_dont_think_theism_is_a_mind_disorder_part_deux

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I guess he can't do that anymore right?

Oh yes, he most certainly can. 

 

 

But that will offend people!

 

 

Also, my post was more direct at Godsuse

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Define

Beyond Saving wrote:
Define suffer. How exactly are other people suffering because of this bus ad?

Imagine being an openly gay kid going to school in that bus every single day. It's hard enough to convince bigots, both adult and adolescent, that treating you like a pervert has no logical justification, but now they've been handed yet another advantage. There is absolutely nothing that supports the validity of this "treatment", but it's STILL being advertised. 

Now imagine your parents taking that crap seriously and making you go there, right after school, so there's no rest, no escape from the constant attempts to make you feel like less than human. Not in school, not at home, not even on the streets. And now you have to deal with the reality of your parents hiring an after-school bully for you, and deal with the fact that this is actually a respected, licensed professional.

If that doesn't qualify as suffering to you, then I am genuinely happy for you that you never had to go through something like that, but not all of us are so lucky. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Have you ever been to a trial in person?

Yes.

Beyond Saving wrote:
We struggle over determining the definition of everything from what is physical evidence and whether or not testimony is hearsay. It is irrational to think that a group of humans are going to have a consistent definition of any word and when you are talking about words as subjective as "irrational" and "hatred" humans ideas of the definitions can be very broad indeed. These particular religious groups believe that it is "loving" to convince someone to avoid gay lifestyles because they honestly believe that you are going to burn in hell for eternity if they fail to save you.

Do we really "struggle" to realize that belief is worthless in a court of law if it doesn't have facts to support it ? I keep asking for facts that support the idea that you can even call this a therapy in the first place. Still nothing. But somehow that doesn't seem to matter. If facts don't matter, then again, we are all in deep shit.

Beyond Saving wrote:
And do laws always achieve what they attempt to achieve?

No. Laws against murder don't eliminate murder itself. That doesn't mean we don't need those laws.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't really question the motive and I think most people who support these laws like yourself have really good intentions. What I question is whether the law can be effective long term and whether it can be abused when less than honest people achieve positions of power.

We can question ANY law and never do anything about anything. And again, hate speech laws are meant to keep "less than honest" people from using hate-mongering to reach power in the first place. If you have a better idea to keep them from using hate to reach their goals, and it doesn't amount to doing nothing, then please share. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
In the case of laws banning speech on the basis of it being offensive, I see thousands of ways it can be abused in the future. Given human history, I think it is safe to say that if power can be abused it is only a question of when it will happen, not if it will happen.

Again, ALL laws can be abused. That doesn't mean we don't need them. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is suggesting you can be changed, the ad itself does not suggest that you need it.

???

Why would someone offer a "therapy" to change a part of someone's personality, if they didn't think that change would be for the better ?? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
It didn't say "we need to fix all the gays" it said, I used to be gay, now I am not and I am proud of it.

Again, this ad offers a "therapy", which singles out being gay as a mental disorder. Once you get people to accept that lie, then how exactly are you going to justify NOT taking the "therapy" ?

Beyond Saving wrote:
I'm sure there are many people in the organization who believe that you need to be fixed, but that is not what the ad that was banned says.

Oh, I never said those people were stupid. Whatever ad agency took this gig was verrrrry careful with the wording. 

Unfortunately for them, the organizations behind "ex-gay" therapy have already openly revealed their true beliefs, when it comes to what they'd like to do to gay people who don't take their "therapy". 

Did that second link work, btw ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Does an argument have to be reasonable for it to be legal? That would outlaw 99.99% of political ads in the US and my guess probably in the UK too. Political ads are not known for being sources of reasoned discussion.  

Didn't one of your politicians recently say that he wasn't going to let fact-checkers determine how he ran his campaign ? Think about how utterly insane that is for a few seconds. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Oh, so because they have more money than you the government has to intervene? Note that in this case the gay rights ad to which they were responding ran several months prior. I don't think the gay rights movement is particularly hurting for money.

Hey, you said I should buy the ad. I'm pretty broke. And no, I've been pretty clear as to why I think the ban was justified.

(And I have no clue how much cash the gay rights movement has, but if it's more than the american christian right, then I'll be very surprised indeed)

Beyond Saving wrote:
Advertisements all over the place tell me I should be ashamed of my gambling, my drinking and my atheism suggesting places I should go to change myself. Do all of those qualify as hate speech towards gamblers, alcoholics and atheists? 

Are any of the organizations behind those ads supporting a law that would make it legal to murder gamblers, alcoholics and atheists ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
If the organization is regularly administering the sessions to people who are forced to be there against their will then the law you should be seeking is a law to prevent anyone from being forced into one against their will. Not against the speech. 

Before that law is in effect (and we all know how long that can take), am I allowed to do anything I can to stop them forcing even more kids to take their "therapy" ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
What difference does their reason make?

Again, if facts aren't important, then we are all in very deep trouble. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
They are an adult that weighed their options and decided that attempting to change their sexual preference is something they want to attempt. It might be a terrible idea and for bad reasons, so what? Why should you have the power to decide for others that their ideas are terrible and their reasons are bad?

They are a part of an already badly and unjustly stigmatized group. If they want to ad to that stigma by taking the "therapy" then yeah, they are free to do so. But as a part of the group who will suffer from the increased pressure, I think I have a right to demand a reason for their decision. If they have nothing, then I have to right to point this out. That's about all the power I have, and sorry if that offends anyone, but I am going to use it.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I would assume that if someone wanted to change their gay lifestyle that an attempt to change their sexual orientation would go hand in hand.

There is no "gay lifestyle". 

Beyond Saving wrote:
After all, someone who has a gay orientation would probably be pretty miserable attempting to live a heterosexual family unit lifestyle.

??? 

What do you think the difference is ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Which wouldn't offend me in the slightest. I would just say "good for you", just like I have congratulated people who have decided to become ex-alcoholics and as such no longer hang around me. 

And that's because no-one's ever tried to attach a similar stigma to being heterosexual. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I thought we already established that being wrong shouldn't be illegal.

We have also established why I am in favor of hate speech laws. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Whether they have facts supporting what they say or not is irrelevant.

Oh dear, no. No ! That is the ONLY thing that's relevant ! 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Perhaps someone might have grounds for a lawsuit if they pay for the therapy expecting to be converted and are not- the same way you might sue any other business that promises one thing and is unable to deliver the promised results. Again, focus your lawsuits on the fraud for which there are already a sufficient number of laws rather than focusing on banning certain types of speech. 

And again, why should I not focus on the fact that they don't even have a legitimate reason to call this a "therapy" in the first place ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Good luck. I wasn't even able to make it through my wedding without her dad wanting to strangle me. Then I wasn't able to make it through the marriage without her wanting to strangle me. That is why I don't get the whole anti-gay marriage movement, the tribulations of marriage hardly depend on which combination of males and females are participating. 

Exactly. If they're so worried about marriage, they should protest against divorce. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think you way overestimate the effectiveness of speech laws against a widespread populist hate movement. The hate movements in the past that have been very destructive were not considered political extremists at their time. The people calling for equality and love were the political extremists. I suggest that such laws are only effective as long as hate groups are extremists with no power and they are only effective at keeping you from being offended by people who are extreme and have no power. As soon as there is a large populist movement that gains power, then they will have control of the tribunals that decide what constitutes hate speech and the people on your side will be the extremists. 

I think you're missing the point, or you simply don't see how this can work. Again, if hate-mongering your way to power becomes illegal, then how do they get powerful in the first place ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
As someone who is a political extremist simply because I believe government power should rarely be used to restrict freedom I am extremely concerned that these types of laws could easily be abused to suppress me even though I don't have a hateful bone in my body. The trip from populist to extremist can be pretty short. 40 years from now, you might find yourself in the position of being the extremist and some group you don't approve of is the populist and in control of defining hate speech. 

You'll never hear me say that your concern is a bad thing. Heck, your mistrust is necessary. All laws need to be watched. Abuse needs to be pointed out. But again, that does not mean that the law itself isn't necessary.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am not the slightest bit knowledgeable about the laws of Rwanda. Under US law, what they did is illegal and could lead to lifetime jail sentences, so such laws can be passed without infringing on free speech. 

See, this is why I like you. You don't make shit up when you don't know something. You just say so.

Anyway, the point here is that something like the Rwanda massacre situation hasn't happened in the US. I would suggest that if it does, you guys might be needing a few new laws as well. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
My point is that whether or not it is hateful is irrelevant. The particular crimes in Rwanda probably were caused by hate, but that does not mean that all hate speech should be illegal because clearly, not all hate speech leads to crimes.

And not all murder attempts lead to murder. We still legislate against it.

Anyway, can we now at least agree that there is such a thing as hate speech ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I wouldn't say it is impossible. But in this particular case of regulating journalism in the UK, I think that things would be much better if the government didn't pass any new laws and solely focused on punishing the people who broke existing laws. Throwing dozens of journalists in jail certainly sends a pretty strong message to anyone who might have considered pursuing similar breaches of privacy. 

Yeah....it would take bigger balls than any British politician has to even consider "punishing" Robert Murdoch. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think the fundamental problem is that government imagines it can prevent a crime before it happens and attempts to implement regulations with the goal of doing so. Yet time and again, we see that people who want to break the law will find a way to snowball the regulators and the only people who really have problems are those attempting to be honest. Then there are always those who are generally being honest and make a mistake that runs afoul of some regulation and they get punished.
 

Not saying that those aren't genuine concerns, but I think that instead of pointing at what goes wrong, we might try to do something about it. Maybe the system only works if we work hard to make it work. Still seems more constructive to me than doing nothing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Doesn't

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Doesn't matter who pressed the charges, he was still charge for offending somebody
 

No, he was put away so he wouldn't get into any more situations where he'd be tempted to set fire to stuff. 

Still, pretty stupid way to do it

 

 

What I asked for doesn't seem to be there.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
But that will offend people!
 

Apparently the muslims were fine with it. Like I said, the main problem here was this guy's penchant for setting fire to stuff.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Also, my post was more direct at Godsuse
 

Ah, sorry. I'll shut up then.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2007/07/10/ot-nazi-party-070710.html

In Canada you can be fined for hosting a Nazi website, and ordered to cease and desist from maintaining or keeping it active. You can also be arrested for such acts (Look it up - Terry Tremaine's your man.)

Oh, and you can also go to prison for hate speech - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra

 

So are Canadians Nazis?

Canada becomes more Nazi-like with every minute the conservatives are in power. I can't even pretend we have a democracy anymore.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, how can a

Vastet, how can a government be considered Nazi when they act on laws to stop Nazi websites and white supremacist leaders because of their nazi views? You're using the word nazi incorrectly i think!


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Nope. The meanings of words

Nope. The meanings of words change. I'm the only one of the three of us who's not stuck in the 1940's.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Double

Vastet wrote:
Double jeopardy. You can't be charged for the same crime twice. It's in many if not most national constitutions.

But that's not happening. Nobody's being charged for both hate speech and inciting violence for the same incident. 

Vastet wrote:
While not proof, testimony is evidence. Where's yours?

The fact that people can't read minds, and so we'll never know if the people who claim it works are telling the truth. 

Vastet wrote:
Don't think for one second that I'm taking a position against yours that these 'camps' are abusive and incapable of changing sexual preference. The difference is that I acknowledge I can't prove it, that this is my opinion.

If you acknowledge that, then why not also acknowledge that there simply is no way to tell if the people who claim this works are telling the truth ? 

(Oh, and yes, I know your position. I read your posts too)

Vastet wrote:
Oh please. We confront theists with facts day in and out and only a very very few ever allow themselves to think about it and embrace reality.

Convincing even one person of the fundamental stupidity of this therapy can save a life. I will settle for that admittedly very slim chance. For me, it's worth the effort. Also, I'd like to add if no-one had ever bothered to find out the facts about this "therapy", thoroughly and patiently debunk their gish-galloping apologists, and put all the information online for me to find and check, then I would have given up hope long ago. If you give a shit about people, then it's always worth the effort. 

Vastet wrote:
How is confronting more theists on more issues with more facts going to accomplish anything?...

Like I keep saying, if facts don't matter, then we are all fucked, and nothing matters, so why whine about it ? 

Vastet wrote:
lol. I don't believe you. Not even for a fraction of a second.

Ah yes, the power of "belief" vs google, the yellow pages, my copy of the EFPA members list, and my parents' christian nutjob network. 

I had another look, and it seems anyone looking to torture their gay kid some more will have to go to all the way to Poland. If there's one where I live, I'm sure your "belief" will have no trouble finding him. 

Vastet wrote:
That's EXACTLY how it works. Your and mosquito's naivete is troubling.

No, there are no "work camps" that people get thrown into when they deny the holocaust. Claiming that this is "EXACTLY how it works" is nonsense. 

Vastet wrote:
Truth hurts.

Not really. 

Vastet wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately just denying being a slave doesn't mean you aren't one.

Then how am I one ? 

Vastet wrote:
Being better than America is only a bragging point against Americans.

Yeah, but America doesn't have these hate speech laws, so telling me to "check out stats on how many people per capita are in prison for victimless crimes", doesn't really work as an argument against hate speech laws.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nope. The

Vastet wrote:
Nope. The meanings of words change. I'm the only one of the three of us who's not stuck in the 1940's.

Yeah, how weird that we would think of the 1940s when someone starts talking about nazis.

So what's the new definition then ? Assholes ? 


 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Beyond

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Define suffer. How exactly are other people suffering because of this bus ad?

Imagine being an openly gay kid going to school in that bus every single day. It's hard enough to convince bigots, both adult and adolescent, that treating you like a pervert has no logical justification, but now they've been handed yet another advantage. There is absolutely nothing that supports the validity of this "treatment", but it's STILL being advertised. 

Now imagine your parents taking that crap seriously and making you go there, right after school, so there's no rest, no escape from the constant attempts to make you feel like less than human. Not in school, not at home, not even on the streets. And now you have to deal with the reality of your parents hiring an after-school bully for you, and deal with the fact that this is actually a respected, licensed professional.

If that doesn't qualify as suffering to you, then I am genuinely happy for you that you never had to go through something like that, but not all of us are so lucky. 

Then have a law that makes it illegal for anyone to force anyone go to one of these kooks. The ad isn't what causes the suffering, the cause is when the parents force their kids to go against their will. I have no problem with you wanting to outlaw that, just leave free speech alone.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Do we really "struggle" to realize that belief is worthless in a court of law if it doesn't have facts to support it ? I keep asking for facts that support the idea that you can even call this a therapy in the first place. Still nothing. But somehow that doesn't seem to matter. If facts don't matter, then again, we are all in deep shit.

My point is that what is factual and what is not, isn't as black and white as you seem to pretend. What is fact and what is not is highly subjective. So when you have some committee somewhere that is going to decide what is factual behind a particular advertisement, they are going to be wrong sometimes. So is it worth infringing on someones right to free speech who has a valid argument just to shut up another group of people you find offensive?

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

We can question ANY law and never do anything about anything. And again, hate speech laws are meant to keep "less than honest" people from using hate-mongering to reach power in the first place. If you have a better idea to keep them from using hate to reach their goals, and it doesn't amount to doing nothing, then please share.

Why do you automatically exclude doing nothing? Laws are always imperfectly applied, innocent people go to jail for murder, guilty people are not convicted etc. With murder it is quite clear that the risk of punishing an innocent person is worth the benefit of getting a murderer off the street. I am not convinced that controlling what anyone says is worth punishing or silencing innocent people. Buying an advertisement on a bus is far less damaging than killing someone on the bus.   

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
In the case of laws banning speech on the basis of it being offensive, I see thousands of ways it can be abused in the future. Given human history, I think it is safe to say that if power can be abused it is only a question of when it will happen, not if it will happen.

Again, ALL laws can be abused. That doesn't mean we don't need them.

Yes, but can't you at least agree that the likelihood of a law being abused and the damage that could occur if it is, is something that should be weighed when considering if the good achieved by the law is worth whatever unintended consequences might arise?

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is suggesting you can be changed, the ad itself does not suggest that you need it.

???

Why would someone offer a "therapy" to change a part of someone's personality, if they didn't think that change would be for the better ?? 

Of course they think it is better for them. That says nothing about what is better for you. Maybe it is better for them, you seem to be under the assumption that it isn't better for anyone simply because it isn't better for you. I'm saying you are both wrong and let people decide for themselves if gay conversion therapy is right for them. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
It didn't say "we need to fix all the gays" it said, I used to be gay, now I am not and I am proud of it.

Again, this ad offers a "therapy", which singles out being gay as a mental disorder. Once you get people to accept that lie, then how exactly are you going to justify NOT taking the "therapy" ?

Because I think even people with mental illnesses should be allowed to decide what mental therapy they should go to. I don't think people in modern countries are ever going to believe that gay is a mental disorder, at least in our lifetime. Hardly something you need to concern yourself or a justifiable reason to infringe free speech.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I'm sure there are many people in the organization who believe that you need to be fixed, but that is not what the ad that was banned says.

Oh, I never said those people were stupid. Whatever ad agency took this gig was verrrrry careful with the wording. 

So do you think that the organization behind the ad should be the basis upon which it is determined they cannot run it? That is even more dangerous than just trying to control what the ads say. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Unfortunately for them, the organizations behind "ex-gay" therapy have already openly revealed their true beliefs, when it comes to what they'd like to do to gay people who don't take their "therapy". 

Did that second link work, btw ?

Yeah, I fail to see the relevance to the topic though. It doesn't tie Core Issues to Exodus International, they are apparently two separate organizations. Also, I fail to see the relevance of what laws are passed in Uganda to what advertisements should be allowed on a British bus. All you have shown is these guys are shady assholes, a point I will readily concede without evidence. But even assholes should have the right to free speech.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Does an argument have to be reasonable for it to be legal? That would outlaw 99.99% of political ads in the US and my guess probably in the UK too. Political ads are not known for being sources of reasoned discussion.  

Didn't one of your politicians recently say that he wasn't going to let fact-checkers determine how he ran his campaign ? Think about how utterly insane that is for a few seconds. 

Yeah, slightly taken out of context there but much of our political rhetoric is utterly insane. Should utterly insane political rhetoric be illegal? I don't think so.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Advertisements all over the place tell me I should be ashamed of my gambling, my drinking and my atheism suggesting places I should go to change myself. Do all of those qualify as hate speech towards gamblers, alcoholics and atheists? 

Are any of the organizations behind those ads supporting a law that would make it legal to murder gamblers, alcoholics and atheists ? 

There are many countries where you can be killed for gambling, alcoholism and atheism. I don't know what kind of presence such organizations have in those countries. It wouldn't surprise me if I tried hard enough I could find a Muslim organization that pays for anti-gambling ads in the US and also has ties in one of those countries. There are certainly Muslims in the US who want our laws to be based on the teachings of the Koran, so while they don't highlight it, that would mean they support imposing the death penalty here for all sorts of things. 

Not sure if any of the Christian organizations that often support these ads have gone that far. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
If the organization is regularly administering the sessions to people who are forced to be there against their will then the law you should be seeking is a law to prevent anyone from being forced into one against their will. Not against the speech. 

Before that law is in effect (and we all know how long that can take), am I allowed to do anything I can to stop them forcing even more kids to take their "therapy" ?

Unfortunately not. You can use your speech and I think gay rights groups have been successful at being very vocal about this issue. I know that I know a lot more about it today than I did last year. There have already been laws passed in two states and the subject has been raised in many other states so people in general are more aware of going on. Making people aware is the first step to stopping it. However, if you are going to have a free country I think you also have to tolerate advertisements from the other side too, even though they are wrong.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

They are a part of an already badly and unjustly stigmatized group. If they want to ad to that stigma by taking the "therapy" then yeah, they are free to do so. But as a part of the group who will suffer from the increased pressure, I think I have a right to demand a reason for their decision. If they have nothing, then I have to right to point this out. That's about all the power I have, and sorry if that offends anyone, but I am going to use it.

I think you have no right to demand a reason from anyone. If they want to give you the middle finger and tell you to mind your own business that is up to them. You do have the right to point out that they haven't given a reason, or to give your opinion that it is a bad reason- that is what free speech is all about. And I fully support your right to say whatever you want about them, even if it is offensive. I also think the other side should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if it offends you. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
After all, someone who has a gay orientation would probably be pretty miserable attempting to live a heterosexual family unit lifestyle.

??? 

What do you think the difference is ? 

I imagine going through the effort of fucking someone of the opposite sex wouldn't be pleasant for someone who is homosexual...so if they want to have a husband/wife with 2 biological kids and a dog they would probably want to change their sexual orientation first so they enjoy producing those kids. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Perhaps someone might have grounds for a lawsuit if they pay for the therapy expecting to be converted and are not- the same way you might sue any other business that promises one thing and is unable to deliver the promised results. Again, focus your lawsuits on the fraud for which there are already a sufficient number of laws rather than focusing on banning certain types of speech. 

And again, why should I not focus on the fact that they don't even have a legitimate reason to call this a "therapy" in the first place ? 

Because the damage isn't caused by the name. They could call it zippity doo dah, what would change? Your problems with it would still exist. Although the advertisement in this context says nothing about therapy, probably because I am willing to be that the UK does have some laws where calling it therapy in an advertisement might cause problems. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Exactly. If they're so worried about marriage, they should protest against divorce. 

I think we should protest all the benefits that married people get that us single people are denied. Personally, I am a little offended that married people get all of these benefits that single people are denied. With all these people pushing for marriage and talking about how much better being married is to being single, I am wondering if I should get upset next time I see an advertisement that suggests getting married makes you happy. As if there is something about me that needs to be fixed by getting married. I am being a little facetious here, but I have had people go rather batshit crazy when I have stated that I never intend to get married again. There is a very strong bias in the US towards marriage and seems to be this idea that if you never get married there is something 'wrong' with you.   

 

Anonymouse wrote:

I think you're missing the point, or you simply don't see how this can work. Again, if hate-mongering your way to power becomes illegal, then how do they get powerful in the first place ?

Selective enforcement of the laws and groups willing to find ways around them and seek help when persecuted. It is easy to have sympathy for a guy who gets thrown in jail because of a post he put on the internet- even when that guy is despicable. I think the best way to handle these wackos is to laugh at them and show them to the public as the jokes they are. Throwing them in jail and attempting to shut them up puts them in a position where they can become martyrs.

  

Anonymouse wrote:

See, this is why I like you. You don't make shit up when you don't know something. You just say so.

Anyway, the point here is that something like the Rwanda massacre situation hasn't happened in the US. I would suggest that if it does, you guys might be needing a few new laws as well. 

Yet we have allowed massive amounts of hate speech and it was directly protected by our government. Probably the closest comparison we have to a Rwanda type situation are the mass lynchings of blacks and whites who were sympathetic towards black rights in the late 1800's early 1900's. While nowhere near the scale of what happened in Rwanda, it was a problem that we were able to resolve without infringing on anyone's free speech. Imo, if the goal can be achieved with a method that does not deprive anyone of their free speech it is preferable, even if it might be a little slower. 

In the case of gay rights, I think that we can both agree the ultimate goal is to achieve a society where gays do not face any significant discrimination. It appears to me that the gay rights activists are winning that fight in pretty much every developed country. When I was in elementary school, the worst insult you could throw at someone was "your gay". Now, even our hyper christian country is seriously discussing legalizing gay marriage and the number of people who look at the term "gay" as an insult is shrinking.

Is there going to be some movement that is going to seek to "cure" gays and develop a large enough following to pass laws forcing people to go to gay conversion therapy? No. Not in the UK, not in the US, at least not in our lifetimes. Pretty much every poll I have seen has shown that the largest predictor of homophobia is age, with younger people mostly having the belief of "who cares?"

Would it be nice if we could stop every child that is going to be subjected to gay conversion therapy tomorrow? Probably. But at what cost? Is it worth giving up a little bit of our free speech rights to make a minimal impact on something that is probably going to disappear in the next 20 years anyway? I say no.

Democracy is inherently slow. The system was designed to move slowly on purpose. There are many good reasons why it moves slow, and yes, sometimes injustices happen while the wheels are grinding. I also understand that when you are a victim of the particular injustice that you can become extremely impatient and seek ways to speed things up. A democracy can only work when people are free to talk, argue, spew propaganda and even hate. Our freedom to go out in public and state our beliefs, however false, irrational, crazy or simply stupid they might be, is extremely important. In the long run, I believe that the truth will win, that most people are not inherently cruel and increased speech will inevitably lead to increased tolerance. It won't happen as quickly as we might like, but it does happen.

One of the reasons why this site is my home forum is because of the great amount of leeway that the moderators allow. Even when the flame wars are happening the mods sit back and let it and I can only think of a handful of people who have been banned, usually only when their behavior has gone beyond speech. Hate doesn't survive in these forums, it is picked apart, ridiculed, shown for the fraud it is and eventually the people who spew hate go away.

Hate survives when people who share the hate sit around talking to each other and reinforce each others crazy views. Let them come into public, let them post on their facebook account and announce their hate to the world. Then we can laugh at them, we can show our evidence and make them look like the fools they are. You will probably never persuade a person to stop hating, but you can persuade the people who watch the exchange.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think the fundamental problem is that government imagines it can prevent a crime before it happens and attempts to implement regulations with the goal of doing so. Yet time and again, we see that people who want to break the law will find a way to snowball the regulators and the only people who really have problems are those attempting to be honest. Then there are always those who are generally being honest and make a mistake that runs afoul of some regulation and they get punished.
 

Not saying that those aren't genuine concerns, but I think that instead of pointing at what goes wrong, we might try to do something about it. Maybe the system only works if we work hard to make it work. Still seems more constructive to me than doing nothing.

Why does "doing something" have to include the government? Want to punish Murdoch? Don't use any of his products. It isn't like any of them are particularly high quality anyway. Government is a hammer that uses coercive force to get anything done. For many things, a hammer is a useful tool and does a great job, but that doesn't mean you should use a hammer for everything. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Vastet

Anonymouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Nope. The meanings of words change. I'm the only one of the three of us who's not stuck in the 1940's.

Yeah, how weird that we would think of the 1940s when someone starts talking about nazis.

So what's the new definition then ? Assholes ? 


 

Yeah it is strange, since noone identifying or identified as a Nazi has had any ties to the actual Nazi party in more than half a century, with a very few exceptions of actual Nazi party members being discovered and prosecuted for war crimes.

In current use it effectively translates to fascists or extremists of mostly any shade.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Bow-Chicka-Gah-Gah

"Gay zippity doo dah" sounds like the sort of name a Toddler would come up with for a Porno.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
My freedom matters enough to

Anonymouse wrote:
But that's not happening. Nobody's being charged for both hate speech and inciting violence for the same incident. 

And what exactly do you need hate speech laws for when there are already laws against inciting violence?

Anonymouse wrote:
The fact that people can't read minds, and so we'll never know if the people who claim it works are telling the truth. 

So you have no evidence and you have no scientific basis to work with.

Anonymouse wrote:
If you acknowledge that, then why not also acknowledge that there simply is no way to tell if the people who claim this works are telling the truth ? 

I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that the bigots have the exact same argument as yourself, which is enough to keep them around indefinitely.

Anonymouse wrote:
Convincing even one person of the fundamental stupidity~snip

As long as free speech is preserved you have my support.

Anonymouse wrote:
Like I keep saying, if facts don't matter~snip

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:But that's

My freedom matters enough to me to kill and die for it. And I will do the same even for those I disagree with to prevent their silencing from being extended.

Anonymouse wrote:
Ah yes, the power of "belief" vs google, the yellow pages, my copy of the EFPA members list, and my parents' christian nutjob network. 

I had another look, and it seems anyone looking to torture their gay kid some more will have to go to all the way to Poland. If there's one where I live, I'm sure your "belief" will have no trouble finding him. 

Your naivete is cute.

Anonymouse wrote:
No, there are no "work camps" that people get thrown into when they deny the holocaust. Claiming that this is "EXACTLY how it works" is nonsense. 

Pure bullshit.

Anonymouse wrote:
Not really. 

Quite.

Anonymouse wrote:
Then how am I one ?

You've admitted a dozen times at least that you support the tactics of slavery in this very topic. How aren't you a slave?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yeah, but America

Quote:
Yeah, but America doesn't have these hate speech laws, so telling me to "check out stats on how many people per capita are in prison for victimless crimes", doesn't really work as an argument against hate speech laws.

There are victimless crimes everywhere. Not all are tied to hate speech. Your argument is senseless.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Your naivete is

Vastet wrote:

Your naivete is cute.

Are going to produce some evidence there are more in his area? Or are you just going to keep calling him names?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burden of proof is on the

Burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.