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.

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.

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

Never said you did.

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

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

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.

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. 

Weird. Works for me.

Try this one :  

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

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. 

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. 

Nope. It would be a waste of money. 

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. 

*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.

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 ? 

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

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

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

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 ? 

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.

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. 

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

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.

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

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.

Your exaggerations are hardly constructive.

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.

Should being wrong be illegal?  

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. 

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. 

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

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? 

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? 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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..

Yeah, I remember. Read the whole thread. 

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

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

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 ? 

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

No, they made DENYING it a crime. 

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

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. 

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

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

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

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.  

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

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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? 

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. 

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?

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.

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. 
 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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

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.

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...

 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?  

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

Atheist ads also offend christians

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

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

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. 

Yes.

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.

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

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. 

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

???

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 ?? 

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" ?

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 ? 

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. 

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)

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

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" ? 

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

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.

There is no "gay lifestyle". 

??? 

What do you think the difference is ? 

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

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

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

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 ? 

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

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 ? 

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.

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. 

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 ? 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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