Censorship

The only limits on freedom of speech should be incitement to violence or to break the law. The rest of the censorship imposed on society is usually politically-motivated.

 

You misunderstand what I meant by degree of action. Saying "I will hit you" is an action. Hitting someone is an action. Killing them, yet another action. It is not a matter of "three threats=one violent act."

I am not speaking in terms of criminal or civil judgment however. This is perhaps more an ethical or moral concern of mine. I do not believe the guv'ment should legislate based on my personal morality or ethics. When the two line up, I consider myself lucky.

 

The WBC are an interesting case in that while they don't incite violence, their presence does cause disruption. I don't think anybody here would agree with allowing WBC protesters in close proximity to a funeral, even if they were on public land in a public cemetery.

The reason wouldn't be so much distaste for what they say as much as it would be a public order risk- what they say might well be protected, but where and how they say it slightly less so and so to avoid a plausible risk of violence against them, I don't see it as censorship that they be required to maintain a distance and obey laws against use of bullhorns in public.

 

That's definitely correct, but governments would misuse the defence of 'public order' to ban protests they don't like.

 

Saying "I will hit you" is actually assault if the person you say it to has reason to believe it will be carried out. In that case the offence is communicating a direct threat of criminal action. Again, look for immediacy, criminal intent and likelihood of it occurring. All three are there if you raise your hand and tell somebody in all seriousness you'll hit them.

 

Perhaps we are actually in agreement then.

Odd. I hate agreeing with people. I must fix this by saying something offensive...

 

I find that the best way to start the acrimony again is to call the other person a "fascist."

 

I've actually called someone that in real life as a joke.

They became genuinely offended. I was surprised.

 

Yeah...I throw that out as a joke sometimes in a political argument (reminds me of Rik, from the old BBC show "The Young Ones"). Some people don't take the joke very well.

 

Wait...why was this going to be locked?

I should shout something about politics or prostitution now, I suppose. For posterity's sake, if anything.

 

Although I secretly wish some racist/homophobic diatribes were censored, I think that censorship can have a martyrdom affect on the bigot.

Take my Facebook page for example. I was applauding the result in the case of the English hotel owners who were taken to court by a gay couple who were banned from staying in their establishment. The Court found that they had breached anti-discrimination laws which say that you can't choose who you offer services too if you are running a business for profit. The couple claimed that their right to religious freedom was more important and that they should be allowed to control who is invited in to their 'home'. It's not a home if it doubles as your business premises. Predictably, loads of my friends commented favourably on the verdict. However, one bible nut who I'd forgotten about, started wailing about people 'who lead immoral lives' and most people in the UK identifying themselves as Christians etc etc, so Christian morals should be upheld. She mentioned 'sin' - there you go!

I considered deleting her comments but decided against it on the basis that I wanted her views to be challenged. My friends didn't hold back and the strength of reaction towards her really showed how people are fiercely protective of equality. I think that woman has rarely been challenged in such a way.

So in essence, I think that the reaction against inciteful and hateful speech is an important part of making their viewpoint marginalised - where it really ought to be. The hate speaker can't moan about being oppressed if their views aren't censored. It gives the community an opportunity to reaffirm a more tolerant world view.

 

I don't know why any of the innumerable threads that have been locked or deleted of late have been locked or deleted of late. They have, though.

 

That's a strange case, Pict- it seems as though on the one hand you support government force being used against people who choose who they do business with, but not against people who state those views.

I'd suggest it should be society that deals with a guesthouse that isn't gay friendly (that social affirmation you mentioned applies equally here), and not government action- the alternative is to force people into doing things they don't want to do which I think we can both agree is a bit much.

 

I find myself conflicted here. I am no authoritarian, nor do I advocate legislating morality but homosexuality is NOT morality, it is human rights. I would advocate the stance Peerie Pict took. While speaking out against gays is wrong in my moral opinion, I would take no legal action against it in most cases. However, preventing them from staying in an area for a bigoted reason is (rightly) illegal as well as immoral.

EDIT: Forcing people into doing things they do not want to do is not a good argument against anti-discrimination laws, either.

 

It's not preventing them staying in an area, it's not doing business with them, which I'm sure you'll agree is a matter of choice. If they only want to do business with upstanding Christians married for five years or more, then that's up to them although I don't see it being the best business strategy.

 

Well, I can't just take your word for it, can I?

I'm all for laws that stop people attacking one another or violating one another's rights for whatever bad reason you can name, and assaulting somebody because they are a Sikh is punishable under laws against assault. You do not violate somebody's rights by not doing business with them, because that assumes they have a "right" to do business with you.

 

This is why I love Westboro Baptist Church so much. Their giant crusade against gaydom has caused many people to despise them and the ideology they represent, causing actual critical thought about the subject.

I think WBC has been the most effective gay rights activist group yet.

 

Good point- sunlight is the best disinfectant. If a group is truly at odds with the feelings of society, then social pressure will marginalise them and turn them into laughing stocks.

 

Business is not just an economical act, it's a political one. If every service in town refused service to me because of my sexuality, I would have to grow food and live off the land, granted I have an income worthy enough to own any land.

There is some duty to be paid to the Constitution if you are a participant in the economy.

 

How 'bout this: You can refuse service to anyone you want, blacks, Jews, gays, whatever, but you gotta put a sign up in your front window that says "All [members of X group] will be refused service here". That way no one has to get their feelings hurt by being kicked off of the premises, they can just see the sign and look elsewhere, and all potential customers are made aware of the type of merchant they're dealing with. The same could be done with hiring policies. Freedom and transparency; everyone wins!

 

How is business necessarily a political act? Indeed, businesses are best served when they keep politics out of it, as any merchant willing to trade with you despite your sexuality would find out (you would both benefit from the trade), and indeed on the other hand when businesses act in a discriminatory way, they hand segments of the market to their competition.

The Constitution in no way binds you to the will of other citizens in the US, and freedom of association and freedom of speech and conscience in all truth must trump the will of those other citizens, regardless of their opinion of you for overruling their will.

 

I don't like to talk in moral absolutes because it's rarely that easy - but I fail to see how the gay hotel ban is different to how the US Deep South segregation was based on race.

In my mind, the only difference is that the latter was endorsed by all of society and the former is a 'one off' and against contemporary moral norms.

I feel that the Christians are completely free to talk about their beliefs and invite their friends over for dinner to talk about 'sin.' However, the same doesn't apply when they open their home as a commercial venture - thereby positioning themselves under a raft of laws and regulations to ensure that businesses are non-discriminatory. They can't use 'freedom of religion' as it applies generally and distort it to cover a specific commercial situation.

What society is saying, is "You can have any view you like in your own time but we're not allowing those views to trump anti-discrimination laws which allow everyone, including you, to participate equally in society"

They might see it as a massive compromise, but to most of us, it is a necessary one. Moreover, the equality laws covers their right not to be rejected from services if the service provider objects to their bigoted Christian views.

 

Fixed. Rejecting someone and judging them is actually not Christian.

 

Those laws that you describe as "non-discriminatory" are based on a flawed premise, as I said- that there exists a positive right for individuals to interact with you, whether or not money changes hands and whether or not you like it.

The difference between two bumpkins not wanting to rent their guesthouse to homosexuals and an institutionalised system of racism as in Jim Crow goes to the heart of the matter here- one is an example of government coercion, and the other an example of freedom of conscience. Social censure, as you said, will probably cost them, but that's their decision to make.