UK: Five men on trial today for “gay death penalty” leaflets

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Jan 09, 2012 7:48 PM GMT

    Five men on trial today for “gay death penalty” leaflets

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/01/09/five-men-on-trial-today-for-gay-death-penalty-leaflets/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 10:26 PM GMT
    I think it is horrible to arrest people for their speech. In my opinion, someone's right to free speech outweighs your right to not be offended. Europe's example should not be followed with regarding to criminalizing speech- no matter how stupid that speech might be.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 10:48 PM GMT
    but if I handed out leaflets calling for the arrest and deportation of all followers of Islam...i'd be a hated...and targeted bastard...naaa...they are getting just what they deserve...we are to tolerate the hatred and vitriol of fanatical religious maniacs??.....and they show us no tolerance or mercy...good thing i don't rule the world...religious nuts of all stripes would be given 2 choices...give up the fanaticism...or be sent to a labor camp...it is fine to be religious...but when it's used to stir up hatred and death against someone because of the way they were born...that's were i draw the line..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 10:56 PM GMT
    Actively inciting violence towards a portion of the population goes way beyond "free speech."
  • Delivis

    Posts: 2332

    Jan 09, 2012 10:58 PM GMT
    Ravco saidActively inciting violence towards a portion of the population goes way beyond "free speech."


    I disagree. It is still only speech and thus should be permitted. If they actually do any violence they they should have legal action taken against them, if anyone else actually does violence then they should have legal action taken against them. But they should be able to wave signs and write blogs saying burn the gays all day if they want to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 11:07 PM GMT
    I've never understood why people hate gay people so much and spend so much energy caring about what they do. Even if you think homosexuality is a sin and gay people are going to Hell, just let them sin and go to Hell if that's what they want. How does that effect you as a straight person? How does that effect your religion? Even if you think homosexuality is wrong, why would that cause you to hate homosexuals if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves? It doesn't make any sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 11:10 PM GMT
    there is a vast difference between STATING an OPINION....and trying to incite violence...or to affect a change of laws to allow for the destruction of people because of sexual orientation,race or gender....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 11:11 PM GMT
    Verbal bullying is also 'just words' yet we wouldn't want to encourage that behaviour in kids. Why as adults should it be any different, particularly on such an extreme level as calling for human death? There is free speech, then there is verbal assault.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 11:13 PM GMT
    @Eddie:

    It is not (currently) illegal in America to call for the deportation of Muslims. It is illegal to kidnap them and deport them yourself. See the difference? Offensive speech should be protected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 11:23 PM GMT
    miamimasseur saidI've never understood why people hate gay people so much and spend so much energy caring about what they do. Even if you think homosexuality is a sin and gay people are going to Hell, just let them sin and go to Hell if that's what they want. How does that effect you as a straight person? How does that effect your religion? Even if you think homosexuality is wrong, why would that cause you to hate homosexuals if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves? It doesn't make any sense.


    has religion ever made sense though...?
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Jan 09, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    Should this case were to present in the US, they would be liable for criminal suit against them.

    Currently, the US set the bar for constitutionally unprotected speech to be imminent lawless action as these men were trying to incite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    field123 said@Eddie:

    It is not (currently) illegal in America to call for the deportation of Muslims. It is illegal to kidnap them and deport them yourself. See the difference? Offensive speech should be protected.



    BUT...my point is....would the Muslim fanatics tolerate me calling for deportation??...no...they would likely try to kill me for merely mentioning it..and WHAT WOULD YOU THINK??...if ,because of their constant handing out of these pamphlets...that LAWS actually got passed...making it a capital offense to be gay??..think it can't happen..THINK AGAIN...if you tell enough people that the Devil is on the loose...EVERYONE will be looking for him...Remember Germany in the 1930's?..it didn't take long for the Nazis to convince the German people that the Jews were the scum of the earth...and they did it by appealing to the people...thru PROPAGANDA..some of the most dangerous things is speech and written propaganda...SEE MY POINT??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 11:58 PM GMT
    @yourname:

    If you are so quick to believe that something called "hate speech" is distinct from "speech", just because someone told you such, then you are the tool. Grow up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:01 AM GMT
    @eddie:

    I do see your point, and I agree that religious fundamentalists are dangerous. But, prohibition of speech is wrong in the Arab world AND in the West. We shouldn't combat bigotry with totalitarianism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:05 AM GMT
    and i would sure hate to see such a handsome stud with as much of a knockout body like yours get the death penalty in a future world...just because propaganda convinced enough people to change laws.....making homosexuality a capital crime....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    field123 saidI think it is horrible to arrest people for their speech. In my opinion, someone's right to free speech outweighs your right to not be offended. Europe's example should not be followed with regarding to criminalizing speech- no matter how stupid that speech might be.



    Since when was hate speech protected speech?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:09 AM GMT
    i would do whatever was necessary to protect my kind...up to and including limiting free speech...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:12 AM GMT
    eddie13 saidbut if I handed out leaflets calling for the arrest and deportation of all followers of Islam...i'd be a hated...and targeted bastard...naaa...they are getting just what they deserve...we are to tolerate the hatred and vitriol of fanatical religious maniacs??.....and they show us no tolerance or mercy...good thing i don't rule the world...religious nuts of all stripes would be given 2 choices...give up the fanaticism...or be sent to a labor camp...it is fine to be religious...but when it's used to stir up hatred and death against someone because of the way they were born...that's were i draw the line..


    Actually in Britain, you'd be charged the same as these folks, since free speech doesn't exist in Britain (or most of Europe) if it is deemed "hate speech". Add to that by making such a statement publicly, chances are you would have a fatwa called on you by the clerics there in London who are not in the least friendly to non-Muslims and you probably wouldn't survive more than a week before you are murdered without any security protection of your own.

    So I'd take my crazy "Christian" nuts here in the States who are all talk over the hyper sensitive Muslims who are still trying to kill folks like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, or the cartoonists who sponsored "Draw Mohammad Day" or the one who drew Mohammad with a bomb for a turban. Or the ones who successfully murdered Theo van Gogh for his movie Submission, depicting the abusive conditions some Muslim women endure as justified by the Quran.

    Should hate speech exist? No, I think most rational people would agree it serves no purpose. But one person's hate speech is another's dissent. In the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she spoke out against the cruelty some women, like those in her ancestral Somalia, faced at the hands of a patriarchal and extremist interpretation of Islam. This dissent is deemed "hate speech" by some and is deemed punishable by death. To others, we see her dissent as a brave stand against a system run amok, and therefore should be protected speech.

    So I'd rather do as we do here in the states. Err on the side of maximum free speech (and more than this, freedom of conscience and thought) so long as such speech doesn't incite some immediate threat. It's one thing to say "God Hates Fags - They should be executed as it says in the Bible!", it's another to say "We must rise up, descend upon the gay neighborhood, and slaughter every last one of those fags where they stand right now!"

    By the way, the original link was no good anymore, so I found this one instead: http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/five_in_court_on_gay_hatred_charge_1_3400397

    I would like to see what the leaflets said. I definitely don't condone the sentiment, but unless the UK is in imminent threat of becoming an extremist Muslim majority population (and some would claim it is, with their lax stand on allowing Shariah law in certain Muslim enclaves) then I don't foresee such a leaflet being taken seriously beyond those idiots who actually hold such a view.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:13 AM GMT
    @ Credo:

    Since 1791 in the U.S.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:18 AM GMT
    eddie13 saidi would do whatever was necessary to protect my kind...up to and including limiting free speech...


    Interestingly enough, that's the same mentality those who oppose homosexuality hold.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:22 AM GMT
    credo,
    You didn't scroll down far enough on Wikipedia to see that those prohibitions on free speech are precluded in the United States because of the First Amendment. Thanks for trying, though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:25 AM GMT
    field123 said@ Credo:

    Since 1791 in the U.S.


    Actually, you are right. I should have been more clear in my first post. Hate speech is protected, but hate speech inciting violence - especially speech calling for the execution of a group of people - is NOT protected speech in the U.S.

    "Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words."

    So, put those words you'd like to protect in a pamphlet, send 'em around and see how long it takes before you're sued, and you lose in court!


    The Supreme Court:
    Threats can be punished if they are true threats: statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.

    Constitutionally proscribable true threats are those “where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” The speaker need not actually intend to act on the threat, but the threat has to be reasonably perceived as a “serious expression of an intent to commit” that act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:26 AM GMT
    aedile245 said
    eddie13 saidi would do whatever was necessary to protect my kind...up to and including limiting free speech...


    Interestingly enough, that's the same mentality those who oppose homosexuality hold.


    sometimes it boils down to ...it's US against THEM....it's kill or be killed..it's a law of nature son....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:32 AM GMT
    eddie13 said
    aedile245 said
    eddie13 saidi would do whatever was necessary to protect my kind...up to and including limiting free speech...


    Interestingly enough, that's the same mentality those who oppose homosexuality hold.


    sometimes it boils down to ...it's US against THEM....it's kill or be killed..it's a law of nature son....


    An eye for an eye and a tooth can trade
    Then you turn the other cheek 'til the bruises fade
    If you lose an eye, lose a tooth and lose a cheek
    Then your religion is losing face

    Or simply:

    An eye for an eye leads to blindness

    I mean, let's be serious, unless you are willing to nuke every last person who opposes homosexuality, then hatred towards homosexuals, up to and including the desire to see them executed, will always exist in the world.

    In short, are you willing to eradicate some 10-20% of the population in an effort to ensure the peaceful existence of some 1-3% of the population? Then, after you eradicate 1/10th or 1/5th of the population, can you be sure that more homophobia won't develop in response to such a drastic action taken?

    Or maybe we just accept that people suck, life sucks, and all we can do is laugh at it and move on. Try to make the best of our miserable lot in life and try to stand our ground against our enemies while surviving day to day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:38 AM GMT
    the last line of your statement sums it up perfectly..stand our ground...