Muslim men convidted of distributing gay hate leafle

  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    Jan 21, 2012 1:20 PM GMT
    http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets?cat=world&type=article
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 1:25 PM GMT
    i've sexed a few Muslim men who were on the DL.
    Maybe I shoulda shot them instead. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 1:59 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidi've sexed a few Muslim men who were on the DL.
    Maybe I shoulda shot them instead. icon_lol.gif


    Would you shoot me Paul icon_sad.gif

    Plus those guys are morons.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 2:03 PM GMT
    Fivealive said
    paulflexes saidi've sexed a few Muslim men who were on the DL.
    Maybe I shoulda shot them instead. icon_lol.gif


    Would you shoot me Paul icon_sad.gif

    Plus those guys are morons.
    Oh hell NO.. might shoot ya with the purple headed love monster though!icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 2:06 PM GMT
    Fundamentalist Christians in the USA aren't far behind.

    I've see Christian literature and videos that claim homosexuals lead a "deathstyle" where they molest and recruit children. They claim our sex practices include eating feces, drinking urine, and we carry diseases, put a strain on our health care system, have a life expectancy of 43 years, etc. etc.

    Not calling for our death, but scandalous enough that a some people will get mad enough to go out and bash or kills gays after seeing it.

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

    Jan 21, 2012 2:15 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Fivealive said
    paulflexes saidi've sexed a few Muslim men who were on the DL.
    Maybe I shoulda shot them instead. icon_lol.gif


    Would you shoot me Paul icon_sad.gif

    Plus those guys are morons.
    Oh hell NO.. might shoot ya with the purple headed love monster though!icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif



    Eeeekkk!! icon_eek.gif
    PC_Barney_wp.jpgicon_eek.gif

  • Jan 21, 2012 2:15 PM GMT
    The law is a horrific affront to the ideal of free speech. I dont know whether the actual leaflets should be illegal, but I do know that making "stirring up hate" illegal is such an incredibly broad restrictions that you can capture all sorts of legitimate political speech.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 2:18 PM GMT
    Fivealive said
    TropicalMark said
    Fivealive said
    paulflexes saidi've sexed a few Muslim men who were on the DL.
    Maybe I shoulda shot them instead. icon_lol.gif


    Would you shoot me Paul icon_sad.gif

    Plus those guys are morons.
    Oh hell NO.. might shoot ya with the purple headed love monster though!icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif



    Eeeekkk!! icon_eek.gif
    PC_Barney_wp.jpgicon_eek.gif
    NO! not THAT "purple headed love monster"..icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 2:20 PM GMT
    Just distribute anti-idiot/fundie muslim hate leaflets.. Its fair game..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 2:20 PM GMT
    In that case...You should see a doctor...icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 3:15 PM GMT
    Fivealive said
    paulflexes saidi've sexed a few Muslim men who were on the DL.
    Maybe I shoulda shot them instead. icon_lol.gif


    Would you shoot me Paul icon_sad.gif

    Plus those guys are morons.
    Don't forget my definition of "shoot." icon_wink.gif

    1444204538.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 3:22 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Fivealive said
    paulflexes saidi've sexed a few Muslim men who were on the DL.
    Maybe I shoulda shot them instead. icon_lol.gif


    Would you shoot me Paul icon_sad.gif

    Plus those guys are morons.
    Don't forget my definition of "shoot." icon_wink.gif

    1444204538.png
    Or mine!

    Weak-Ejaculation1.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 3:25 PM GMT
    thisonesakeeper saidThe law is a horrific affront to the ideal of free speech. I dont know whether the actual leaflets should be illegal, but I do know that making "stirring up hate" illegal is such an incredibly broad restrictions that you can capture all sorts of legitimate political speech.



    Here's some history for you...

    584460.jpg

    xc2008-07-17-75-000.jpg
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Jan 21, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    thisonesakeeper saidThe law is a horrific affront to the ideal of free speech. I dont know whether the actual leaflets should be illegal, but I do know that making "stirring up hate" illegal is such an incredibly broad restrictions that you can capture all sorts of legitimate political speech.

    These "incredibly broad restriction" are usually limited to a standard in most countries. For example, currently the US uses "imminent lawless action" to decide where an action or speech is unconstitutional.

  • Jan 21, 2012 8:31 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    thisonesakeeper saidThe law is a horrific affront to the ideal of free speech. I dont know whether the actual leaflets should be illegal, but I do know that making "stirring up hate" illegal is such an incredibly broad restrictions that you can capture all sorts of legitimate political speech.



    Here's some history for you...

    584460.jpg

    xc2008-07-17-75-000.jpg


    And you think that applying considerable restrictions to free speech will make a difference? It only gives their supporters victim complexes, creating a stronger incentive to spread their hatred, and if they ever achieve power, these sorts of laws become a tool for them.

    commoncoll said
    thisonesakeeper saidThe law is a horrific affront to the ideal of free speech. I dont know whether the actual leaflets should be illegal, but I do know that making "stirring up hate" illegal is such an incredibly broad restrictions that you can capture all sorts of legitimate political speech.

    These "incredibly broad restriction" are usually limited to a standard in most countries. For example, currently the US uses "imminent lawless action" to decide where an action or speech is unconstitutional.


    The point is that the law that they're being arrested under is nothing like united states case law on this is. Imminent lawless action is a reasonable restriction.

    Considering that their leaflets advocate a change in the law, namely death penalty for gays, their speech should be merely odious, not illegal.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jan 22, 2012 2:03 AM GMT
    From the Guardian:

    After the verdicts, Sue Hemming, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service's special crime and counter-terrorism division, said: "Everyone has a right to be protected by the law and we regard homophobic crimes, along with all hate crimes, as particularly serious because they undermine people's right to feel safe.

    "This case was not about curtailing people's religious views or preventing them from educating others about those views – it was that any such views should be expressed in a lawful manner and not incite others to hatred."


    For the full article, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets

    British and Commonwealth seems to take a slightly different slant than US law regarding hate crimes and freedom of expression. Fred Phelps has been denied entry into both Canada and the UK on this basis.

    Perhaps we bend over too far backwards?

  • Jan 22, 2012 3:30 AM GMT
    tazzari saidFrom the Guardian:

    After the verdicts, Sue Hemming, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service's special crime and counter-terrorism division, said: "Everyone has a right to be protected by the law and we regard homophobic crimes, along with all hate crimes, as particularly serious because they undermine people's right to feel safe.

    "This case was not about curtailing people's religious views or preventing them from educating others about those views – it was that any such views should be expressed in a lawful manner and not incite others to hatred."


    For the full article, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets

    British and Commonwealth seems to take a slightly different slant than US law regarding hate crimes and freedom of expression. Fred Phelps has been denied entry into both Canada and the UK on this basis.

    Perhaps we bend over too far backwards?


    America bending too far backwards for free speech? That's not something you hear very often.

    But if you legitimately believe homosexual sex should receive the death penalty, why should the government stop them from speaking their mind?

    If they don't have that right, how can we expect the right to say "you're incredibly stupid for x,y,z reasons, now please shut up"?
  • mizu5

    Posts: 2599

    Jan 22, 2012 3:40 AM GMT
    thisonesakeeper said
    tazzari saidFrom the Guardian:

    After the verdicts, Sue Hemming, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service's special crime and counter-terrorism division, said: "Everyone has a right to be protected by the law and we regard homophobic crimes, along with all hate crimes, as particularly serious because they undermine people's right to feel safe.

    "This case was not about curtailing people's religious views or preventing them from educating others about those views – it was that any such views should be expressed in a lawful manner and not incite others to hatred."


    For the full article, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets

    British and Commonwealth seems to take a slightly different slant than US law regarding hate crimes and freedom of expression. Fred Phelps has been denied entry into both Canada and the UK on this basis.

    Perhaps we bend over too far backwards?


    America bending too far backwards for free speech? That's not something you hear very often.

    But if you legitimately believe homosexual sex should receive the death penalty, why should the government stop them from speaking their mind?

    If they don't have that right, how can we expect the right to say "you're incredibly stupid for x,y,z reasons, now please shut up"?
    Fuck that,telling someone to shut up and handing out leaflets calling for death is two different things. How dare you compare thse two. They HAVE no right to publicly spread lies about homosexuals and a say they should be killed.

    No one can "legitimately" beleive we deserve to die for our sexual orientation.

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

    Jan 22, 2012 4:37 AM GMT
    Muslims (and Jews) are dang hot
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2012 4:42 AM GMT
    thisonesakeeper saidif [they] legitimately believe homosexual sex should receive the death penalty, why should the government stop them from speaking their mind?

    If they don't have that right, how can we expect the right to say "you're incredibly stupid for x,y,z reasons, now please shut up"?

    If a Muslim country ever passes a free speech law, they might opt to exclude cartoons about the prophet. So, too, some nations choose to exclude hate speech.

    I have my doubts, but the latter certainly makes more sense to me.

    Minorities shouldn't have to fight such hate with their own "it gets better" campaigns.

  • Jan 22, 2012 4:43 AM GMT
    mizu5 saidFuck that,telling someone to shut up and handing out leaflets calling for death is two different things. How dare you compare thse two. They HAVE no right to publicly spread lies about homosexuals and a say they should be killed.

    No one can "legitimately" beleive we deserve to die for our sexual orientation.



    I "dare" compare those two because that's what we lose by going down this road.

    The law is a cudgel, not a scalpel, and if you make laws banning the speech that you don't like, you inevitably set precidents and create loopholes which can be used in the future to quash speech that you support.

    I don't care what they're saying, but as long as the speech isn't inciting an imminent lawless act, they deserve to be able to say it.

    Especially in this case because they're advocating a change in the law, that is about as far into the realm of political speech as you can get. How wide a berth will this case ultimately allow the government in dealing with other disagreements with it's position I wonder?



    Caesarea4 said
    thisonesakeeper saidif [they] legitimately believe homosexual sex should receive the death penalty, why should the government stop them from speaking their mind?

    If they don't have that right, how can we expect the right to say "you're incredibly stupid for x,y,z reasons, now please shut up"?

    If a Muslim country ever passes a free speech law, they might opt to exclude cartoons about the prophet. So, too, some nations choose to exclude hate speech.

    I have my doubts, but the latter certainly makes more sense to me.

    Minorities shouldn't have to fight such hate with their own "it gets better" campaigns.


    In both cases, that isn't really free speech, but at least depictions of the prophet is a very narrow restriction which makes it easy to work around.

    "Hate speech" is so vague it's incredibly easy to use it as a crugdel against opposition of any stripe, even if you don't believe people have a right to convey their political opinions, no matter how odious.
  • mizu5

    Posts: 2599

    Jan 22, 2012 7:18 AM GMT
    thisonesakeeper said
    mizu5 saidFuck that,telling someone to shut up and handing out leaflets calling for death is two different things. How dare you compare thse two. They HAVE no right to publicly spread lies about homosexuals and a say they should be killed.

    No one can "legitimately" beleive we deserve to die for our sexual orientation.



    I "dare" compare those two because that's what we lose by going down this road.

    The law is a cudgel, not a scalpel, and if you make laws banning the speech that you don't like, you inevitably set precidents and create loopholes which can be used in the future to quash speech that you support.

    I don't care what they're saying, but as long as the speech isn't inciting an imminent lawless act, they deserve to be able to say it.

    Especially in this case because they're advocating a change in the law, that is about as far into the realm of political speech as you can get. How wide a berth will this case ultimately allow the government in dealing with other disagreements with it's position I wonder?



    Caesarea4 said
    thisonesakeeper saidif [they] legitimately believe homosexual sex should receive the death penalty, why should the government stop them from speaking their mind?

    If they don't have that right, how can we expect the right to say "you're incredibly stupid for x,y,z reasons, now please shut up"?

    If a Muslim country ever passes a free speech law, they might opt to exclude cartoons about the prophet. So, too, some nations choose to exclude hate speech.

    I have my doubts, but the latter certainly makes more sense to me.

    Minorities shouldn't have to fight such hate with their own "it gets better" campaigns.


    In both cases, that isn't really free speech, but at least depictions of the prophet is a very narrow restriction which makes it easy to work around.

    "Hate speech" is so vague it's incredibly easy to use it as a crugdel against opposition of any stripe, even if you don't believe people have a right to convey their political opinions, no matter how odious.
    Something makes me thingk that msot all nations will agree calling for the death of an entire fgroup of people counts as hate speach I believe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2012 8:16 AM GMT
    thisonesakeeper said"Hate speech" is so vague it's incredibly easy to use it as a crugdel against opposition of any stripe, even if you don't believe people have a right to convey their political opinions, no matter how odious.

    Once there was a very learned rebbe. Two people had a dispute and came to him for help. He listened to the first tell his story and responded: "you are right". Then the second one told his side, and again the rebbe said "you are right".

    Hearing this, the rebbe's wife rushes in (and I always picture the scene in Princess Bride with Billy Crystal as the miracle man) and yells "the two men completely disagree! How can they both be right?!"

    And the rebbe responds: "honey, you are also right."

    icon_smile.gif
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jan 22, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    There is a large difference in Canada and the UK in terms of respect for the judiciary, and I believe the feeling in the UK is that freedom of speech is a very good thing, but that there are limits - and the judiciary can be trusted to discern where the line needs to be drawn. Those convicted can appeal of course - but the message sent is that society will not tolerate speech that incites to violence or hatred.

    Yes, it's very hard to find the balance, and in the US at any rate, we no longer have that degree of faith in the judiciary or the legal system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2012 7:41 PM GMT
    I got a better idea.. lets print up some 'Muhammad sucks dick and takes it in the ass and it was hot!" leaflets.. Then we'll distribute them all over the world..

    That'll really piss em off.. Oh well.