The Official LGBTQ Thread

Is hate speech (as Foro defines it) not a little further a long the road from slander &/or treason?

Can I ask: do you have a problem, generally, with the laws themselves (bearfan, I'm guessing you do); or is it more their application or potential application?


Speaking for myself, I have a problem with the laws themselves as you correctly guessed :)
 
that would not really be a piece of speech, or an opinion. That would be a fact relayed.


I'd count that as speech .. it gets hairy when you try to differentiate between facts and opinion .. that could be a false fact. In any case, stuff like that is rare.
 
Can I ask: do you have a problem, generally, with the laws themselves (bearfan, I'm guessing you do); or is it more their application or potential application?
I also have a problem with the laws themselves. In a utopia people should be able to express any opinion without fear of physical violence. Note I do not say reprisals.
 
that would not really be a piece of speech, or an opinion. That would be a fact relayed.
This is actually quite interesting. There's a case (totally unrelated) in the UK right now, where a man was prevented from publishing his autobiography where he talked about abuse in his past. This wasn't, as you might expect, about him potentially revealing suspects/abusers. It was actually about his ex-wife trying to prevent the book being published in case their autistic son read it, and became traumatised/psychologically damaged by the experience. It was initially won by the ex-wife (& son); but they lost it on appeal. The book will now be allowed. The judge commented (I paraphrase from a news report) that there is no law (in the UK) than can be applied to prevent facts being told.
I also have a problem with the laws themselves. In a utopia people should be able to express any opinion without fear of physical violence. Note I do not say reprisals.
But in the absence of a Utopia, should we not have some laws?
 
But in the absence of a Utopia, should we not have some laws?

Like what .. and what is the punishment .. and can the punishment really be equal and how do you determine who is effected.


All gays are in some way wrong and should be killed
All straights are in some way wrong and should be killed
All Christians are in some way wrong and should be killed
All Muslims are in some way wrong and should be killed
All Communists are in some way wrong and should be killed
All Nazis are in some way wrong and should be killed
All blacks are in some way wrong and should be killed
All whites are in some way wrong and should be killed
All Czechs are in some way wrong and should be killed
All Germans are in some way wrong and should be killed
...etc

You are always picking and choosing what speech is allowed, what groups can be spoken against, etc. It is very problematic

At some point in semi-recent history every one of these could be considered punishable depending on the regime and all of these could be considered "correct" .. maybe minus the killing part
 
My guide is reasonableness.


That is your guide, but you are counting on a government here. The question is really "should the government impose punishment for expressing a certain opinion/thought" and how effective is a law without punishment? and what should that punishment be? Do you really want to lock up people for speaking their mind?



Individuals are certainly free to protest, speak against, shun anyone with an opinion they disagree with or really for any reason.
 
In this aspect, yes, I do. Hate speech laws trouble me greatly.

Edit: Also, Foro, answer the question I asked. I'll ask it again: do you believe that we should police religious buildings and arrest religious leaders with anti-gay opinions?
Follow them, warn them, and eventually punish them. I am very strong on that indeed. Perhaps it depends on what is said. But I am tempted to no tolerance.
 
Don't get me wrong - the second someone is in any way violent, throw the book at them. That's why hate crimes laws are a good thing. If you do something designed to terrorize, they should go away for longer. But the Americans, I think, have the right of it. Change the way people ACT and it will eventually change the way most people think. Change the way people talk and it just makes them talk quieter.
 
Don't get me wrong - the second someone is in any way violent, throw the book at them. That's why hate crimes laws are a good thing. If you do something designed to terrorize, they should go away for longer. But the Americans, I think, have the right of it. Change the way people ACT and it will eventually change the way most people think. Change the way people talk and it just makes them talk quieter.


I'm not really a huge fan of hate crime laws, though I understand them. plain old crime laws for anyone getting violent, certainly.
 
What do you want to do with the no voters and the people promoting a no vote?

Dublin, Ireland (CNN)Irish voters were choosing Friday whether to change the country's constitution to allow same-sex marriage.

It's a landmark referendum that, if passed, would make Ireland the first country in the world to adopt same-sex marriage through a popular vote.

Ireland's voters will be asked to approve this statement: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

If more say "yes" than say "no," the change to the constitution will give gay and lesbian couples the right to civil marriage, but not to be wed in a church.

As in many other countries around the world, the issue is a polarizing one. And the referendum will be a test of whether in Ireland, a majority Catholic nation, more liberal thinking wins out over conservative, traditional leanings.

Opinion polls in the run-up to the vote suggest the "yes" vote is on track to come out on top -- but that the gap is narrowing.
 
Back
Top