Freedom of speech

[puzzleduck]

Did anyone see BB last night?

I dont know their names but a man was telling a woman that he didnt agree with people being Gay because its written in the Bible that its not allowed. He got a verbal warning from BB for this conversation.
AIBU to think that we have freedom of speech in this country and as he was only stating that HE didnt agree with it they should not have given him a VW.

You could also argue that its an age thing, he is over 50. I think younger generations are more PC.

To reiterate - this isn't a question of 'freedom of speech' so much as of 'editorial control'. Which exists even in the US where FOS is a constitutional right.

My dead Grandmother would have given you what for puzzle. She wouldn't hear homophobic nonsense spoken without challenge. I miss her.

Both my parents over over 50, neither would begin to try to justify his homophibic comments, or his right to air his views on national tv. Oh and both are practising christans too.

No op

My grandparents are bigots either. Age is not an excuse.

Oy - I'm over 50! Stop these ageist comments!

Just playing the Devils advocate. Its not my opinion. I just think as we live in a free society we should be able to voice our opinions.

"Murderofgoths, funny you should say that considering your username."

Really?? Oh go on, read my profile, save me explaining it again.

redshifter So you'd be happy with them saying it in your house, possibly upsetting your friends and family? And you wouldn't want to have the right to tell them to shut up?

He did voice his opinion, all that happened was he was asked to not use Channel 4 as a platform to voice his opinion in future which is fair enough when it is a very homophobic opinion

GOes without saying he's talking shit.
However, he was free to say it - he hasn't been arrested/disappeared/removed from the programme and his views were broadcast.
BB then used 'his' freedom of speech to disagree, and 'his' editorial control to say it shouldn't be said again in the house.
I don't think the right to Freedom of Speech means you have a right to say something without being challenged/criticised, though as some posters do.

Why so many people think "playing devils advocate" means "talk out of their arse"?

Woefully misunderstood phrase.

I agree, he should be allowed to voice his opinion, regardless of how unpleasant that is. And everyone else has the right to tell him what a knob he is.
I didn't see it, did they not?

seriously?You think someone should be able to say something like that and not be criticized or disapproved of?

Of course he should be criticized and disapproved of. This is why I will defend my right to criticise him.
In reality if he continued saying these things he would be removed from the programme. So therefore censored.

I will not stand for being told what beliefs I can criticise and what beliefs I am not allowed to criticise.
I think it is more important to be allowed to criticise and disapprove of certain beliefs than not be allowed to criticise them in case it might offend.

As ubik said- I think freedom if speech us more important than the tight not yo be offended.

Don't forget that religious beliefs are also a protected characteristic under equality law. I think this is wrong.

I want the the right to criticise and disapprove of disgusting, ridiculous and bigoted religious beliefs such as Holyfield's, without any censure.

I get fed up of homophobia and misogyny masquerading as religion.

I'm glad that he said it though - I want to know what people really think. Then I know who and what they are.

It's a tricky one - but every day on twitter stops me being complacent about racism and sexism. These battles are not won - though in my own circle of friends you'd think they were.

I know it's offensive but if I know about it then I can tackle it, educate and challenge.

Of course Ch5 can tell him to STFU though. Just as mumsnet can delete offensive / illegal posts.

Ubik1: I think freedom if speech us more important than the tight not yo be offended.

But that's the point. This isn't about the right not to be offended. It's about the rights of minorities not to be the target of hatred and allegations that they are wrong and abnormal based solely on the fact that they are members of minorities.

So bigoted people won't express their views so we won't be offended? They will still have these views though.

Maybe it is better that we can hear them and realise that some people still think this way so we can argue against it and not be fooled that these views do not exist because no one is allowed to express them.

I am very wary of censoring speech except in extremely limited circumstances (e.g., the classic example of falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater). I would never condone prohibiting people from expressing their opinions, however repellent I may find those opinions may be (and homophobic comments are extremely repellent). But I'm American which probably explains it. Freedom of speech is rather important to us.

Having said that, I think the producers of a commercial television show generally decide what is said on that show.

That should read "however repellent I may find those opinions to be."

If you saw a group of people on the street shouting at a black person something like "Go home [N word), f off you (W word)", with the black person being visibly upset, would you seriously be thinking "Great, freedom of speech in action"?*

That would be racially-aggravated assault/abuse of a specific target, who would feel intimidated/harassed and hold reasonable fear for their personal safety. So no, I wouldn't view that as a legitimate evocation of freedom of speech.

So you'd be happy with them saying it in your house, possibly upsetting your friends and family? And you wouldn't want to have the right to tell them to shut up?

If someone in my house offered the opinion that "black people should go home", my response would depend on intent.

If there was a black person sharing the dinner table with them, I would view it as seriously as the first scenario - a deliberate attempt to abuse a specific target, who would feel intimidated/harassed. In this case, the person would be removed from my house, where they can create free assembly with other people who may feel the same.

If there was no obvious target for the opinion, I think the person's right to freely give their opinion, where it cannot be thought to cause direct harm, is acceptable. I would call them on it though. And of course, it would be the last time I had them round to dinner....

As an aside, I was once frogmarched from a room by my mother after an older gentleman expressed the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" opinion....

The above are just my thoughts, no idea how it fits in with the law re: freedom of speech, hate speech etc.

It's about the rights of minorities not to be the target of hatred and allegations that they are wrong and abnormal based solely on the fact that they are members of minorities.
I'm not defending his opinion at all but I'd be very surprised if it's based solely on the fact that gay people are minority.

Don't forget that religious beliefs are also a protected characteristic under equality law. I think this is wrong. I want the the right to criticise and disapprove of disgusting, ridiculous and bigoted religious beliefs such as Holyfield's, without any censure.
An excellent point.

"If there was a black person sharing the dinner table with them, I would view it as seriously as the first scenario - a deliberate attempt to abuse a specific target, who would feel intimidated/harassed. In this case, the person would be removed from my house, where they can create free assembly with other people who may feel the same."

Right, so bearing in mind Channel 4 know that some of their audience will be homosexual, and this idiot also has to know that there will be homosexual viewers, then surely it's closer to this scenario. In which case you'd actually favour harsher methods than just telling him to cool it?

Right, so bearing in mind Channel 4 know that some of their audience will be homosexual, and this idiot alsohasto know that there will be homosexual viewers, then surely it's closer to this scenario. In which case you'd actually favour harsher methods than just telling him to cool it?

Some of there audience will be religious and hold silmilar beliefs to Holyfield.

Censuring Holyfield could be construed as disrespecting these people's deeply held religious beliefs which should be given equal respect according to UK bullshit law.

Channel 5 BB is not a private household it is a household open to the public and there should respect all viewers' beliefs equally as the equality laws state.

Censuring Holyfield could be construed as disrespecting these people's deeply held religious beliefs which should be given equal respect according to UK bullshit law.

No it couldn't. I suggest you go away and read the Equality Act before posting again.

"Some of there audience will be religious and hold silmilar beliefs to Holyfield."

Yes, but if he'd just kept quiet would that have caused them offense?

Right, so bearing in mind Channel 4 know that some of their audience will be homosexual, and this idiot also has to know that there will be homosexual viewers, then surely it's closer to this scenario. In which case you'd actually favour harsher methods than just telling him to cool it?
No, because he didn't target or intimidate a specific person.

If one of the other house members is openly gay and part of EH's 'assembly', it becomes a different matter.