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.

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

Ok. Everyone keep quiet and do not express your views. In case it causes people offense.

MN will be very empty then.

And boring.

I believe that homosexuality is natural, harmless and a good thing for society.

There. I have expressed my belief. Why am I allowed to say this without censure but someone who holds an opposing belief to me cannot do so?

I'm with you red

If someone expressed a racist opinion at my dinner table the they would have the right to express that. And I would have the right to express my opinion too

What about the rights of Christians not to be offended by atheists insistence that God does not exist? Or the rights of Muslim groups not to be offended by women walking in bikinis down the street?

Personally I don't think the 'hate speech' laws stop homophobia or racism existing. They certainly do not stop rmisogyny existing.

What helps stamp out these views is structural change to our society: equal opportunities, civil partnerships, gay marriage, abortion, laws against rape within marriage...not laws about what people can/cannot say.

Maid, Holyfield didn't target a specific person. But he will undoubtedly have been heard by homophobic pratts who are perfectly happy to target specific people, and will feel validated in doing so because someone moderately famous has said on TV that gay people are abnormal and wrong and has not been challenged. That is why the TV channel were right to make it clear it was unacceptable.

Thank you for your support diddlediddledumpling

Excellent points Ubik1

What about the rights of Christians not to be offended by atheists insistence that God does not exist? Or the rights of Muslim groups not to be offended by women walking in bikinis down the street?

That is such a non-argument. We're not talking about any right not to be offended. We're talking about the right not to be the subject of hate speech by being accused of being wrong and abnormal for something that is not a matter of choice.

Hate speech laws don't stop racism, homophobia, sexism and disablism. But is that a good enough reason not to have them? After all, the Homicide Act has never stopped homicide, nor has the Theft Act stopped theft. Do we actually want to return to the days when it was perfectly acceptable for landlords to have "No blacks, no Irish" signs in their windows?

But he will undoubtedly have been heard by homophobic pratts who are perfectly happy to target specific people, and will feel validated in doing so because someone moderately famous has said on TV that gay people are abnormal and wrong and has not been challenged.

I take your point. There is an interesting debate to be had about what constitutes 'harm', and whether 'indirect' harm is as serious as 'direct'. I'm not sure that I believe that a person's opinion can or should replace another's moral agency. As per Ubik's post above, the way to regulate the second person's direct action is to legislate for the behaviour.

nennypops - I feel the few people who would have their views validated by Holyfield would notmchange their views whatever.
But IME most people I know who saw this program were shocked and spurred into action to dispute his views with theIr friends, families, DCs etc.

I feel that idiots like Holyfield being allowed to express their views can do more good than harm. As they are so ridiculous they are easily challenged.

To censure these views seems to have the opposite effect. People get angry at PC etc.

Do we actually want to return to the days when it was perfectly acceptable for landlords to have "No blacks, no Irish" signs in their windows?

Just as a tangent, what do you imagine would happen to a business that displayed such a sign?

"We don't have freedom of speech to make homophobic comments publicly"

In fairness we do. However this was the decision of a private company on their property being aired on their show and channel.
If they want to say the rules of the show are "you don't say x" it's not really a freedom of speech issue, they're simply setting the terms of participation in their show.
If this guy said what was outlined in the post elsewhere he'd be free to do so.

Freedom of speech is only important as a concept when it allows people to make statements we do not agree with. It is not much of a concept if it is only a freedom to make comments that are acceptable to the majority.
Like all freedoms there are limits and responsibilities in their application. Like all difficult issues the debate is not about the absolute concept but about where those limits are placed and what the responsibilities are.
To my mind it is acceptable (Although stupid!) to hold religious views that suggest homosexual acts are immoral, and it is acceptable to articulate those views in a public forum.
Good on Channel 5 however for saying that they will not host that platform.

being wrong and abnormal for something that is not a matter of choice.

Do you think paedophiles are wrong and abnormal?

Do they choose who they are attracted to?

Or do you reserve the right to call them abnormal?

Or do you insist on the right to say their sexuality is wrong?

Do you wish for this right to criticise and disapprove of their non choice sexuality or do you want to be censured if you express disapproval?

Is paedophilia a recognised sexuality now? I missed that red

Thought that was just an idea bandied about by people wishing to gain a reaction.

I have found this interesting because in other BB's very sexist comments have been allowed to go unchallenged.

There was a Muslim man on in 2008 (I was in hospital with nothing else to do) he spouted about women being inferior.

George Galloway was very insulting towards women and bullying towards women in the house.

There was classic sexist judging in the last BB.

I think that the way this was expressed as "my opinion" should have been left unchecked, tbh, unless it went to far.

'Freedom of speech doesn't cover being racist,homophobic or sexist. For which we should all be eternally grateful

I disagree. I think FOS should cover these things.

Total FOS is sacrosanct in the USA. I wish we had similar rights protected in a constitution.'

I agree too and I am not rightwing politically. The old adage 'I don't agree with his viewpoint but I will defend his right to say it' comes to mind. Political correctness seems to have been taken to extremes. I have no problem with his opinion being challenged whatsoever but he is entitled to it.

People in the USA having a right to freedom of speech? Yeah, tell that to anyone who says something the government doesn't like, Chelsea Manning springs to mind.

I think it is clear that a lot of people are supporting free speech as long as it is an "accepted" point of view. EH was not inciting hatred, he was expressing his personal opinion, much as we might all disagree with it.

I think redshifter has it right that these views should be expressed, challenged and discussed to maintain awareness.

"Is paedophilia a recognised sexuality now? "

It is a recognised sexual disorder, it is still argued whether it is an aquired or inate sexuality.

Not sure why bb broadcasted these comments if they don't wish to be associated with them? However BB was still quite happy to show some sleezebags todger!!!!

To my mind it is acceptable (Although stupid!) to hold religious views that suggest homosexual acts are immoral, and it is acceptable to articulate those views in a public forum.

Totally agree.

Good on Channel 5 however for saying that they will not host that platform.

Not sure I agre with this.

Sometimes I think it can do more good than harm to have stupid views expressed on a widely public forom/tv show. But willing to be disagreednwith on this. Just what I experience sometimes.

I like the fact that we have freedom of speech in this county. It makes it much easier to identify the arseholes!

I think it is clear that a lot of people are supporting free speech as long as it is an "accepted" point of view.

As alluded to earlier by redshifter, I find this groupthought troubling (even if I agree with their position on the matter).

Juliaparker25
Thank you for the compliment....not the kind I usually get around here for sure. Norman Rockwell did a great painting depicting Freedom of Speech. Google it.