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.

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

which is exactly what happened and is happening. MN rules are different to the tv channel's editorial judgement. Here, the rules are free speech provided we obey the talk guidelines (no personal attacks etc). Other internet forums, newspapers etc have different rules.

This is not a freedom of speech issue.

I feel the few people who would have their views validated by Holyfield would notmchange their views whatever.

And what about children? Homophobic abuse in schools is a serious problem. Is it acceptable if a child who has seen this starts telling another that he is "abnormal" because he's seen someone on the TV saying so? Do you seriously think children won't change their views if it is demonstrated to them that this is not accepted?

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?

They would be prosecuted and/or sued.

His religion is homophobic and vile and I can say that because I have free speech. It is vitally important that he have the same right.

However, BB are providing the means to address huge audiences. They can withdraw that if they feel he is breaking their previously agreed rules. He has the right to stand outside the building and express his beliefs all day.

As it happens I'd rather that BB let it stand, but that's just me. I'm against homophobia, but most examples of people expressing it tend to have the opposite effect and strengthen the opposition to it.

Red, people are born gay. They are not born paedophiles. If you claim otherwise, do give us your evidence.

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

People keep saying this, yet Americans acknowledge that private TV companies are free to censor what people say on their programmes. What's the difference?

They would be prosecuted and/or sued.

I meant: if it were legal for them to display such a sign and discriminate against black people and Irish people?

Joysmum - agree completely! If Norman Lamont never spoke how would all have known he was a complete idiot?

Alis - what Chelsea Manning did was not freedom of speech. It was copying every single classified document he could from a classified database. He did not 'select' the items he wanted and discard the rest, he simply put in a USB stick and clicked the 'copy-all' button. This is some way shy of freedom of speech - much more akin to criminal irresponsibility.

Agree with all the comments about allowing idiots to speak freely. However I don't want to hold the megaphone for them and am happy that Channel 5 feel similarly.

Red, people are born gay. They are not born paedophiles. If you claim otherwise, do give us your evidence.

Not sure the key part is whether one is 'born' with a particular sexual attraction, rather whether it is deemed 'non-choice'.

Agree with all the comments about allowing idiots to speak freely. However I don't want to hold the megaphone for them and am happy that Channel 5 feel similarly.

That just about sums it up, really.

I find this groupthought troubling (even if I agree with their position on the matter).

Yes, I feel the same. I find it very troubling.

We seem to all agree on the stupidness of EH's views. But the 'groupthought' really troubles me.

I've no idea whether paedophiles choose to act the way they do. Don't really care, they are easily the least deserving of sympathy and understanding of all criminals.

If we censor people like that it gives them a feeling of persecution. Better to hear them out then take the piss out of their ridiculous ideas

Was what I was trying to say but missrabbit is much more eloquent.

Said my view in one sentence where I took 6 posts.

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

People keep saying this, yet Americans acknowledge that private TV companies are free to censor what people say on their programmes. What's the difference?'

Quite. I bet there are 'Christian' tv stations in the US where the only view on homosexuality is along the lines stated by Holyfield.

"I'm astonished that people here think we should all be free to go round expressing racist or homophobic hatred. 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"?"

No one does think anyone should go around directly insulting people and inciting racial or homophobic hatred. No one thinks it is acceptable to go round shouting "F off you x, y or z" or even just 'F off!"..

This is abuse.

People expressing their opinions, however abhorrent they are, must have a right to say what they think or believe. It is a cornerstone of democracy.
Who decides what opinions and beliefs are allowed to be expressed? What if beliefs that people found abhorrent were not allowed to have been expressed in the middle of the last century? Many views which formed the basis of the various civil rights campaigns which underpin our more equal society were actually as abhorrent to the majority as the views expressed by the BB contestant are nowadays.

Which brings me to a big LOL at the mans age being a part of it. Who do you think fought for the current enlightenment on women, homosexuality, disability and race? People now in their 80s! And older.

In my book PC does not mean being afraid of opinions alone, and it does not mean shutting down the right to free expression. That is a route as dangerous as deciding what sexuality people should be allowed to express.

And heaven (or nearest secular equivalent) help us if we rely on BB to guide our moral principles!

I daresay many chat shows etc edit / have editorial control over what guests and contributors say - including the U.S Christian channels.

the very fact that they do that reduces them to meaningless advertising of a pint rather than holding ethical debate in which views can be discussed and challenged.

Blu - yes - unfortunately there are few tv channels free from commercial pressures from advertisers or subscribers.

I would think that if this issue had arisen in a more serious program, and particularly if on the BBC, the result would have been a robust discussion.

I would think that if this issue had arisen in a more serious program, and particularly if on the BBC, the result would have been a robust discussion.

I suppose there is an argument that context and audience count in this case. Your average watcher of QT is unlikely to be swayed by a Nick Griffin spouting compulsory repatriation (if that is not their own opinion) whereas I suspect BB is watched by an audience which includes younger more impressionable minds?

For me there is a big difference between saying " I don't think homosexuality is ok" and " gays should all be killed" the first is expressing a personal view and the second is completely unacceptable.
I don't watch BB so I don't know exactly what was said but I think it's ok to express an opinion. I don't agree with it but I don't have a problem with him expressing it as long as it's not done in an offensive manner.

I too believe he should be allowed to say what he wants. Even if I find it abhorrent or distasteful.
If so done said I support and agree with child rape, then I wouldn't agree. But I think someone should be able to express their views.

"Your average watcher of QT is unlikely to be swayed by a Nick Griffin spouting compulsory repatriation (if that is not their own opinion) whereas I suspect BB is watched by an audience which includes younger more impressionable minds?"

So presumed educated and / or intelligent can benefit from free speech and open discussion but BB watchers must be protected? This is the kind of thinking behind the vote being denied working class people and women.

Freedom of speech means that people can express their beliefs without government restriction. It does not mean that private companies must allow everyone to say whatever they want on their premises (or in this case on their television show). But it does mean that people cannot be prosecuted for their beliefs, the government cannot make laws declaring certain views illegal, etc. At least that is how it works in the US context, which someone asked about above.

Blu

I do think BB watchers should be regarded as a special case

Just so Elk. I don't think anyone is talking about Holyfield being prosecuted for expressing his views.