England Jails Homophobes

[Platypus540]

Why can't the US do this to the WBC?

 

[Yopaz]

I was expecting just "someone said they didn't approve of a gay person and they were hauled off by cops" and was all prepared with a "this is over-reacting" speech but this?

Yeah, I'm fully okay with these hateful pricks being in jail. You can't just call for a group of people to be violently murdered and expect to not catch shit for saying that openly and in public.

I'm actually not sure how okay with it I am. Obviously these guys are massive assholes, but they were campaigning for gay people to be legally executed, not for them to be murdered in the streets--the latter of which is inciting violence, the former more... a dick move, lol.

I don't care that they are in jail per se, but I dunno if it oversteps the boundaries a little.

Well, campaigning for killing a group of people legally isn't much better than campaigning to murder people. This is a hate crime no matter how you look at it.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Why can't the US do this to the WBC?

Because we don't jail people for unpopular opinions like the "free" nations of Europe do.

 

[MC K-Mac]

There are certain things which are objectively wrong. Inciting hatred and violence against people who have done nothing wrong is one of those things.

I'm pretty sure to these guys that being gay is 'objectively wrong.'

Why is your opinion and system of values any more valid than theirs?

Judging by your username, I'm pretty sure taking anything you say seriously is a waste of time, but what the heck, I'll take a stab at your question:

One "opinion and system of values" advocates the killing millions of innocent people, and one doesn't. Guess which one is more valid?

(Hint: don't ask your "bro" for advice on this one.)

 

[McMullen]

I think that the greatest irony here is that England used to jail people for being homosexual.

Turing ring a bell?

EDIT: Actually, that might not be fair. I'm sure we've jailed people for that too.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

There are certain things which are objectively wrong. Inciting hatred and violence against people who have done nothing wrong is one of those things.

I'm pretty sure to these guys that being gay is 'objectively wrong.'

Why is your opinion and system of values any more valid than theirs?

Judging by your username, I'm pretty sure taking anything you say seriously is a waste of time, but what the heck, I'll take a stab at your question:

One "opinion and system of values" advocates the killing millions of innocent people, and one doesn't. Guess which one is more valid?

(Hint: don't ask your "bro" for advice on this one.)

Except that they're not innocent, as their sexual orientation is viewed as a sin/crime/whatever. Incase you're curious, the correct answer was: both of them are equally valid. One just happens to be more in favor at the moment than the other in this particular country.

Hint: The "my moral high ground is higher" stance is rather pathetic, you shouldn't use it.

As long as we're judging people based on their user names, have you 'busted a cap' in any undeserving 'pigs' lately, dawg?

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Why can't the US do this to the WBC?

Because we don't jail people for unpopular opinions like the "free" nations of Europe do.

Ahhh, there we go. More of the 'herp derp' comments.

Nice to see things haven't changed that much. Don't think I was quite ready for an entirely sensible Escapist.

Oh come on, 'my nation is freeR than yours' competitions are the highlight of escapist off topic forum discussions.

It beats out the usual leftist circlejerk any day of the week.

 

[Spitfire]

Could've done without the sensationalist title. These gentlemen weren't arrested because of their views on homosexuality; they were arrested because they're a public danger, and it was only a matter of time until they would've hurt someone.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

As Melon Hunter said, in Britain, we have different ideas about freedom of speech than you do in America. Does that make us wrong? It's not like America has total freedom of speech either, slander, libel and death threats are still illegal.
Thanks to British hate speech laws, we have never had a powerful far-right fascist political party and we have far fewer people like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church here, and that makes me happy.

What exactly are the BNP, Orange Order, Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades, and the English Defence League?

 

[MrTub]

I would be behind them being in prison if they were putting around leaflets calling for the `legal` death of any race/religion.

You are trying to make an argument against free speech there. There is nothing wrong with wanting a law to be made, even if it asks for the death penalty. Just because YOU dislike the death penalty (as do I), doesn't mean it's not okay for others to want it.

You are walking down the path of making your own moral law. That's bad. That's what countries that KILL gay people have.

Nooooo. I am simply saying that hate speech (which this was) is not protected and you can be prosecuted for it.
That is what the law is.
It's not my moral law, its the law law.

Inciting hatred against a group (such as gays) is against the law. If a bunch of guys were doing this (and if you read it clearly they certainly were), they shouldn't act suprised when they go to jail.

Inciting hatred against a sexual orientation is only illegal in the UK and only has been for about a month. Inciting VIOLENCE is illegal in more places.

It's illegal in Sweden as well. A pastor was jailed for calling homosexuals a plague and such while preaching.

 

[DarkRyter]

Aw man.

Leaflets.

Leaflets are truly the face of EVIL.

 

[dragonswarrior]

This law is very new and only exists in the UK. I don't see it lasting long.

I definitely hope it lasts forever. You make some statements about a "moral" law as opposed to a law law... Or something to that effect.

What this really gets into though, is psychology, and morality as defined by empirical evidence.

See, if you make a campaign to kill a certain group of people that are NOT criminals and NOT hurting others with their actions (in this case gay people) then you are certainly causing psychological harm to that entire group. Or if not the entire group, a good portion of it, and plenty of their friends and allies and etc.

What this then gets into, is should one have the ability to harm a group of people that is not harming anyone else.

Almost everywhere, people will agree that the answer is "no". Most importantly to you, the law in the UK says that the answer is no. Harming innocents is NOT okay.

And a campaign of hate and intolerance against a group of innocents HURTS them. Every time. So yes, this is similar to walking up and punching gay people in the face.

 

[Melon Hunter]

As Melon Hunter said, in Britain, we have different ideas about freedom of speech than you do in America. Does that make us wrong? It's not like America has total freedom of speech either, slander, libel and death threats are still illegal.
Thanks to British hate speech laws, we have never had a powerful far-right fascist political party and we have far fewer people like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church here, and that makes me happy.

What exactly are the BNP, Orange Order, Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades, and the English Defence League?

I believe he means they never came to anything. Even in the 1930s, when Far Right groups were gaining serious ground in parts of Europe, and when racial politics were still in vogue, Oswald Mosely's British Union of Fascists never took off and were regarded with faint derision at best by the British people. It simply never occurred to the British public to support such a group; the socio-economic situations that propelled the Italian Fascists and the Nazis into power never came about in Britain.

Of course, bigoted groups such as the ones you've mentioned will always exist, but they are usually forced to neuter their arguments in public owing to the hate speech laws, which just weakens their position further as they try to place a thin veneer of 'respectability' over their parties.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

As Melon Hunter said, in Britain, we have different ideas about freedom of speech than you do in America. Does that make us wrong? It's not like America has total freedom of speech either, slander, libel and death threats are still illegal.
Thanks to British hate speech laws, we have never had a powerful far-right fascist political party and we have far fewer people like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church here, and that makes me happy.

What exactly are the BNP, Orange Order, Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades, and the English Defence League?

All vile hate filled idiots who have to censor what they say in public and wouldn't have a chance at national victory if they systematically kneecapped all the opposition.

and their also far-right groups.

 

[GraveeKing]

Geez! It's taken us long enough to actually realize there IS a limit to freedom of speech.
And that there -is- a difference between saying something and invoking hatred.

I'd have supported these nitwits going to jail no matter what who they were trying to cause hatred on. Even better to see that it's in England. I can't stand 'freedom of speech' turning into freedom of fucking with every single belief and minority possible.
I ain't going to mention any certain groups that get away with it, but I'm sure most of you can think of plenty of examples with ease.
Down with haters!

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

It being common doesn't make it any more tolerable. Especially considering the majority of the forum posters are Americans, and the majority of those do actually seem to think they're the freest most socially advanced country on the planet.

And before you drop your jaw like a lifeless weight, point you accusatory appendage in my direction and scream 'HYPOCRITE' at the top of your lungs.

I'm not saying my country is the most free either. The UK has it's share of problems. Unquestionably so. I'm just so sick of seeing people blindly touting their milkshakes as the bestest flavours of all the yards when they've never so much as a glanced at what the other yards have to offer.

Let alone the the ones they're serving with icecream down the road.

Oh god so many quotes, how am I supposed to reply to everyone? ;_;

Anyways... I don't actually think America is the best nation, just the one with the most individual freedom in conjunction with a functioning society (last bit added to pre-empt morons who will try to say SOMALIA LOL).

I don't actually view most western european nations as inferior soon-to-be cesspools (except for the UK, France and Sweden), but I certainly do love mocking their idiotic self-destroying policies.

Feel free to do the same to my current nation, spread the love!

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Geez! It's taken us long enough to actually realize there IS a limit to freedom of speech.
And that there -is- a difference between saying something and invoking hatred.

I'd have supported these nitwits going to jail no matter what who they were trying to cause hatred on. Even better to see that it's in England. I can't stand 'freedom of speech' turning into freedom of fucking with every single belief and minority possible.
I ain't going to mention any certain groups that get away with it, but I'm sure most of you can think of plenty of examples with ease.
Down with haters!

You're so right! Naturally you'd support putting the man who put a Bible into a jar of piss and called it 'art' in jail, yes?

Wait, what's that? You don't consider him a "hater"?

And here we come to the crux of the problem that most of you people will never understand, because you're so high on your "I am right and just and so are my views on everything" pedestal that falling off would fracture your spine. "Hate speech" laws are bad because they are thought crime laws, and the government in power gets to determine what is or isn't a thought crime. You enjoy these laws when they put people away who have views you think are 'nasty' but when the tables are turned and suddenly the government thinks your views are the nasty ones, how are you going to feel about that?

 

[orangeban]

It being common doesn't make it any more tolerable. Especially considering the majority of the forum posters are Americans, and the majority of those do actually seem to think they're the freest most socially advanced country on the planet.

And before you drop your jaw like a lifeless weight, point you accusatory appendage in my direction and scream 'HYPOCRITE' at the top of your lungs.

I'm not saying my country is the most free either. The UK has it's share of problems. Unquestionably so. I'm just so sick of seeing people blindly touting their milkshakes as the bestest flavours of all the yards when they've never so much as a glanced at what the other yards have to offer.

Let alone the the ones they're serving with icecream down the road.

Oh god so many quotes, how am I supposed to reply to everyone? ;_;

Anyways... I don't actually think America is the best nation, just the one with the most individual freedom in conjunction with a functioning society (last bit added to pre-empt morons who will try to say SOMALIA LOL).

I don't actually view most western european nations as inferior soon-to-be cesspools (except for the UK, France and Sweden), but I certainly do love mocking their idiotic self-destroying policies.

Feel free to do the same to my current nation, spread the love!

Hey now, you don't get to attack the French, that's Britain's domain.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Well I'd certainly rather live in France, Sweden and even the UK than America.

I'm sorry, but you guys are basically a theocracy that doesn't actually understand the concept of freedom of speech.

You'd have to be insane to believe this tripe right here.

Tell that to Gay people, people who've been raped and don't want the child and recreational drug users... sorry. Users of recreational drugs that the government can't tax. That's more accurate.

Also herp derp 'patriot act'. Government arrest you while your sleeping.

We own the internet herp derp. Take down servers in Hong Kong etc etc.

You can't be serious. You clearly have no idea what a theocracy is, and if you think 'hate speech' is even a remotely valid concept then you don't understand freedom of speech either.

As far as a freedom contest goes, I'd much rather be able to speak my mind without getting arrested then be able to smoke meth or pot legally. I'm sorry your priorities are so skewed.

 

[Melon Hunter]

Two mistakes. Firstly, as I pointed out in my original post, you are looking at this through the prism of the US Constitution, and the First Amendment. So there's half your answer; unlike America, Britain recognises the damage unlimited free speech can cause and has laws in place to deal with that. This is nothing short of culture shock.

Actually, about every western state recognises that to ensure peaceful coexistance of communities comes only with some limitation on free speech (also because free speech can interfere with basic human rights of others). The only limitation they don't have is "hate speech".

Really? I've always been under the impression that America places more importance on the rights and liberty of the individual due to the First Amendment, hence groups like the WBC are able to bet away with saying things far more inflammatory than if they were based in Britain. Judging from the horrified responses of some American members of these fora to 'hate speech' convictions, there's certainly less of a check on free speech abuses in America.