Three men found guilty for gay hate leaflets

[thecat06]

BBC News - Three Derby men guilty over gay hate leaflets

[MK5golf]

As the days pass, society will advance and these ignorant bastards will be long forgotten. Hold strong in the meanwhile!

[Robert]

Shouldnt have been arrested.

[Zontar]

I don't support arresting anyone over an idea, no matter how repugnant.

However, US values differ considerably from UK values. Here, the idea of restricting anything short of child porn is highly frowned upon.

[Alexandria]

Far as I'm concerned, freedom of speech ends where one demands the death of a people who aren't committing crimes and are harming no one. Glad to see these 'people' arrested; to me they are no different from hitlers nazis, the wesdtboro baptist church crowd, the phelps clan and so on. All preach the same insanity - that people should be ostracized, victimized, brutalized and slaughtered solely for what they believe. Be it a religion, or simply wishing to be happy in another's company, all these funny farm candidates all preach the same, pray for the same, and work for the same bloodthirsty mentality. I hope the judge shows backbone in this case and nails them HARD.

Oh, and you american readers would do well to learn the value in putting some limit to free speech. If evil, dangerous ideas aren't countered, they tend to sprout to the violence we see in africa and the mideast.

[Ridiculous]

I agree with Alexandria, as usual.

Free speech is all well and good but there do need to be limits. Humans in sound-mind have a moral framework and any reasonable person knows when that framework is being pushed; in this case it was certainly pushed beyond the limits of acceptable.

You can't just let everyone do their own thing if it involves endangering other people.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

Far as I'm concerned, freedom of speech ends where one demands the death of a people who aren't committing crimes and are harming no one. Glad to see these 'people' arrested; to me they are no different from hitlers nazis, the wesdtboro baptist church crowd, the phelps clan and so on. All preach the same insanity - that people should be ostracized, victimized, brutalized and slaughtered solely for what they believe. Be it a religion, or simply wishing to be happy in another's company, all these funny farm candidates all preach the same, pray for the same, and work for the same bloodthirsty mentality. I hope the judge shows backbone in this case and nails them HARD.

Oh, and you american readers would do well to learn the value in putting some limit to free speech. If evil, dangerous ideas aren't countered, they tend to sprout to the violence we see in africa and the mideast.

Originally Posted by Ridiculous

I agree with Alexandria, as usual.

Free speech is all well and good but there do need to be limits. Humans in sound-mind have a moral framework and any reasonable person knows when that framework is being pushed; in this case it was certainly pushed beyond the limits of acceptable.

You can't just let everyone do their own thing if it involves endangering other people.

People like this need to be allowed to speak. If they arent, they can never truly be defeated. Silencing someone does not defeat their ideas, it merely allows them to carry on, untested, in a public arena. Its a foolish and unecessary overreaction to lock people like this away.

Did you see what happened when Nick Griffin went on Question Time? He was defeated in a public arena. His ideas were exposed to the cruel daylight of public debate and, as a result, the British National Party is basically finished in Britain. What do you think the outcome would've been if they locked him away instead? The BNP would've grown in popularity -Do you deny it?

[Ridiculous]

Originally Posted by Robert

People like this need to be allowed to speak. If they arent, they can never truly be defeated. Silencing someone does not defeat their ideas, it merely allows them to carry on, untested, in a public arena. Its a foolish and unecessary overreaction to lock people like this away.

Did you see what happened when Nick Griffin went on Question Time? He was defeated in a public arena. His ideas were exposed to the cruel daylight of public debate and, as a result, the British National Party is basically finished in Britain. What do you think the outcome would've been if they locked him away instead? The BNP would've grown in popularity -Do you deny it?

I don't know who Nick Griffin is sorry (I live in New Zealand, not the UK ).

These people were calling for direct harm to others and terrorising them in their own homes. The article points out a couple of people who are now fearful of being out in public. I think it's much more important that the immediate problem of those three individuals is solved before giving their obviously wrong viewpoints a 'fair trial' (and how long are we going to put up with arguing with these people? I mean we don't try and persuade people who advocate for child sacrifice in healthcare any more, we just say no because they are dangerous to society).

[Fintan]

I'm all for free speech, but not when it calls for the death of a minority group. There needs to be limits.

[Bibliophile]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

Oh, and you american readers would do well to learn the value in putting some limit to free speech. If evil, dangerous ideas aren't countered, they tend to sprout to the violence we see in africa and the mideast.

Yes and who gets to decide that? The government? Hmmm whats it called when the government decides what is and isnt ok for the people to say or publish......? Its EXACTLY the offensive material that people need to defend. Because by nature its not the material that people are ok with that gets challenged. If every thing that was deemed offensive or amoral was banned think of the books that we would not have. I am not saying these guys are right or that they add anything to the world. But they are not going to start a riot just because of a pamphlet. People actually have to agree with the message in the first place to act on it. Just because you dont like it or it doesnt effect you doesnt make it ok to ban. What is that poem or saying from WW2?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

When its YOUR turn to be silenced you wont have any backing. But hey if you want to pave the slope to tyranny in your countries with ice thats fine by me.

[alan t]

Good.

[starfish]

It's been a long week and I'm worn out, so I don't really have the energy to type out a meaningful post. So I'll just say I disagree. If I have a right to voice my opinions, then they should have the same right. Even if I disagree with them. However the UK is a sovereign nation, so all I can and will do is disagree.

--Edit to add. My government professor in college had been a criminal, civil rights, and labor lawyer during his career. He said something that really stuck with me. "The hardest thing you will ever do is to defend the right of the unpopular."

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by Bibliophile

Yes and who gets to decide that? The government? Hmmm whats it called when the government decides what is and isnt ok for the people to say or publish......? Its EXACTLY the offensive material that people need to defend. Because by nature its not the material that people are ok with that gets challenged. If every thing that was deemed offensive or amoral was banned think of the books that we would not have. I am not saying these guys are right or that they add anything to the world. But they are not going to start a riot just because of a pamphlet. People actually have to agree with the message in the first place to act on it. Just because you dont like it or it doesnt effect you doesnt make it ok to ban. What is that poem or saying from WW2?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

When its YOUR turn to be silenced you wont have any backing. But hey if you want to pave the slope to tyranny in your countries with ice thats fine by me.

You misapply the quote. The poem refers to those that seek to destroy others, and by NOT standing firm against such, one invites ones own destruction.

No one has the right to say "I think x group should be killed".

No one. Despite what the bibles may claim.

Freedom of speech, as with many things created at the foundation of the US, was *NEVER* intended to allow hate or call for obliteration of a person or group or race. Funny, how nations like Canada, Britain, New Zealand, etc have laws akin to criminalizing hate speech - and interestingly enough, these nations are much more peaceful and perhaps more civilized than the US has become.

[Bibliophile]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

You misapply the quote. The poem refers to those that seek to destroy others, and by NOT standing firm against such, one invites ones own destruction.

No one has the right to say "I think x group should be killed".

No one. Despite what the bibles may claim.

Freedom of speech, as with many things created at the foundation of the US, was *NEVER* intended to allow hate or call for obliteration of a person or group or race. Funny, how nations like Canada, Britain, New Zealand, etc have laws akin to criminalizing hate speech - and interestingly enough, these nations are much more peaceful and perhaps more civilized than the US has become.

Yes the poor sods at the G8 protest and the London riots REALLY saw how progressive and freedom loving your countries are. Yes the fact that your countries make you serfs by not allowing firearms makes you better. Please dont toss stones here.
Simply calling for something should not be illegal. You are basically saying its a crime to voice a thought. Whats next art work you dont like? Books with a message you dont like. Oh wait its only if its people with a message you dislike that its ok. You really just dont get it do you? The slope that these things put you on is dangerous and its hypocritical of you to try to silence one groups message because YOU dont like it. How do you know what the freedom of speech was intended for? BTW is NOT founded it a natural right of man. In other words any free man or women with the guts to enforce it has that right. I see plenty of people here cry for these people to be locked up or other hateful messages but thats ok right? What was done by Dan Savage wasnt too highly cried about here but its just as vile. More so really as it puts real harm in someone innocent kids life. Those people that said they are scared well yesh if a pamphlet scares you ya might need some help. Then again if I were those guys I would be afraid too living in a country where self defense is almost illegal and if there is a size disparity well you are done because owning a firearm is almost impossible. You can cry for laws to protect you all your want but my Remington is what makes me a protected person not some law.
You need to get that a scrap of paper isnt going to cause someone to get hurt. There is a far cry between SAYING something should be done and DOING it. A bit of paper or spoken words isnt going to push normal people to commit a crime. Its only people that would have done it any how that do it. I just dont get how you can silence one message because you dont like it but get mad when other try to silence messages you dont like. That quote is meant to show that its not what effects YOU or what you agree with that you need to defend its what you and others dont understand or find vile that most needs defending. That which is accepted by virtue of being accepted doesnt need to be defended. Those men didnt do anything wrong and they didnt cause any harm to anyone. If you really think that mean words should have people arrested then anyone who gets angry and rants would be locked up. You dont have a right to always be accepted or loved. The world isnt fair and its a harsh place grow some thick skin and learn to value your own opinion and not seek protection from every little hurt.

[Ridiculous]

Some people hope for a community where we can work together and treat each other civilly, not one where we are out to help ourselves and our only protection is violence.

Calling for other people to be killed isn't part of that community.

And, in fact, we already mostly have this sort of community in the countries the Alexandria listed. We criminalise these sorts of people to keep it that way.

[Bibliophile]

Originally Posted by Ridiculous

Some people hope for a community where we can work together and treat each other civilly, not one where we are out to help ourselves and our only protection is violence.

Calling for other people to be killed isn't part of that community.

And, in fact, we already mostly have this sort of community in the countries the Alexandria listed. We criminalise these sorts of people to keep it that way.

Do you really think a law can make people civil? Do you really think a law can protect you? A law can only force these views underground where they might stew into action rather then just impotent pamphlet waving. A law is only followed by decent men who dont need them. Criminals by nature break these laws. All they do is set the punishment for the action. They dont deter or stop crap. Education and a more positive message is the way to fight this NOT make them martyrs by locking them up.

[Ridiculous]

Doing so through convincing them is obviously preferable. But in cases like these, where they are doing significant damage to the people around them, they need to be removed.

[Bibliophile]

Originally Posted by Ridiculous

Doing so through convincing them is obviously preferable. But in cases like these, where they are doing significant damage to the people around them, they need to be removed.

Damage really? You really call that damage? Should Dan Savage be in jail then for what he did to Rick Santorum and his kids? Those people talking about a bit of paper making them scared are just sad in my opinion. I could see if they were being directly targeted but the fact that the papers were handed out all over belays any sign of intent to harm. If just mean words can hurt you, you need some self esteem and a helmet.

[Ridiculous]

Stop blaming the victim. You can see the damage that words do just by reading any of the threads in the Support and Advice section.

[Bibliophile]

Originally Posted by Ridiculous

Stop blaming the victim. You can see the damage that words do just by reading any of the threads in the Support and Advice section.

Are you unable to tell the difference between harassment and something that is just a vile message Those people in the article are NOT victims of anything in my option. If someone is targeting you for being gay and harassing you on a regular basis sure that isnt right and should be illegal. But simply passing out a leaflet is TOTALLY different. If you cant tell how I am not going to even try to explain it. Those people in the Support and Advice section are most often talking about a hostile environment at home or school. That is no where NEAR the same as someone simply handing out a few flyers with a message you dont like. Again I am going to ask you a couple of questions maybe more and would like you to really think about them?

Should Dan Savage be in jail? A case can be made he did real harm and to a child or children at that.
Should people that pass out flyers talking about those outside their religion going to hell go to jail? An argument could be made for harm here.
Should everyone here calling these people vile, ignorant, etc. go to jail? After all these words could hurt couldnt they?
Whats the limit? Who gets to decide?