viewpoint.

Just put that message into practice... And killed 50 of us....

This shit was given entry into this country to preach death to Americans. Not acceptable.

that these Right Wing bigots use the same language as that cleric did day in and day out and they are considered respectable to the point where Presidential hopefuls are comfortable being in their presence.

People should have the same response to the cleric and tell these people that this kind of language is no longer acceptable in the public political discourse in the US. The fact that I'm being attacked for pointing this out because of the notion that the only appropriate response to this event is denounce Islam is laughable.

It's just as bad, and people who live in the States have far more exposure to fundamentalist Christians than Islamic terrorists. Getting killed by a group of Rednecks who stomp you to death because you're gay or trans is just as bad as getting killed in a mass shooting.

and most people in both places are sensible enough to realize it's hyperbole and that going out and killing people is wrong.

The religious screwball in Orlando was a Muslim. The next religious screwball who shoots up a gay club might be a Christian.

The one thing that allows them to kill so many people at once is easy access to military style guns.

us for because of our deviant tolerance - seems we consecrated a gay bishop or two. Did I mention that our Presiding Bishop is [gasp] African American? Quick, Mary, another bottle of Scotch!

Really folks if all Muslims aren't alike, why would all Christians be in lockstep when we've been fighting among ourselves for a millennium?

LGBT, and this hate speech is allowed to proliferate and even enrich the perpetrators. They need to be stopped.

Most of the Xian groups I've heard of that denounce homosexuality denounce homosexuality. Some call for violence (most call for other action), but many still say that they'll go to hell. Not "let's send them to hell." For them, Jesus is the judge and God will recompense or mete out punishment. "Let each person work out his own salvation with fear and trembling." Think of this as "late Paul"--the Paul that excommunicated those who were especially notorious, but otherwise let things be.

That's a very Reformationist view, and it percolated through the Enlightenment. The State has some laws it must have and must enforce, but others are iffy. They come, they go, but blue laws and such tend to be spotty. This thinking has filtered down in various countries at different rates. It's not the case that all people in all cultures in all (Western) countries have equally bought into the Enlightenment viewpoints. But it's there, and it's trickled down with increased education and well being. Still hasn't always gotten to the bottom tier in all societies. Not all education qualifies here--STEM is especially weak in this kind of understanding, while a lot of modern liberal arts education has simply bailed on this project.


There's another kind of view, which is that you're virtuous if you command what is good and punish what is bad. That makes every person an enforcer, and this can potentially, given a tad of Western individualism and greater capacity of individuals to wield force, empower each person to take the law into his own hand. Then you smack barkeeps who sell alcohol inappropriately, you vandalize shops open during religious services, or you mete out the punishment, be it a death sentence or something less. Think of this as Shaul, who consented to Stephen's death and who went around rounding up Xians. It's all about making society pure and good and moral. This is medieval, and it's where much of the world always has been and where much of liberal arts education is heading.

mostly stemming from religions pointing to the "sinfulness", but each looney person who commits violence against LGBTs feels supported by society in doing that. They themselves feel uncomfortable about same-sex relations, at whatever level, and they want to push it away. The violence comes not just from being mentally imbalanced but because they will be heroes, they think, because society "really" hates gays, behind all the political correctness.

"But the Christians..."
"But the black racists..."

It strikes me as similar.

A Muslim adherent of the Islamic State killed people in Florida.

I also get that there are bigots of all types.

thinking is mainstream on the Right in the US.

It's dangerous to have political dialogue that consistently dehumanizes people. If you think there's less of a danger of violence because U.S. Christian fundamentalists are somehow less capable or inclined than Muslim fundamentalists or that it's not outrageous that Presidential candidates were introduced by a guy who'd just called for the death of gays and lesbians, I don't don't know what to tell you.

I lived rural Southern community, and I saw religiously motivated violence perpetrated against LGBT people firsthand. The fact author the Right is getting mor and more comfortable comfortable with hate speech since the ascendancy of Trump is plain for everybody to see.

I have the sense that in this discussion many people on the left throw out the equivalent of "buts" and "look over there."

I think playing the game of comparing magnitudes leads to a diminution of the subject of discussion. I totally understand that others may disagree with my premises.

I want to fully acknowledge that an adherent of Islamic State performed the killings. I'd like that organization and its ideology obliterated.

some Liberals are too defensive about Islam. As a Secular Progressive, I actually have no problem whatsoever criticizing the outcome of a strict adherence to Sharia and the way of life in most majority Muslim countries.

reaction as that cleric. The Republicans should be forced to publicly denounce these people rather than pander to them.

Specifically, against those that do not support the right to liberty of homosexuals.

type of speech out f the public discourse altogether or at least to make it as toxic as overt racism and anti-semitism.

based on all the other stuff he has said. Shouldn't these people all get along like peas in a pod?

We need to turn out the prisons and fill them up with all these GD dangerous homophobes.

do they have laws against hate speech there?

Australia is interesting, but no, I don't know how they receive his bigotry over there.

Oh how they seek to legitimize.

The Iranian dude. If you are inferring that I am seeking to legitimize the Iranian dude, then you need to get a grip or at least go pick a fight with someone else, because I am not interested sparring with you this morning.

A visa cancelation has tougher restrictions than volunteering to leave. It's unknown if he's back in Britain or the us. Places where British visas are welcome. If you watch the video. on the LBN I posted of his leaving you'll see how sick he really is.

... the Orlando murderer could have attended his seminars since he was in the area, or seen the videos. Maybe the FBI will find tracks of the videos on his computer. The US should not allow him in our country!

If you are invited to speak at a venue, they are hosting you.

"Orlando plays host..." rather than "nearby Islamic Center hosts..."

It is confusing, and seems to imply some kind of civic government endorsement.

The protection of free speech allows the weak and powerless to stand up to the rich and powerful. Hate speech which almost always goes after a minority group should not be afforded the protection of free speech.

Unfortunately it took so much death and destruction for them to learn that lesson.

Or only your approved views should be allowed?

Free speech helps to expose bigots like this "scholar".

or any other ammendments or your constitution. Hate speech is not given the protection of freedom of speech over here, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with my views. I didn't draft the legislation, but I do agree with it.

It's simply too dangerous and presents a threat to life and liberty for too many people, as we are seeing.

If the only argument for allowing something is free speech, it's not worth listening to.

... and we'll compare notes.

I absolutely support barring him from speaking his views in the United States. He should be barred from entry to the US absolutely unless he recants his views.

also allows us to denounce this guy without fear of being prosecuted.
If he comes to speak here in the states again, he needs to be protested as loudly and offensively as possible. He needs venues to tell him to get bent. Refuse his business.
Free speech works both ways.

This shooter has been denounced over here with no problems at all. Hate speech should not be granted the protection of free speech.

people were denouncing the migrants. And were arrested by German authorities.

They weren't arrested for denouncing the attackers, but for spreading hate against all Muslims and migrants.

Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

"the migrants" weren't responsible. A tiny, tiny percentage of criminals were.

The US will never emulate Germany. And people like this piece of crap that call for the death of gays are going to get a HUGE spotlight on them now. They won't be able to spread their hate anymore. They are going to be drowned out.
And that will probably involve saying things that would get you arrested in Germany.

Taking any concept to absolutes is more than dangerous. And the 50 dead in Orlando are proof of that. There's pretty much a consensus on what defines hate. It works well over here, better in fact, our press didn't lie back and allow Bush to go to war.

Freedom of speech is pretty meaningless when the press are too scared to tell the truth.

important for the average citizen in order to hold the government accountable. The press over here is not scared. Just corrupt.

I sure wouldn't want our Republican controlled Congress deciding what is hate speech.

It's advocating attacks on minorities.

Lots of democratic countries have anti hate speech legislation. It's pretty standard definition, you could use one of those if you don't trust your own government.

that is not illegal nor should it be.

What good does legitimising hate speech do? It doesn't hold the powerful/governments to account in fact it helps them by focusing the public on a scape goat.

By fetishizing free speech you've lost the whole point, your press is in the hands of the rich and powerful and instead of pointing out corruption your too busy defending the rights of those picking on minorities.

Btw, Orwell was first and foremost a Socialist. If you read Animal Farm you'll notice the main criticism of the pigs/Soviets isn't that there are worse than the capitalists but the same. That seems to shoot over most American's heads.

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 11:34 AM - Edit history (1)

the ridicule they deserve.

Fetishizing free speech? What the hell is that? A way to put down a basic right? Like fetishizing abortion, fetishizing equal rights, fetishizing the environment, fetishizing equal pay, fetishizing women's rights, fetishizing minority rights, etc. What an infantile way to put something down.

You're right. Our press is in the hands of the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, so is our government. You want the rich and powerful who control our government to decide what people can and cannot say. I am aghast at that. It would only cement their grip on power.

Many people with totalitarian leanings are more than happy to see those they disagree with silenced. But if and when the shoe is on the other foot and it is the people they agree with who are silenced, they are not so happy.

I don't want this country to become one where the rich and powerful, who control our politicians to a great degree, get to decide what people say and think. You might think they would be benevolent rulers, but I think they have shown they will put their own interests first.

It was free speech that allowed the abolitionists to speak out against the evil of slavery. It was free speech that allowed MLK to march and forced racist laws to be overturned. It is free speech that is changing views towards the LBGT community. It is free speech that allows us to express outrage against the Orlando massacre. We are free to make up our own minds about what or who is to blame, whether it be guns, Christians, radical Islam, homophobia, or whatever. We all have a right to our opinion and a right to express that opinion. We don't need the government to force us to accept whatever it is in their best interests to blame.

illegally invaded Iraq. For all your feather spitting you've failed to convince anyone of the so called superiority of your system. Our press with our anti hate speech legislation is far freer and far more honest than yours.

You talk about holding the government to your account, but for all your supposed free speech that never happened. Instead you support those who spread hate in a knee jerk response to anything that appears to threaten your precious constitution.

Instead of talking about MLK who didn't use hate speech why don't you talk of the "good" that the hate merchants you support have done? You can't so you give a load of platitudes about something that wouldn't be affected by anti hate speech legislation because you can't deal with the issue of hate speech.

You sound like the Pope railing against the concept that the Earth goes round the sun and not vice versa. It's the 21st Century, not the 18th.

the establishment and their Oligarch masters and nominated Trump on the republican side. Unfortunately, it was Trump they chose to overthrow their establishment. We very nearly overthrew the establishment and their Oligarch masters on our side as well with Bernie. That was despite the opposition of the corrupt media and the many millions of dollars spent against us. Free speech by many millions of people allowed this near upset on our side and actual victory on the republican side over the Oligarchs despite all their money, power, and press.

Hate speech is often in the eye of the beholder. When slavery was legal here, Southerners looked at the abolitionists opposition to slavery as hate speech against their way of life and would have outlawed it if they could. But free speech rights protected the abolitionists. Free speech allowed the unions and honest reporters to publicize the horrible working conditions of factory workers at the turn of the century. Today, many Christians and Muslims regard LGBT gains to be attacks on their religious freedom, but they cannot silence the LGBT community and their supporters because of freedom of speech. Both sides are allowed to express their views in the court of public opinion and the LGBT side is winning because more and more people are realizing they are right.

Free speech oftentimes protects minorities and allows them to express their views. They have the right to peacefully march and protest to expose injustices and change views.

If you think that government controlled speech will always ban just the speech you oppose and will always support the speech you approve of I think you are sadly mistaken. At least not in this country. Too much of our government is controlled by the rich and powerful and their interests will always come first. They pretend to support minority causes to sow dissension and division in the country and focus our attention on our differences. Meanwhile, as our attention is focused on those things, they are robbing us blind.

That's not really a good thing. Trump is part of the bloody establishment as well. Neither is your stance on abortion, (seeing as you brought it up,) where the religious right thinks it can tell women what to do with their bodies, and it's very difficult if not impossible to obtain one is some states.

Your press places as much value on lies as it does the truth, and isn't to be trusted.

Your refusal to redefine free speech for the 21st Century so that hate speech is not offered the protection has done nothing for your dishonest press or the safety of minorities, but it has given us the possibility of a fascist in charge of, still, the most powerful country on the planet.

I can see why you're such a fan.

say but we will die defending their right to say it. Many have. Free speech is free speech. You can say what you want. I can say what I want. As long as it is not inciting violence or libeling some one. If I think you are saying something hateful, I am free to criticize you for it.

I had nothing to do with Trump's nomination. I voted for Bernie.

It is not the religious right but the illustrious government that you fetishize about that tells women what they can and cannot do with their bodies most of the time. It's the government that tells women what drugs they can put in their body, that they cannot use their bodies for sex to make money, unless it is filmed of course, what age they can use their bodies for sex, what age they can put alcohol in their body, how much they need to clothe their bodies in public, and on and on. They even regulate what food a woman can buy for her body or how much time her body can spend in a tanning booth.

I completely agree that the press lies and cannot be trusted. All the more reason for the rest of us to have free speech rights to be able to expose the truth.

I would define a facsist as someone who would take away the rights of those that disagree with him. Therefore,I think you are more of a facist than Trump. Trump is just an idiot. I haven't heard that he is proposing to take away anybody's free speech rights like you would.

You've not been able to come up with one good reason why hate speech should be protected, just a load of paranoid nonsense about how genuine free speech will come under attack.

America isn't exactly a shining example of free speech with McCarthyism and a supine press that preaches a right wing agenda and for whom lies are as important as the truth.

Look at countries with hate speech legislation and you'll see all your paranoid nonsense is just that, and you'll find a better more honest press and a less violent culture. No trigger happy racist cops over here.

I'm done going around in circles with you anyway.

For example, some people think that voicing opposition to freedom of religion to accommodate LBGTs is hate speech. Others believe that voicing opposition to accommodating LGBTs on religious freedom grounds is hate speech. In your world, whoever happens to be in power gets to decide which is hate speech and can silence ban views. So if the RW is in power, the LGBT community and their supporters would be silenced.

Freedom of speech, meanwhile, allows all points of view to be heard, as long as it does not promote violence or is slanderous. Your point of view cannot be banned just because your party is out of power.

Opposition to freedom of religion is not classed as hate speech, neither is opposition to accommodating LGBT. I live in the real world and so far you've not given me one example of how free speech in Britain has been damaged by outlawing hate speech.

We've got better education, better healthcare, a less racist, less trigger happy police force and a lower murder rate.

news source of choice to get the truth?

Try to stick to the subject instead of going off on some paranoid tangent. This is not about government control of speech, but not allowing hate speech. I will ask you again, what specific damage has been done by the UK outlawing hate speech? Give me one concrete example, not a load of vague paranoid nonsense.

Btw, the BBC is far from government controlled, and it's a far more reliable source of news than your lickspittle media that broadcast round the clock government propaganda in the run up to the illegal war in Iraq.

speech. It's that simple. I don't follow British news closely so am not aware of the effects of the UK outlawing hate speech but I wonder if it was a contributing factor to the lack of response to the 1400 children who were victimized by the Muslim rape gangs over there. That would not be tolerated over here and thank God we have the freedom of speech to talk about it without fear of arrest.

I have no idea if the BBC is reliable or just politically correct and I won't take your word for it because it seems you don't know the difference.

It's already been established and you can't find anything wrong with it specifically so you talk in paranoid generalities. We have a truly independent judiciary, and anyway it's established law it's not something that a future government is going to be able to tinker with without monumental opposition.

You're not living in the real world but a hypothetical one. And you're going to stay there because of your reactionary devotion to an 200 odd year old document. Why is an 18th Century aristocrat's definition of free speech so important that it can't be updated for the 21st Century?

You are talking absolute nonsense the only reason you know about the victims of crime is because the perpetrators were tried and jailed. That's not tolerating something. (Again, you talk in generalities, deliberately inflammatory ones as well instead of addressing a specific group.)

Soviets for 70 years Putin is trying to reinstate it to a great degree. It still works good today in communist China, Cuba, and many other countries to keep the politicians in control of the peoples. If it works well for England and a few other countries in Europe, good for you. I prefer freedom for the USA.

BTW, Go Iceland.

If you're freer why do you lock up considerably more of your population, and have people going bankrupt to pay medical bills?

Btw,I doubt you could point out Iceland on a map. And I'd rather face Iceland than Portugal. Ronaldo can be devastating on his day.

Talk about changing the subject. We could go tit for tat about which is the best country all day, but let's just stick to a freedom of speech discussion.

I am of Icelandic heritage so am cheering my cousins on. They've played great so far.

It's not about government control. You can't address the topic so you talk a load of vague paranoid bollocks.

I don't give a monkeys about your lineage, I thought you were proud to be an American, clearly not if you need to bang on about being Icelandic.

I've wasted too much time on you as it is.

and pillage down there all the time.

I've had it with you as well.

Cheerio and all that.

The only speech that should be criminalized is speech that calls for or advocates violence. It's one thing to say "I approve of X" and entirely another to say "You should go out and do X."

One of the beautiful things about free speech is that it allows the marketplace of ideas to flourish, and that offers us the best avenue to getting rid of such deplorable worldviews. It allows those who hold these repugnant views to out themselves and put their ignorance on display, so the rest of us can then point out said ignorance for all to see. Ridiculing the ignorance and narrow thinking behind racism and bigotry will do far more to diminish it than criminalizing it would.

And as you rightly point out, once the power to criminalize speech is established, it opens the door for its abuse. A Republican-controlled Congress could, under these laws, muzzle the opposition. Or just as bad, a Democratic-controlled Congress could do the same. Giving the powers-that-be the further power to silence anything they, or the majority, don't like is a disastrous idea.

Lastly, to paraphrase Tyrion Lannister... when you tear out a man's tongue, you're not proving him wrong, you're only telling the world you fear what he has to say.

crime when you know they are innocent.

Love the Lannister paraphrase. So true.

I'm sure there's plenty of right wing non Muslims who would go along with those sentiments.

do is look at the terrorism angle, from every which way. Homophobia analysis? Not so much.

This is (gay) journalist Owen Jones storming out of a Sky News newspaper preview.

how I and many of my LGBT brothers and sisters feel.

I'm straight but one of my kids is LGBT.

a fantastic OP. Just a nudge in that direction...

On a Channel 4 News discussion following the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

If you want to start a thread on that vid you've got my blessing. I've argued enough on this thread as it is.

Fox had best get on that bandwagon.

The degree to which people were missing the point was incredible.

Do not attempt to rationalize away the fact that this was targeted at gay people. I don't recall anyone saying that Dylan Roof, when he shot up a church, wasn't a racist.

No, I just see people trying to explain away that homophobia couldn't possibly be the problem here.

I'm just sick inside over this. I don't know a single gay person that hasn't been harassed or abused because some sanctimonious asshat decided that they were sent by God to eradicate us.

Put your religion in the garbage can if it is a religion which advocates that you are the final arbiter of who lives and who dies.

would rather see this as an adjunct to Jihadi terrorism as opposed to viewing it as homophobic terrorism in its own right. The reason they do this is so they don't have to confront homophobic abuse and killing by those who aren't Jihadis.

and take out his pent up anger on the very night club that he frequented. This was payback .. and then construed by ''the powers that be'' as an action of Islamic Radical terrorism. How convenient.

If this is seen as Jihadi it means homophobia doesn't have to be addressed by white Christians.

Hate speech is meaningless...

It's all hate speech to someone and objective standards are impossible to implement and in the end it comes down to the whims of whoever is doing the deciding.

Free speech is for the ugly bits your don't like as well... Just that easy...

We have anti hate speech in the UK. Our press is freer, we value truth, and we never had McCarthyism. Your mate has been incapable of demonstrating why allowing hate speech is a good thing. I don't expect you to do any better.

Please, let's put these psychos on a no entry list. Some common sense is in order. He now says that's not really what he "means" and condemns the killer, but my opinion is, this nut is complicit.

other videos of him spewing the same shit.

Everytime I see a Clear Channel billboard here in Stockholm I think of shitty USA right-wing radio and gag.

well, my feelings are hurt when innocent people are threatened and I'm devastated when they are killed.

grey areas. So far not for the Muhammed cartoons although there are calls for it.

That was not his mosque, if he even had one.

... the violence it always seems to be about sex, and the desire to contain and control it for reasons that maintain hierarchy. Society isn't yet at the level of uttering its "safe word" when the psychosexual restraints we impose on each other cause certain individuals to explode with rage rather than ecstatic release. Spraying a crowd of people with your "death-sperm" is evidence of a psychological anguish society barely recognizes because it cannot reconcile human sexual proclivity with natural diversity within its hierarchical systems of individual control.

The killer's behavior cannot be understood in terms of social norms, or by blaming some ideology, or by simply proclaiming him to be sick.

Like cancer it must be eradicated. Cultural relativism for extremist political and cultural beliefs is cultural suicide.

The NRA did this.

Let's not blame the shooter or the group that he actually professed belonging to...

Go ahead and pick a group that you have an axe to grind with. That sure was convenient.

and promise that such homophobia will not be preached there again.

I would wager a dollar (my standard bet) they will not.

I am a firm believer in the 1st and 5th amendments. But as a society we need to consider if there is a constitutional way to ban this person from owning guns.

If a person isn't on a ban list and has no criminal background severe enough to warrant a ban, there isn't a constitutional way to keep all types of guns out of their hands.

Only way is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, which will never happen.