New Law Could Make Gay Jokes Illegal

reply to post by Skyfloating


I think we have the Victorian era and the rise of the middle classes to thank for much of the censoreship which we see today.

The dreaded "C" word was once very commonly used, with none of the nasty connotations it has today. There were even streets in London (and other cities) which used the word.

We have already had huge censorship of words from the victorians, which still exists today in many forms and arena's.

I'm of the opinion that the rise of the victorian middle classes and its attendant consequences has done more damage than all the PC we see today.

It was the victorian middle classes who condemned the following;
Swearing (but the words were once commonplace and had no bad meanings)
Homosexuality
Ethnic diversity (they believed that white people were superior)
Drinking alcohol
Most drugs which are now illegal, were legal before victorian times (UK)

This faux gentility has done more to damage the world as a whole than PC, but PC is catching up, because some people, whether by virtue of education, upbringing or "class" believe that they know better than the rest of us, and can dictate how we behave.

In respect to the need for equality, I think they may be right, but not in other areas.

budcki, hit up my last post on the page before this...
i want to know what you think...

reply to post by Boondock78


The whole point I'm making is that this type of humour has been traditionally used as a vehicle for various hate groups.
The KKK saying "well frank zappa said it, it must mean we are right"
OK this might be an extreme example, but I repeat - when you start singling people out you are, or run the risk of being labelled, racist/bigotted etc

I also believe that a truly sophisticated satirist does not need to draw on stereotypes and label people in order to get his point across - only the lazy ones do that.

On a personal level, I don't like chris rocks "comedy" - it's lazy, it has no real content and is to satire what henry 8th was to marriage guidance.


[edit on 13/11/2007 by budski]

reply to post by deesul69


Appreciated. Suffice to say I'm exercising self restraint, giving up some of my own freedom of speech, complying with the T&C's and not posting what I truelly think. We can debate this issue until Hell freezes over ... but let's not get personal, huh ?

Skyfloating, Boondock, Sim ... the proposed legislation isn't about the casual joke. Even the Ministers responsible for piloting this legislation through Parliament have said that. It's about preventing systematic harassment and malicious behaviour. And you're being sold a pup if you think otherwise.

A joke is only a joke if both parties see it as such. I got sent an email today from a straight friend entitled "20 Steps To Seduce A Straight Man" ... it's not hilariously funny by any means but might bring a wry smile to some here. But I wouldn't dream of posting it ... because it's bound to offend someone. So I exercise self restraint in order that I don't upset anyone.

So in this one post I've exercised self restraint twice. Or had my freedom of speech curtailed twice ... whichever way you want to look at it. By not responding to deesul69 in the crudest Anglo Saxon and by not posting a funny.

Guys it's a two way street.

Originally posted by budski

The whole point I'm making is that this type of humour has been traditionally used as a vehicle for various hate groups.
The KKK saying "well frank zappa said it, it must mean we are right"
OK this might be an extreme example, but I repeat - when you start singling people out you are, or run the risk of being labelled, racist/bigotted etc

well, if the klan says frank said it so it must be ok don't make it ok and it yeah, he might be labelled...so?

he was labelled a bigot and an anti semite..
he didn't care, cause, he wasn't....

so i talk like i talk and i run the risk of being labelled....why should i care about that?
label me...that don't make it true...

don't think i've been labelled before. talking how i talk, looking like i look, having the habits i do.

thing is, i DON'T CARE what anyone thinks about me except for my wife and my son.

thats it..

for the entire rest of the world, you either get me or you don't. i don't go out of my way to hurt people and i do try and stand up for peoples rights that i believe in.....i do NOT care what you think of me or about me cause it does not matter to me.
you have every right to think whatever you want about me....why should that bother me?

see what i mean?
if you are on board with my way of thinking, thats cool. then you get it....if not, then you were not supposed to get me and thats fine too.

see what i mean?

Originally posted by Niall197


Appreciated. Suffice to say I'm exercising self restraint, giving up some of my own freedom of speech, complying with the T&C's and not posting what I truelly think.


A joke is only a joke if both parties see it as such.

i too restrain myself cause i agreed to the T and C.

about the last part....i don't agree.

just cause you(not you personally) get bent by my joke, don't mean it was meant or aimed at you to offend you. if thats how you took it, well, sorry i guess

Originally posted by Boondock78

just cause you(not you personally) get bent by my joke, don't mean it was meant or aimed at you to offend you.

Sure. It just makes it a bad joke
And if your audience doesn't laugh you just think to yourself ... that one bombed. Won't be saying that joke again in a hurry. And onto the next one ...

The legislation isn't about jokes, Boondock, it truelly isn't.

reply to post by Niall197


yeah...
it's about taking away free speech. i am against that too so either way, my position stands

Originally posted by Boondock78
reply to post by Niall197

 

yeah...
it's about taking away free speech. i am against that too so either way, my position stands

Well, here's what some of the labour party members whose party are introducing the legislation think:

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, has told MPs that such fears are unfounded because he will shortly introduce an amendment to the Bill ensuring that cases can be pursued only when the offending words are specifically intended to pose a threat and are not merely humorous, mocking or abusive.

As with an eventual compromise deal struck over the Religious Hatred Bill, there will also be a specific clause to protect the right to freedom of speech.

Last night Chris Bryant, the openly gay Labour MP, said Mr Atkinson should relax because the right to make jokes about gays would remain. "I think it is perfectly possible to create a distinction in law between incitement to hatred and having a laugh," he said.

Lord Lester, the Liberal Democrat peer who helped draft the compromise wording on the religious hatred law, said it was clear that "politically incorrect jokes at the expense of gay people" should not be banned.

source

This illustrates the point perfectly that the law is a vehicle against hate crimes - it's not about restricting freedom of speech, so that argument is pretty much a non starter.

But as I've said already, extremist groups have always attached themselves to and used certain comedians to further their own agenda's.

BTW - perhaps FZ was a racist, a bigot and an anti semite - just because you have a few black friends, doesn't mean you're not a racist.

Boondock, I accept your right to do/say/think whatever you like, regardless of what people think of it - but this is not about YOU.
This is about the wider view of the world in general, acceptance and tolerance towards others who may be different, and not using "humour" as a weapon against them based on their skin colour, religion or who they like to sleep with.

Originally posted by budski

This is about the wider view of the world in general, acceptance and tolerance towards others who may be different, and not using "humour" as a weapon against them based on their skin colour, religion or who they like to sleep with.

the article stated this

introduce an amendment to the Bill ensuring that cases can be pursued only when the offending words are specifically intended to pose a threat and are not merely humorous, mocking or abusive.

can you give me an example of this? maybe just don't understand...

how/who/what determines when words are offensive and/or are intended to pose a threat.

this is an honest question..

maybe you could give me an example of of something YOU yhink would fall under this?(not trying to set you up and i won't even comment on it, just trying to get an idea)..

what about the jewish princess lyrics i showed you?
do YOU think that would fall under this new deal? something like that?
songs and such that are of that kind of nature......




[edit on 13-11-2007 by Boondock78]

reply to post by Boondock78


Well, here's what the Home Office has to say about what constitutes a hate crime:

Hatred is a strong term that goes beyond simply causing offence or hostility. Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their:

* race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins
* religion
* gender or gender identity
* sexual orientation
* disability

Hate crime can take many forms including:

* physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
* threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
* verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace

Our definition of a hate crime:

*
Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

source

The key is in the last definition, "Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence"

So in order for it to be viewed as a hate crime, it would have to be part of a criminal act, in theory.

This could be viewed as examples of hate crime;

The number of attacks on Asians has risen significantly since the London bombings, police and Muslim groups say.

The number reported to the Islamic Human Rights Commission - not including those reported to police - has risen more than 13-fold, its chairman said.

The total number of "faith-related" attacks reported across London rose 500% compared with the same period last year, the Muslim Safety Forum says.

source

Perhaps a more worrying definition is this:

Hate crime is when someone attacks another person verbally, via mail or email, or perhaps physically, and the crime is driven by the attacker's prejudice against a particular group of people. While more hate crime is verbal than physical, that does not mean it's not serious, or very upsetting for the person being harassed.

The important thing with hate crime is that it's down to the attacker's perception of the other person. For example, John writes Paul a nasty email because he thinks Paul is gay. Even if Paul is not actually gay, John was still attacking him because John thought he was. That is still a homophobic hate crime, because of the motivation of the attacker.

The two most common forms of hate crime are racism and homophobia.

source


The problem as you've rightly pointed out, is down to perception.

How can a judge or a prosecutor read what's in a persons mind?
Of course if the offending party is a member of an extreme organisation then it becomes a little easier.

To address your other question, I would find those lyrics offensive if they were directed at my own ethnic group.
To me, this is not satire, it's an attack based on a persons religion and cultural heritage - and in todays climate, and also looking at the hate crime bill an artist could possibly get in trouble - although there is no criminal action or intent it could quite easily be seen by some as promoting anti semitic views, even if that was not the intention.

Originally posted by budski
To address your other question, I would find those lyrics offensive if they were directed at my own ethnic group.
To me, this is not satire, it's an attack based on a persons religion and cultural heritage - and in todays climate, and also looking at the hate crime bill an artist could possibly get in trouble - although there is no criminal action or intent it could quite easily be seen by some as promoting anti semitic views, even if that was not the intention.

i kinda already thought verbal abuse and physical abuse was against the law...still not getting it.

about the lyrics...i 'could' see how a jewish person would get offended by the sonf, BUT, i support the artists right to make the song, and as i have been saying, the persons reaction to the song says a lot...

difference of opinions i guess.

he was seen by some as supporting anti ssemitic views(which he was not) and there was a DEMAND for an apology....no apology was given.

i still support peoples rights to say what they want...

the only time i would consider a verbal attack something so severe as a law being broken would be if person A was in person B's face, in their personal space, attacking them IN their face like that..

if person A gets on his radio show on the net and just dogs out person B via jokes, humor, satire, etc etc, then i see no problems.....

again, i am only being honest....i try not to lie at all.
i get hatred for some of my opinions and views but this is me..


i also have a hard time getting behind more laws and whatever takes away things from us....all kinds of things under the guise of protecting people but does it?



all that crap with imus...he made a colour comment and then he was thrashed in the media by people like sharpton...
he was fired and all that.

now when it is all said and done, he made 20 million off his suit with clear channel and got signed to a multi million dollar a year deal with citadel. he is going back on the air....

is what he did 'verbal abuse'?
i don't think so....

seems like a friggin game.....

someone makes a silly comment. someone else cries. someone else over reacts. person that made silly comment is rolling in the benji's like a fat rat, new job and all.

lame

Anything I utter can offend SOMEONE. In fact, this happens to me everyday at ATS. If I say X I will offend the Ys and if I say Y I will offend the Xs.

Budski & Co, ponder on this please:

If you dont grant freedom of speech to those you dislike, you dont grant freedom of speech at all

There have been a couple of examples of how the law is wrongly (IMO) applied over the last few years, one serious the other less so.

Ron Atkinson, a well known football manager and media pundit was providing analysis on a football match, and thought his microphone had been turned off prior to an ad break - it hadn't, and he was heard to say about a black player called Marcel Dessaily (who wasn't having a great game)
"He's what we call a lazy F* N*" (fill in the blanks yourself)
Hate crime? No
Racist? Yes

He was castigated in the media (and rightly so) and there was some discussion about prosecuting him.
news.bbc.co.uk...
Now this man was brought up in a different era, and probably didn't realise the impact this would have in todays climate - however he said it and there's lots of info if you google his name.

Around the same time, 3 asian men kicked a white man to death in the street and were heard boasting about having killed a white man, here but the judge ruled that it was NOT a racially motivated crime, and would therefore not be classified as a hate crime under the legislation being discussed.
Hate crime? Yes
Racist? Yes
The attack was a very violent and disturbing attack, but despite the attackers shouting "We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business." it was not judged to be racially motivated.

In one example, a well known sports figure made a very unfortunate remark (which has killed his career) and which others have said he viewed as a joke which turned out badly.

In the other example an innocent man was kicked to death, but the crime was said to NOT be racially motivated.

And this gives an example of the biggest problem regarding this type of legislation - it might not be equally applied.

If it is equally and sensibly applied, then I can see only good coming from it.

If not, then it could cause more problems than it is supposed to solve.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you dont grant freedom of speech to those you dislike, you dont grant freedom of speech at all

Who said anything about like or dislike?

Jeez, you seem really hung up on this like/dislike thing you keep bringing up.

What relevance does this have to the legislation which is being discussed?

Freedom of speech is a small part of the issues involved in the legislation indicated in the OP.

And don't forget, people also have the right to be offended by jokes/remarks etc - in fact, I would state that my right to a peacefull life, undisturbed by bigots and racists is more important than another persons right to insult because they perceive me as different (if that were the case)

reply to post by budski


I bring it up because plenty of suggestions you make will ULTIMATELY lead to giving up freedom of speech.

I believe in granting freedom of speech to racists and bigots. Otherwise I become just like them.

Dont act like you have no idea what I am talking about.

Originally posted by Skyfloating


I bring it up because plenty of suggestions you make will ULTIMATELY lead to giving up freedom of speech.

I believe in granting freedom of speech to racists and bigots. Otherwise I become just like them.

Dont act like you have no idea what I am talking about.

i agree with everything you are said....most of us are talking about speech here and budski, you're talking about beatings and such...

you're talking hate crimes and most of us are talking jokes.....

reply to post by Skyfloating


No, I simply believe in an individuals right NOT to have jokers who have no idea of the issues involved pretend that a persons life has comedy value simply because they happen to be different.

If you'd care to read the bill, there is an amendment coming into place to PROTECT freedom of speech.

reply to post by Boondock78


That's because it's a Hate Crime Bill that is being discussed, as in the article in the OP.

In order to properly address the issue there has to be understanding of what the hate crime bill is about.

Originally posted by Niall197

Skyfloating, Boondock, Sim ... the proposed legislation isn't about the casual joke. Even the Ministers responsible for piloting this legislation through Parliament have said that.

OK, they say that now, but once the law is on the books it becomes open to law enforcement and court opinions. Can you guarantee that neither will ever expand the scope of the law to include "casual" jokes overheard in a bar, etc? If that guarantee can't be made - and it can't IMO - then the law should not be enacted.