New Law Could Make Gay Jokes Illegal

Ok...

Let me break it down for y'all.

Words would be illegal. You could be arrested for saying something, not doing anything. God forbid you robbed someone.

Freedom of speech? Not any longer I guess.

I am not for bashing anyone. That does not mean I wouldn't take a joke if someone made fun of me.

We have lost our sense of humor. Its already illegal to discriminate. Why do we need another one restricting even more freedoms (see AMENDMENT 1)?



[edit on 14-11-2007 by biggie smalls]

reply to post by biggie smalls



I appreciate your point of view biggie - but can you point to anything in the legislation that supports this?

The article states quite clearly that there will be an amendment included to protect freedom of speech, so I'm curious to know how this makes words illegal.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by biggie smalls

 

I appreciate your point of view biggie - but can you point to anything in the legislation that supports this?

The article states quite clearly that there will be an amendment included to protect freedom of speech, so I'm curious to know how this makes words illegal.

This is on the same site in a link within that article, about the same law.

People convicted of stirring up hatred against homosexuals face up to seven years in jail under a new law.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, told MPs that existing prohibitions against race and religious incitement would be extended to cover ''homo-phobic" behaviour.

His statement prompted fears among Christian organisations that they could be prosecuted for preaching that homosexuality was wrong.
advertisement

There would also be concern that playground insults or jokes about gays could be caught by the new offence unless strict safeguards were included.

Mr Straw said he would amend the Criminal Justice Bill to make it unlawful to use threatening words or behaviour on the grounds of sexual orientation.

And this is the article this thread is about.

Atkinson was referring to measures in the Criminal Justice Bill, currently passing through Parliament, which could mean people who stir up hatred against homosexuals being put in prison for up to seven years.

He said the Government measures, which could be expanded to cover hatred against disabled or transgendered people, seemed to be "infinitely extendable".

I guess reading isn't a common skill.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Johnmike]

Topic Only

Originally posted by Johnmike
I guess reading isn't a common skill.

Indeed.

No more sniping. This is not a request.

Here's the part where jack straw clarifies biggie,

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.

Ministers have firmly dismissed as unfounded claims that playground insults or jokes about gays could be caught by the new offence.

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

So as you can see, there is protection there for freedom of speech

I'm not sure how the legislation could be any clearer

reply to post by budski


Of course it's possible to create a distinction. However, that does NOT mean that they will do so.

I will change my mind when I see the amendment that says specifically that there will be no prosecution for jokes or even insults.

I want to know exactly what they mean by inciting reactions against gays.



Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei


I'll try and find some cases that demonstrate incitement to hatred.

The only one I can think of off the top of my head, was the demonstration a while back against the Danish (?) cartoons - protesters were carrying signs demanding death to those who insulted allah - some were prosecuted.

But that aside, I fully understand your concerns.

I also think that some extremists will test the law when it first comes in to see where the boundaries lie - i.e. will try to get people prosecuted - it remains to be seen if they will be successful. Personally I don't think they will.

My last post on this page shows exactlywhat the law is for and why it has been expanded to include homophobic remarks.

If the law at the time had included the part about hate crimes against gay people he would have been charged with that as well.

Originally posted by SimiusDei


I will change my mind when I see the amendment that says specifically that there will be no prosecution for jokes or even insults.

i'm right with ya on that one...

i worry about small doors that are opened, precidents are set, and one thing leads to another



[edit on 15-11-2007 by Boondock78]

reply to post by Boondock78


Indeed.

If ANY speech is opened up to the possibility of it being determined whether or not it is deserving of prosecution, then ALL speech has effectively been opened up to the same possible scrutiny.

As I have said, you cannot (repeat CANNOT!) open up ANY area of speech to prosecution without opening all of it up to prosecution.

What right does anyone have to determine what certain words "meant"?


Hell, if you want an example of what I mean, you need look no further than here at ATS.

Daily there are people posting threads that others jump into and destroy because of how they INTERPRETED THE MEANING of said poster's words.

Words can easily be taken out of context.

Whereas one person says a certain set of words is a joke, another can just as easily label it "hate speech designed to incite people against gays".


The line is too easily crossed for it to be allowed.


Jasn

Originally posted by SimiusDei
reply to post by Solarskye

 

Once again, 100% agreement.

If a business wants to institute these policies, I am behind them a million percent. However, the government has NO RIGHT to pass laws banning "slurs".

I don't care WHAT group those slurs are against.

Any such law, in effect, KILLS freedom of speech.


Jasn

Actually, the legislation that all of the posters in this thread are referring to is the new "ENDA" legislation ,, it is about the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" ..

This act simply states that it is unlawful to discriminate against protected classes of people in regard to **employment** ..

Currently, Age, Race, Disability, Religion, and Gender are all protected classes..

Currently, sexual orientation is NOT a protected class and sexual orientation will not be a protected class unless the president signs the bill into law.. More likely, George W. will veto it ...

So... NO .. this legislation is NOT about jokes.. it is about discrimination in employment..

Originally posted by radiotrish
Actually, the legislation that all of the posters in this thread are referring to is the new "ENDA" legislation ,, it is about the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" ..

This act simply states that it is unlawful to discriminate against protected classes of people in regard to **employment** ..

Currently, Age, Race, Disability, Religion, and Gender are all protected classes..

Currently, sexual orientation is NOT a protected class and sexual orientation will not be a protected class unless the president signs the bill into law.. More likely, George W. will veto it ...

So... NO .. this legislation is NOT about jokes.. it is about discrimination in employment..

Um...

Except this is something in the UK.

So no. Are you sure you posted in the right thread?

no more gay jokes...aww there go my weekends, (no just joking) but seriously i guess they were just deviant before now they are making them illegal, next they ll be monitoring our speech using chips in our brains, man i cant wait for the day

Originally posted by SimiusDei
If ANY speech is opened up to the possibility of it being determined whether or not it is deserving of prosecution, then ALL speech has effectively been opened up to the same possible scrutiny.

As I have said, you cannot (repeat CANNOT!) open up ANY area of speech to prosecution without opening all of it up to prosecution.

So I guess we have to put up with this then.

A popular Ajax teen who would have turned 14 tomorrow hanged himself at home after being viciously cyber-bullied by classmates about being gay, his stepmom says.

After all, it's just words.

I hope more people kill themselves just because someone was mean to them.

It's the only form of population control that doesn't violate individual liberty. No better selection than natural selection.

reply to post by apc


2 questions. How old are you? Do you have kids?

reply to post by apc


I've had this conversation with you before about "individual liberty"

Let me re-iterate - you have none

You are a product of environmental, parental, genetic and peer programming - to think otherwise is to delude yourself.

As for population control by meanness - I really hope you're not serious.
If you are, then you are no better than hitler, stalin,pol pot etc etc

reply to post by intrepid


25, and no. Helped raise one, but not my blood.

Pretty sure though mine will have spine.

Point?

Originally posted by apc


Point?

What if it was YOUR kid?

Originally posted by intrepid
So I guess we have to put up with this then.

A popular Ajax teen who would have turned 14 tomorrow hanged himself at home after being viciously cyber-bullied by classmates about being gay, his stepmom says.

We already have laws against harassment, we sort of established this several times in this thread. You don't have to ban speech to protect someone from that.