Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[Coito ergo sum]

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin
A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.

By Heidi Blake
Published: 1:05PM BST 02 May 2010
Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.
The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... a-sin.html


I realize that many people find what Christians say to be quite offensive. However, offensiveness should not be the test. Lots of things that we say about Christians offends them greatly, but we expect them to live with it, and we say, as stephen Frye so aptly put it, "You're offended? Well, so fucking what?"

This type of an arrest should be alarming to everyone, because (especially because atheists are a minority in England and even moreso in the US), it may well be OUR offensive speech (or speech deemed offensive by the religious) that is going to get us arrested. There are forces at work to criminalize blasphemous speech, and we rail against it on first amendment grounds, stating that we have the right to disrespect and offend.

I agree.

But, I also can step back and view things objectively. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? If we have a right to offend, then so too do our political, religious, philosophical, and ideological opponents have the right to offend us.

This arrest is a shame, and if the officer overstepped his authority, he should be disciplined. If the arrest was within the law, then the law needs to be amended, IMHO. Arresting people for what they say is a bad thing.

[pcCoder]

I agree it is absurd, but hell if non-religious people can be given legal issues for putting pamphlets in an airport prayer room, then religious people ought to be able to given the same legal issues. I agree though that it is absurd.

[Trolldor]

A street is not a prayer room. The guy was a dick for defacing the prayer room and deserved what he got. The preacher on the street is, well, on the street. Highlights the absurdity of the law.

[pcCoder]

A street is not a prayer room. The guy was a dick for defacing the prayer room and deserved what he got. The preacher on the street is, well, on the street. Highlights the absurdity of the law.

So what? One person was in a publicly accessible location in an airport and other a publicly accessible location on the street. So he left pamphlets around. I often find religious pamphlets left in rooms such as public conference rooms in a library, even stuck in doors.

[owtth]

There has never been freedom of speech in the UK

“I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know,"

said they guy who publicly condemns homosexuals. Irony much?

I agree that the cops are pushing it and applying the law in circumstances for which it was not designed, but I'm laughing on the inside.

[Trolldor]

A street is not a prayer room. The guy was a dick for defacing the prayer room and deserved what he got. The preacher on the street is, well, on the street. Highlights the absurdity of the law.

So what? One person was in a publicly accessible location in an airport and other a publicly accessible location on the street. So he left pamphlets around. I often find religious pamphlets left in rooms such as public conference rooms in a library, even stuck in doors.

A prayer room has a limited, specific purpose. He went out of his way to draw offensive cartoons. Nothing absurd about what happened to him. The street is not the same as the prayer room.

[Coito ergo sum]

There has never been freedom of speech in the UK

I know, but IMHO there should be. Freedom of speech is a fundamental outgrowth of freedom of thought. To stifle speech is to stifle thought. Censorship also has the unfortunate habit of backfiring and defeating its intended purpose, because it makes those that are being told to shut up angry and motivated and it makes those who are told that for their own good they can't hear certain opinions think that the opinions hold more weight than they do. Why censor the irrelevant and untenable?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They want THEIR rights protected, then they gotta put up with MY rights being protected, including the right to not put up with hate speech.

[Coito ergo sum]

They want THEIR rights protected, then they gotta put up with MY rights being protected, including the right to not put up with hate speech.

Sooooo....you're saying that if a person expresses an opinion in public that is hateful, they should be arrested? Like....for instance that religious people are deluded, and their god is the most unsavory character in all fiction, genocidal, fratricidal, filicidal, homicidal, petulant, vindictive and a bully?

Let's sanitize all public discourse so that nobody says something hateful, right? Can't say Christianity is false -- can't say homosexuality is a sin -- can't say Islam is misogynistic -- after all...they are all examples of hate speech...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They want THEIR rights protected, then they gotta put up with MY rights being protected, including the right to not put up with hate speech.

Sooooo....you're saying that if a person expresses an opinion in public that is hateful, they should be arrested? Like....for instance that religious people are deluded, and their god is the most unsavory character in all fiction, genocidal, fratricidal, filicidal, homicidal, petulant, vindictive and a bully?

Let's sanitize all public discourse so that nobody says something hateful, right? Can't say Christianity is false -- can't say homosexuality is a sin -- can't say Islam is misogynistic -- after all...they are all examples of hate speech...

SOooooo, you're saying there should be hateful exceptions? "Some hate is okay, but other hate isn't." Where do you draw the line? I draw it at "Don't say hateful things."

You may now quibble.

[Coito ergo sum]

They want THEIR rights protected, then they gotta put up with MY rights being protected, including the right to not put up with hate speech.

Sooooo....you're saying that if a person expresses an opinion in public that is hateful, they should be arrested? Like....for instance that religious people are deluded, and their god is the most unsavory character in all fiction, genocidal, fratricidal, filicidal, homicidal, petulant, vindictive and a bully?

Let's sanitize all public discourse so that nobody says something hateful, right? Can't say Christianity is false -- can't say homosexuality is a sin -- can't say Islam is misogynistic -- after all...they are all examples of hate speech...

SOooooo, you're saying there should be hateful exceptions? "Some hate is okay, but other hate isn't."

I'm not saying any of it is "o.k." I'm saying all of it should be legal. Homophobic speech or religiophobic speech should not result in someone being arrested. That's what I'm saying.

Where do you draw the line? I draw it at "Don't say hateful things."

There is no line. A person can speak his or her mind in public - like, the Westboro Baptist Church members.

You may now quibble.

No need to quibble. It should be obvious to most people that "don't say hateful things" is no standard to apply toward what is and is not lawful speech. It is certainly a fine general rule to apply for decorum purposes. But, I sure as fuck am going to say whatever I want about people who follow extremist or fundamentalist Islam, and I don't give a damn if they find it "hateful" or not. Some people consider it "hate speech" to mock Muhammad the false prophet, for example. That's why Dawkins was up on hate speech charges in Turkey because of The God Delusion - some people think that's hate speech. Give the fuckers a chance, and they'll jail atheists for hate speech when we criticize religion - they've done it before.

I'll not leave the decision of what is and is not "hate speech" up to the political process. I'd prefer to let everyone speak their mind. The ones that speak shit I don't like, I'd rather they be out in the open where I can see them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd prefer to let everyone speak their mind.

[Thinking Aloud]

As far as I'm concerned, people should be able to say anything they like, provided it's their opinion, and it doesn't encourage violence or other malicious acts towards others.

In other words, I'd be entitled to yell, "I hate strawberry pickers!" and call them all the names under the sun at the gates of the local fruit farm, without fear of arrest. If I yelled, "Kill all strawberry pickers!" or "Cut off their fingers!" then that's a different matter. I should also be entitled to tell them that they're going to burn in hell, because that's an entirely empty threat.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As far as I'm concerned, people should be able to say anything they like, provided it's their opinion, and it doesn't encourage violence or other malicious acts towards others.

In other words, I'd be entitled to yell, "I hate strawberry pickers!" and call them all the names under the sun at the gates of the local fruit farm, without fear of arrest. If I yelled, "Kill all strawberry pickers!" or "Cut off their fingers!" then that's a different matter. I should also be entitled to tell them that they're going to burn in hell, because that's an entirely empty threat.

So it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or "Ambulance!" in a crowded law school?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd prefer to let everyone speak their mind.

Yes, they have a right to speak their mind, don't you agree?

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (including NAMBLA):

E-mail Share
Print
August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

And, the Nazis:

1978 - Taking a Stand for Free Speech in Skokie
The ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie — where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case cost the ACLU dearly as members left in droves, but to many it was our finest hour and has come to represent our unwavering commitment to principle.