SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
basically in 0.01% of cases, im saying we should at least say to people "hey, thats going to far, you shouldnt say that" and if they keep saying it, then maybe you need to punish them with a fine or something, hopefully a better education system would render this even more limited number of instances though. |
Starting to punish people based soley on what they say can be slippery when it is subjective like that.
Additionally, i'm not a big fan of that guy, but the Question Time episode seemed a bit of a sham. Is it ok for them to "hijack" Winston Churchill.
That's not exactly a nuetral statement of a question there using the word hijack... he really did get a bit of a raw deal there if only for the fact that the show couldn't hold back it's obvious contempt and be nuetral.
|
actually I didnt object to his being on the show, I just object to people saying "black/gay/whatever people are evil and deserve to die", its not directed at anyone in particular.
I thought the show was entertaining and that Griffin was shown to be weak and indisisive, which is good, I think his views are disgusting (though, only if he incites hatred should he be punished)
|
The problem isn't that he was on the show. It's that the questions about him were full of complete contempt and slanted against him. With words like "hijacking." The show wasn't interested in actually giving him a chance to explain himself, and mostly put him on just so everyone else could character assassanate him.
There was one thing I was always taught. Value the rights of those you hate even more then those you like, in doing so you will make sure you give everyone a fair shake and aren't blinded by your own biases.
If the other panelists would of made him look bad on an even playing field, that would of been good. This just makes the BBC look like it plays favorites. Which is very dangerous considering the way media works in the UK.
