| Helloplite said: Just to clarify, if this still eludes you: I am anti-religion, but pro free-speech. I love free speech so much, I actually tolerate the existence of religion. Hate speech itself is not something subjective.
Well-said except for the last sentence. I don't have a problem understanding why you think what Lauren did was hate speech, but I do have a problem with you choosing to stop her from doing what she did whilst choosing not to prevent vile religious teachings from spreading. I think you should either go after both or let both be. Lauren pamphlets are obviously begging for a reaction, and I get that. But I don't find the reaction she was purposely looking for more problematic than what religious teachings result in. Therefore, I will never understand why hate speech laws can be enforced selectively against Lauren but not Imams in mosques. And... here we go: A preacher whose preaching led to the radicalization of Muslims that eventually killed, was convicted (among others) for hate speech and thrown in prison for 10 years. Served him right. A group of Muslims protesting against the Danish cartoons were jailed for 6 years each, for inciting hatred and murder of infidels. Good riddance. Another preacher, born to an evangelical family but converted to Islam (his birthname was Trevor William Forrest!), that actively encouraged his flock to travel outside the UK and murder infidels, was also convicted of inciting hatred, and jailed for 9 years. An evangelical Jamaican converted to Islam? You can't make it up just how stupid people can be on this planet. This guy needs a psychiatrist quick! Religions are a disease. And I am happy that I live in a country where I can make that statement and not be prosecuted for it. That's what free speech is. It also is the same measure that forces me to accept that people are bound to have some very ridiculous views. That's terribly sad, of course, but as long as they do not actuate their beliefs into practice, I guess I am okay with it -- because that's the principle of freedom of speech and of freedom of belief and religion. I am generally happy as well but let's not pretend things will always be the same, the ongoing demographic changes with Muslims constituting a bigger piece of the pie will have negative effects on what freedom of speech means. But perhaps, this is a completely different topic. Want to explore the subject of why Allah is gay? Go ahead and write an inane book on how an ill-defined deity is somehow engaging in sexual practices, and try to defend why this thesis is a valid proposition rather than just a ridiculous slogan for diminishing people of another religion, thereby inciting hatred. Go ahead. I also take an issue with this paragraph, why should a hatred inciting book should be subjected to tougher rules than other hatred inciting books (religious ones)? The intent might be different but the end result is the same. |
Anyhow, I think you get where I am coming from by now and I understand where you're coming from as well. I'll try to articulate my thoughts better in future discussions but this is the best I can do for now.
