We Can Work It Out - Politics & Philosophy | Page 89 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

I prefer to use the term harassment since hate speech can mean speaking an unpopular opinion whereas harassment means forcing your opinion on someone who just wants to be left alone. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, while what they do is certainly wrong on so many levels, they’re non-violent and make sure to stay within the limits of free speech so they shouldn’t be prosecuted. Instead, we should mock them whenever we see them protesting by getting a piece of paper and writing God Hates The Westboro Baptist Church or something similar. Since you have free speech and they’re opposed to political violence, they won’t force you to put the sign down. However, if they trespass, threaten, or unprovocatively insult individuals, then it’s no longer free speech and they should be prosecuted.

Heath said
For all the comments, I went on youtube and watched the Ricky Gervais speech.  Time well spent.  I then searched for old clips of his (along with Stephen Merchant’s) creation, The Office, which had originally come over as a BBC import.  For cutting-edge humor in the early 2000’s, nothing came close to the brilliance of this show.

Fantastic show. I love the US one more, but the UK one is unrivalled in how beautifully uncomfortable its humour is. 

Ron Nasty said
But they are not “harassment” laws, they are laws brought in to specifically address hate speech (verbal or written), making against the law “communication that is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour.”

I can see where you’re coming and your country’s law is written well enough where there must be malicious intent, excluding groups like PETA who subconciously make offensive comments. However, those laws could be used in a way that makes publicly expressing a specific opinion illegal, which is censorship.

WBC were used because they illustrate the difference between the limits set on free speech between the UK and US. I was making the point that the placards they use legally in the US would break the law in the UK. While both countries are proud (and I would say, largely, rightly) of their histories on free speech, something that always needs to be taken account is how the limits of free speech differ from country to country.

They’re definitely a good example. As for your later point, how does the UK have a good history of free speech. After all, the founding fathers made free speech a top priority because they had just fought a war against a tyrannical government that would’ve done horrible things to them if they dared criticize the king.

Beatlebug said
I would contest the claim that Ricky Gervais spends too much time punching down at trans people. I don’t follow his comedy that closely, but I don’t think he attacks downtrodden trans people as a rule; I’m pretty sure he was specifically talking about one individual who is well-known to have predatory habits and be a general scumbag, not ALL TRANS PEOPLE. One shitty trans person does not all trans people shitty make, because, believe it or not, trans people are individuals. And if this person was to be considered an ambassador of the trans community, then the community has some serious issues.

The only thing i could find in his speech that could be considered critical of transgender people is when he was talking about athletes taking steroids and saying “i think we all know who would win”. If that’s what Quarryman’s talking about then i 100% agree with Ricky because if trans women competed against cis women in sports, cis women could get seriously hurt and trans men can cheat their way to the top. I know the LGBT+ community wants equality but men are biologically stronger than women and while getting a sex change reduces some of that strength, it doesn’t reduce it enough where it’s a fair fight.

But Beatlebug, I hear you cry, being cancelled on social media is not nearly as bad as being kicked out of your house because you’re trans! Sure, but being kicked out of one’s house is not a universal experience of trans people. Neither is harassing people who disagree with trans ideology into silence a universal trait of trans people, but it is nevertheless carried out on behalf of trans people as a group, despite the fact that trans people are not a monolith.

But that homeless 16 year old trans girl doesn’t have the kind of voice someone like Mike Pence has so there’s a good chance we won’t even know about her and she’ll end up in prison while Mike Pence and his friends go on criticizing the LGBT+ community.

The majority of homeless youth end up getting arrested at least once for things like stealing food to survive and honestly i can’t blame them as prison is often better than being homeless, especially if you’re a child who’s not ready for independence.

http://www.juvjustice.org/site…..ressed.pdf

Also, while i do agree there are many problems with the LGBT+ community, the religious right is far from a rarity. In June 2019, CBS News and Reuters both determined that about 28% of Americans still oppose same sex marriage. While still technically a minority, it’s certainly still common enough to be a problem for many LGBT+ people who have highly religious parents

I understand where you’re coming from but there’s a difference between being a white knight and being an ally/critic:

A white knight is someone who proposes ideas on behalf of a group they’re not part (for the most part) of that doesn’t affect them in any way despite said group being generally opposed to the idea. For example, i used to favor dropping the T in LGBT because i thought it was homophobic to compare the 2 groups but since most LGB people would prefer to keep it the way it is, i’ve since renounced that belief.

An ally/critic is someone who either supports or opposes an idea from a group they’re not part of (for the most part) that affects them in some way. For example, i oppose slavery reparations because no one alive now is responsible for slavery because everyone who was alive at the time is dead and therefore, you’d be making people pay for a crime they didn’t commit.

As you can see, the difference between the 2 is that white knights propose ideas to a problem that doesn’t affect them in any way whereas allies promote ideas supported by the group in question and critics critique ideas that negatively affect them in some way. While no one likes a white knight, that doesn’t mean we have to stay silent on an issue just because we’re not part of the group in question.