while i obviously agree that it's not a very good idea for artists to encite violence against homosexuals, i wonder how far this will go, or how far this is intended to go.
if an artist derides homosexuality but doesn't actually encite violence, does the campaign suggest this is banned too? cos if so, it sounds rather like an affront to free speech.
whether we like it or not, there are plenty of people who are utterly convinced that homosexuality is wrong. we may be offended when they make their views known, but is there anything we can actually do about it?
i've heard talk of priests being told off for condeming homosexuality in their sermons. this seems a little bit ridiculous, especially when the bible does explicitly forbid it.

"1. Outrages and the Stop Hate Music Coalition have made it quite clear that whilst they do not mind the criticism of homosexuality - criticism is something you can argue against - the promotion of violence towards the LGBT community is wrong and should be illegal."


ok, this makes sense. i was interested to know whether the campaign was being as short sighted as i suspected. it's good to know it's not.


" Would we all be shouting 'Free Speech' if these were bands that were singing about the murder of black people? or even criticising the black race?"


that's a very good point. to be honest, i'm not sure how to answer. my only escape route seems to be this: it's not a perfect comparison. very few people would buy music that openly criticized black people, so it wouldn't be in the artist's interests to make it in the first place. also, there's the slightly dodgy answer that while race is something that is not chosen by someone, some people belive that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not something you're born with.
i'd like to point out here that i don't actually agree with that statement.


"Mike, point out to me ONE passage in the Bible that EXPLICITLY condemns homosexuality? The Bible is open to interpretation and throughout time has been used to persecute black people, women and queers. "


i understand that the bible is very much open to interpretation. that wasn't the point i was making. i was saying that it seems very odd for a priest to be told off by the church for preaching something the church has held to be true for thousands of years.


"No one has the right to CONDEMN something inate in another based on a BELIEF, a belief which is a choice, and a belief which should be an informed decision. "


surely by definition, a belief is not a choice? you don't make a concious decision to believe something or not. what ever combination of factors that has made you believe the things you do, it is not something that you yourself can alter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: JohnK
"
Faith is never something you are born with - it is something taught. You may have 'faith' but you choose to subscribe to a certain religous doctrines or books. I simply won't accept religon is something you don't control. It blatantly is."

---

ok, abiding by the teachings of whichever religion is a concious decision, i'll give you that. what is not concious, or controlable by yourself, is the belief on which you made the decision to abide by the teachings.

just because you are not born with a faith, does not mean it is something you can control. most people's faith, if they have one, comes from a combination of things, like being brought up under certain influences, meeting other people of that faith, and, hopefully, rational and ordered research into the faith. but it is not these factors alone which make up the belief. it is perfectly possible to agree with the tenets of a certain religion without actually believing in the deity on which it is based. there is a further step, which cannot be achieved by rational thought or looking at the evidence.

you cannot wake up one morning and just decide that today, you're going to believe in god.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: shymike
"sorry, that last post was starting to go round and round in circles.

basically, what i was trying to say, is that you cannot choose what to believe. it is not something that you can control."

---

of course you control what you believe.

i think i understand what you're saying, that your own beliefs are influenced by others and what goes on around you in your life, but at the end of the day you still have control over your own mind, and make decisions for yourself.

i went to catholic school for 14 years, but i don't believe in a god, because i have considered both the religious and scientific knowledge i have been given, and made the decision for myself.

to say i didn't control that decision in what i believe is just wrong.

sorry if this post doesn't read well, by the way. i find it hard to express what i mean, cos like john, i think it is blatantly something you control, and its hard to argue for something that seems completely obvious.

get on with your dissertation, mike! god can wait till after the deadline :)

i consider my beliefs to be something which i have a partial choice over. i can reject things if they seem to conflict with my knowledge of the world, but at the same time there are constants that i have no control over. no one will ever convince me that there isn't a god. the bible on the other hand to me is a fairy story. and i'm not stating that as fact, i'm stating it as a belief.

any how, no, condemning gay people is as equally intollerable as condemning an entire ethnic group, and i honestly believe that even when lyrics do not explicitly incite violence, most homophobic hate crime is a product of a society which is too quick to condemn and denounce. only when we stop doing that will we see a reduction in the beating of queers, ethnic minorities, anyone who doesn't 'fit'.

free speech ought to be a liberty, not a weapon.

*steps off soap box*

" the promotion of violence towards the LGBT community is wrong and should be illegal"

No - people should have a right to free speech. You don't neccesarily have to agree with it, or even listen to it, but we all have the right to say what we want.

If we're going to start censoring artforms such a music - how far will it go? How would you like it if the government turned round and banned LBGT organisations from publishing any (so called) "pro-gay" materials? You can't take away a person's or group or people's right to say what they want, as long as they aren't commiting an offence as they do it.

"Should we even allow the critcism of homo/bi and trans people?

Yes - just because someone is gay/bi/lesbian/trans it doesn't mean that they're RIGHT about everything they believe. And if you disagree with that, then you're being narrow-minded (something oft accused of people who 'disagree' with us non-heteros). People will disagree over things, and should have the right to say whatever the hell they want.

As the old saying goes - "I might not like what you've got to say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it".

All IMHO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: JohnK
"

quote: Originally posted by: Anonymous"

"I might not like what you've got to say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it".

"

I like that quote but its impractical.

"

---

Hmm, maybe I should change my signature!

Say for example, a man was stood on a podium in the centre of campus and was shouting 'Killin the fúcking Blacks, Burn them, Shoot Them', would you stand next to that bloke and defend his right to say it?

No - but there's a major difference there.

The podium-racist is taking his freedom of speech and abusing it by taking it to a public place, where people who don't neccesarily want to listen to it are subjected to it. However, to be able to listen to 'gay-bash' songs, you've got to be pretty proactive. You'd have to not only get the CD or find the radio station - but then you'd also have to keep listening and not switch it off. You can't switch a racist in a public place off, but you can allways turn off music or TV or films etc, meaning that by continue to listen, you've got no-one to blame but yourself if you don't agree with it.

Anyway, there will allways be people with 'extreme' views, it seems pointless to me to try and stop them from having an equal say in matters. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Letting everyone have a say, even if a minority of people say utterly abhorrent things?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
"No - but there's a major difference there."

---

I beg to differ. There isn't a difference if both the speech and the music are released publicly. Which they both are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
"
The podium-racist is taking his freedom of speech and abusing it by taking it to a public place, where people who don't neccesarily want to listen to it are subjected to it.
."

---

But thats the point of free speech? to be able to take it to a public forum and say what you want?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
"
However, to be able to listen to 'gay-bash' songs, you've got to be pretty proactive. You'd have to not only get the CD or find the radio station - but then you'd also have to keep listening and not switch it off. You can't switch a racist in a public place off, but you can allways turn off music or TV or films etc, meaning that by continue to listen, you've got no-one to blame but yourself if you don't agree with it.
."

---

But you can walk away and not listen to a racist? I don't understand - you seem to be saying the racist is wrong for doing what he does, but that the homophobic music isn't? I thought you said:

"I might not like what you've got to say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it".

Do you stick by it, even in terms of the example I have given?

Also in terms of music, surely the point is not that LGBt people atre offended by it, but young people associate the glorified violence and torture of gay people with the music stars they look up to? Surely thats bad? I can cope with the song - I can't cope with the fans of the music.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
"
Anyway, there will allways be people with 'extreme' views, it seems pointless to me to try and stop them from having an equal say in matters. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Letting everyone have a say, even if a minority of people say utterly abhorrent things?"

---

Yes, there most likely will be people with extreme views. And do you know what, thats fine. HOWEVER, when those views lead to the incitement of violence and murder of any group of people, that should be stopped as they overstep their right to free speech by infringing someone else right to live their life free from fear of violence.

i'm confused, anon, because you say that if anti-gay music was played on the union radio station, you'd be against it.

and yet previously you'd implied that if it was on the radio and you didn't want to hear it, you could turn it off, saying that you'd have no-one to blame but yourself if you continued to listen.

so what are you saying? would it be ok to have anti-gay songs on the union radio station, and you personally would just switch off cos you didn't want to hear them, or should they not be allowed at all, which you were originally arguing against, claiming freedom of speech?

Is 'tea and Bated Breath' part of the Twinnings Selection?

y wud any1 wanna go 2 harrogate, its dead quiet?

How would your family pronounce the place name 'Keighley'?

harrogate must be the only place i've visited where the chavs outside macdonalds are called rupert, olivia, arabella and tarquin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: JohnK
"How would your family pronounce the place name 'Keighley'?

"

---

erm, kee-lee?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: shymike
"i hate harrogate.

my family call it hairy-gut. aren't we the funny ones."

---

i think you may have misunderstood me, john. i didn't mean that we're so posh we mispronounce it. i meant we had an 'amusing' alternative name for a town that we disliked.

we also always call knaresborough k'boro, cos that's how it's spelt on some of the road signs, and it sounds better.

am i revealing too much about my sad, sad family?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
"Challenge The Mighty - lets get this mofo back on topic :)

"you say that if anti-gay music was played on the union radio station, you'd be against it.

and yet previously you'd implied that if it was on the radio and you didn't want to hear it, you could turn it off, saying that you'd have no-one to blame but yourself if you continued to listen."

Ok, to clarify my position, if the music was being played in a public place, such as on the radiostation who play inside the Union, then I'd be against it, as people who are in the union would have no choice but to listen to it. However, if the same music was being broadcast over the radio as normal, to people's homes and cars and such, then I'd not be against it - as in your own home/car etc, you can choose if you want to listen to that kind of thing or not.

Either way, I'm not against the artist for having produced the music with an anti-gay theme; I mean, who am *I* to decide who can and can't say what?

Hope that clears it up :)"

---

I'll make my position clear. No I can't stop anyone being critical of anything - but I can object to someone inciting violence

Its different because it intrudes on someone else right to live free from fear of violence, torture and murder. When free speech does that, whether you choose to listen to it or not is irrelevant. Because someone will be listening to it - and someone will be exposed to the glorification of the murderof a certain group of people.

With the freedom of speech, comes responisbility. But it seems to me that we live in a culture which selifishly demands 'rights' whilst ignoring responsibility.