I know a lot people on Nexus would likely disagree with this verdict, as interfering with freedom of speech.  In the UK, 3 men were convicted for promoting violent hate speech. They state this is part of their Islamic faith.


newstrackindia.com  The 3 men will apparently be "jailed for seven years for inciting hatred after distributing flyers that called for gay people to be hanged, stoned and burned as punishment...handed out the material in the street as well as posting it through letterboxes ... calling for the execution of gay people"

bbc.co.uk one witness who received the leaflets through his letterbox stated "They made me feel terrorised in my own home,"..."Sometimes I wondered whether I would be getting a burning rag through the letterbox or if I would be attacked in the street."


Remembering that Salmon Rushdie has spent decades in hiding due to the fatwa against him, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, and the security needed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali due to fears of retribution; the fact that even in the US people self-censor due to similar fears (South Park), my own sentiments are in agreement that this sort of action is needed.  The cartoonist who developed "draw mohammed day" also backed off, due to fears that her life was in danger.


I also remember antigay violence from the 60s, 70s, 80s, not officially reported upon but widely rumored, in my community.  This violence was supported by the type of hate speech that is discussed here.  In the US, Philip Kayser, an evangelical minister and some-time Ron Paul supporter, supports death penalty for homosexuality.  Ugandan politicians continue to waffle with regards to the US-evangelical-supported bill for death penalty for gays.  Hate speech does have consequences, in some cases life-changing, for the worse, and even life ending.


It's a sticky issue, where the line is drawn, and who decides where it is drawn.  I can say I have no sympathy for those men, and Im glad that somewhere, hate speech against LGBT people is taken seriously.

Views: 94

Replies to This Discussion

I haven't seen the leaflet, so I can't speak to what it said exactly. But there is a difference between saying "The law should be changed so that we prosecute homosexuals and the penalty should be death" and "Lets kill the homosexuals". One calls for changes to the law, the other is incitement to break the law.

I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US, the former is protected speech, the latter is not. 

The KKK is free to march, make speeches and talk about the superiority of the white race all they want, but when they openly suggest lynching, they've crossed the line and can be prosecuted for it.

Hm...  I don't know where to draw the line either, but I do wish influential anti-gay advocates would die.  The world would be a better place without them.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service