You forgot to mention the part of the ruling that reaffirmed that: "One has to bear in mind the cardinal importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society such as ours."

This was emphasised that, *despite* that cardinal importance, the conviction in this case was still sound, because it "was provoking violence and disorder and interfered with the rights of others."

I'm surprised that someone who likes to be thought of as intelligent is so selective with her reporting.

Oh, and before anyone else leaps in - I'm in no way condoning the other participants in the brawl that took place during his protest. But their presence does not excuse Mr Hammond of responsibility.

Oh, and before anyone else leaps in - I'm in no way condoning the other participants in the brawl that took place during his protest. But their presence does not excuse Mr Hammond of responsibility.

Of course there are many other examples of the erosion of free speech rights in Britain. Here's reference to a few:

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/01/youll_be_arrest.html

Scott Matthewman - your observations only support what I have now long felt, namely, that the British don't grasp the concept of free expression, never have, and never will.

What you are saying, in effect, is that only expression which does not offend the feelings of others is worthy of protection.

If others are offended by someone's peaceful, non-violent expression of opinion, then any mayhem which results is the fault of that person - even if he does not instigate physical violence or take part in it.

The mind boggles. Kiss your democracy goodbye, that train is leaving the station. From now on, if you want express your opinion peacefully, you'd better make sure that it is non-controversial and unlikely to offend, or risk being arrested and jugged for a public-order offence - even when all you have done is say what you think. Truly, the victim has become the offender, and the nation will degenerate into a flock of sheep, afraid to express any opinion other than that which accords exactly with the opinions of others.

It is small consolation that this sort of outcome would be totally unthinkable in the US, where anti-gay protestors such as the loathsome Fred Phelps are routinely protected by a police presence from the attentions of those members of the community who are unable to restrain their urge to violence.

Truly - the world turned upside down.

llater,

llamas

Scott

Along with the Judges you have completely lost the plot on this one. Everyday we are all constantly bombarded by countless messages, many of which due to our own belief systems and outook we find very offensive: SO WHAT!!

The great safety valve we used to have was freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech we lack academic vigour and perhaps even more importantly we lack the means to publicly redress that; with which we dont agree.

Do you really want to go back to our barbarian past when Europe was torn apart and people burned at the stake for stating opinions with which others disagreed.

Surely it is extremely vain to believe that you are so precious that you need to be protected from opinions which upset you. No, if you hear something you dont like and which offends you please oppose it with all the cogent argument at your disposal but please dont side with those who would ban it. This ruling today is hideously at odds with the beliefs of the overhelming majority in this country. We are now such a diverse people that the only way forward is for us to accept that we will all from time to time be offended by others stated opinions. Surely this healthy it shows that we are alive and have views of our own.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST EVERYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH WITHOUT DESTROYNG YOUR OWN FREEDOM

Are the same legal standards applied to marchers "going beyond legitimate protest" with incitement to kill Jews and hang George Bush, etc?

Dave F,

"Are the same legal standards applied to marchers "going beyond legitimate protest" with incitement to kill Jews"

They should be...don't you think?

How offensive is offensive? Where should the line be drawn?

These are questions that none of the posters on this thread (nor Melanie's article) have properly addressed.

I would defend freedom of speech up to a point - but, if someone calls for an 'end to homosexuallity' in a gathering of homosexuals this is close to calling for 'an end of homosexuals'.

While I would condemn anyone for physically attacking someone for expressing their views I think that when someone stands in a crowd of people they do not agree with and calls for an 'end' to them all then they are actually abusing the freedom of speech and are far from a victim.

therefore: I 1) condemn the people who attacked him; 2) think that he should not have been prosecuted; 3) do not think he was a victim...

If someone consistently calls for an end to any group publicly (whether Jews, moslems, gays, married people, grandads etc) by calling for an 'end' to them then this is not only offensive but is close to or actually is inciting hatred (and some people...who push excreta through letter boxes and set fires to people's homes - as has happened many times to Asians living in the UK) take such incitements literally).

Yes, I'd pretty much go along with that. What infuriated me is that the judges in the appeal court ruling *did* emphasise the importance of freedom of expression, but said that *in this case* a line was crossed.

That point was reported in the PA News article that the Telegraph's story seems to have taken as a basis: however, the importance of freedom of expression statement got left out of the paper's final report. Without it, the report is slanted in a very different direction.

David has made a disastrous mistake by equating calls for an "end to homosexuality" (however absurd this may be) with incitement to, essentially, "do away with homosexuals".

Seperating "the sin from the sinner" (whether or not you deem homosexuality sinful is besides the point) is a prerequisite for our freedom to express disapproval of anything. After all, surely there's more to a homosexual person than his or her sexuality. So was this particular line obviously crossed? Not from what I can tell; correct me if I'm wrong. Calling for an "end to homosexuality" by itself certainty doesn't give you the right to forcibly shut anyone up.

To deny people the right to express outrage/disapproval/disgust at other's behaviour on the grounds that it might offend them or be taken as somehow negating their whole humanity is absurd and dangerous - and inimical to freedom of expression.

Scott

It is no use Judges emphasising the importance of freedom of expression if they they then go on to outlaw it. The reporting of the case which you refer to is quite irrelevant. the final outcome is that freedom of speech has been curtailed!

Given that you dont seem to believe in freedom of speech why dont you give us alist of all the stements that you think should be banned

The reason that they call them slippery slopes is that they're sometimes very slippery.

The exact words on the placard which Mr Hammond held up, as reported by various media, were

'Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism.'

He did not call for an end to homosexuals, or lesbians, or immoral persons. He called for an end to their behaviours. If he had held up a sign saying 'Stop burglary' - would it have been reasonable to infer from that that he was suggesting that burglars should be killed?

Now, you can read these words to mean that he was inciting violence against others. I don't, but obviously, one could. And those who set about him obviously did.

But if you're going to limit free speech based upon what others reactions might be to opinions which are expressed which are not, in and of themselves, incitements to violence - then you are the top of a very slippery slope indeed.

If a Muslim cleric protests with a placard that reads 'Unbelievers are condemned to Hell, and the Holy Q'uran requires that they be killed' - as it indeed does - is that an incitement to violence? It may well be. Do you seriously believe that, in such a case, in present-day Britain, any action whatever would be taken against him? Muslim clerics who preach far more direct incitements to violence every day are protected by police escort, for heaven's sake!

What happened to Mr Hammond is that he expressed an opinion which is generally unpopular to the majority of the public. He did not incite violence - he expressed his religious opinion. Because his personal opinion is unpopular with the majority, he was blamed for the mayhem which resulted from his expression. In other words, his freedom of expression was modified to match the opinion of the majority. That slope is long, and has a coefficient of friction which approaches zero.

Of course there are legal limits to free expression. As the Supremes have held, for example, the right do speak freely does not extend to the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Nor to directly incite violence or law-breaking.

Does anyone seriously suggest that what Mr Hammond did even approaches that line?

Like I said - kiss your democracy goodbye. This and other cases demonstrate that a new offence is rapidly being created in the UK, namely, that of 'saying things, that many other people don't like to hear'. People's free speech rights are being chilled because the measure of whether their speech will be acceptable to the courts has now become 'how other people react to it'.

llater,

llamas

Simon,

Read my post carefully!!!

I said that the man in question should NOT have been prosecuted. I said that he should NOT have been physically attacked.

Calling for an 'end to homosexuality' is not the same as calling for an end to 'socialism/capitalism/globalism/communism/fascism'...

Why? Because homosexuals ARE defined by their homosexuality.

So...what does calling for an 'end to homosexuality' actually mean? Does it mean that all homosexuals should be 1) criminalised? 2) purged?..if they do not practice celibacy?

You see, it is not so easy to sepate 'sin' from 'sinner'.

Do you think that 'Kill Queers Now' should be permitted on a placard on the basis of freedom of speech?

I would argue that someone carrying such a placard should be arrested for incitement to violence.

What do you think? Or do you think that such a person should be allowed to carry such a placard?

Peter Tatchell said;

"There are good arguments in favour of broadening the incitement laws. Why should they be limited to race? What about other socially divisive hatreds? The scale of anti-gay violence is so great that legislative action is warranted - and long overdue. If incitement to hatred is going to be a crime, then surely all incitements to hatred should be crimes? It is unfair to have selective laws that criminalise hate crimes against one community but not others.

On the downside, there is an argument that freedom of speech is so precious that it must be protected at all costs against those who want to censor ideas and opinions. If you limit free speech, where do you start and stop? Who decides? Isn’t any judgement bound to be subjective?

My own view is that freedom of speech is such a fundamental human right, and so crucial to the preservation of an open society, that in order to maintain this freedom we sometimes have to put up with opinions that many of us find insulting. One of the litmus tests of a true democracy is the extent to which it is prepared to allow the expression of ideas that the majority find offensive. Having lived through the tail-end of the McCarthyite era, and nearly lost my job because of it, I know first hand what it is like to be on the receiving end of the thought police.

Don’t get me wrong. Homophobia stinks. I nevertheless feel obliged to defend the right of people to oppose and criticise homosexuality. They may be misguided and bigoted, but tolerating (though not accepting) their prejudice is a price we pay for living in a multicultural democracy.

My reluctant defence of the freedom to be homophobic is not merely theoretical. In 2002, I opposed the conviction of the Bournemouth lay preacher, Harry Hammond. He was found guilty, under public order legislation, for displaying a sign which read: “Stop Homosexuality!”. Sure, it was pure prejudice, and prejudice is wrong. But criminalising prejudiced opinions is a step too far. Where do you draw the line between legitimate robust criticism and illegitimate rank prejudice?

The only circumstance where there is a clearly valid case for limiting freedom of speech is when it involves inciting violence.

There are two forms of violent incitement that can be justifiably criminalised. The first involves the direct advocacy of assault and murder, which is what several reggae artists now appear to be doing. That should be illegal, full stop. The second is an indirect, but also dangerous, form of incitement. It involves the expression of prejudiced insults – not necessarily direct incitements to violence – in circumstances where they are likely to encourage an assault. If, for example, an angry homophobic mob has cornered a gay person in the street, and someone inflames the situation by shouting anti-gay abuse, then that abuse is tantamount to inciting violence and should also be a crime. Even if the abuse does not itself involve an explicit threat of violence, in those turbulent circumstances it could encourage the mob to attack the besieged gay man, thereby putting him in danger of assault – or worse. That, too, should be a crime.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences is currently considering whether to extend the laws against race hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred. Perhaps the Select Committee could also consider whether there is a case for comprehensive legislation against all forms of incitement to hatred – including hatred against lesbians and gay men?"

the full article is at http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/reggae.htm

In the thread on this site in response to 'The abandonment of marriage', "Frisbee" posted, 'To quote one Adolph Hitler, "God preserve us from the perverts (lesbians and gay men)!"'

We all know what happened to gay men in the concentration camps, so if this is not an incitement to violence, what is?

Llamas,

This is delicate balance - and to say kiss your democracy goodbye is a complete over-reaction.

Important tenets of democracy include secret ballots in general elections (and in the UK secret ballots before strike actions by unions) so that people can express their wishes free from intimidation.

To view democracy purely on the basis of whether people can express strongly held views in a public place is but one arbiter.

And to use the Harry Hammond case as an indicator of the nation's democratic integrity is OTT.

There has never been a carte blanche in Britain for people to stand on street corners and say whatever they like - it's necessary to visit Speakers' Corner in London for that priviledge.

My personal view is that when anyone (of whatever brand of fervour) stands in a public place and calls for death to anyone/anything then they are both abusing the freedom of speech and inciting these actions.

Harry Hammond did not do that and, I'll say it again - should not have been attacked nor prosecuted - but his comments were very offensive to homosexuals not just to 'homosexuality' (separating the 'sin' from the 'sinner' may be very easy for evangelicals but is far from easy for 'sinners')

llamas has hit the nail right on the head! It appears that Scott and David simply do not appreciate the real issue at stake here.

Kevin,

"It appears that Scott and David simply do not appreciate the real issue at stake here".

I think we do, very well, actually, Kevin.

Again: I do not think that Mr Hammond should have been prosecuted or attacked.

However, freedom of speech carries certain responsibilities and extreme words do not exist in a vacuum and they are sometimes used by those who - either themselves or through others - indulge in extreme action.

It is perhaps some people with a knee-jerk reaction against PC that would do well to consider these questions and finely balanced arguments a little more carefully rather than to always jump to the defence of a tiny minority of people who want to cause grave offense to other people - for whatever reason.

David

I appreciate your deeply held convictions. Like yourself I think issues through. I do not indulge in knee jerk reactions, my attitudes are well formed. It seems to me that you want to pick and chose what can and cant be said. I'd rather live in a free world. Free to say what I wanted to and free to be offended. We can not live in a utopia where all bad things are banished, consequently it is better to allow agreater degree amount of freedom which will allow for intellectual reddress.

Homosexuality is an obvious perversion (using an orifice designed for evacuation as if it were for procreation) the practice of which clearly spreads disease (AIDS, syphilis, et al.) and the advocacy of which is a danger to others.

Why not call for its end? Does modern democracy require I be in favour of spyrochetes, gonococci and viruses?

Kevin,

"It seems to me that you want to pick and chose what can and cant be said".

No way.

However, do you think that carrying banners stating 'Kill queers/jews' are a part of freedom of speech that should be allowed or not in a free society?

Try answering that specific question so that I understand whether you think there should be any limits to the freedom of speech (PS: no society has ever allowed total freedom of speech and it could actually be argued that total freedom of speech if exercised whenever and however by whoever would be a bigger danger to democracy than implementing a limit that would be acceptable to 99.5% of the people...).

David wrote:

'This is delicate balance - and to say kiss your democracy goodbye is a complete over-reaction.'

If it were just this case, then, yes, it would be an over-reaction. But it's not just this case.

Both in the criminal and in the commercial realm, a flood-tide of intolerance of certain opinions is sweeping the UK. Robert Kilroy-Silk says what he thinks about Arab culture, and is fired for saying it. A CofE cleric speaks his mind on church doctrine regarding homosexuality, and finds himself the subject of a criminal investigation. A countryside activist compares activism in support of hunting and shooting with activism in support of minority and gay rights, and spends a night in the cells for saying it (!). And the list goes on. There is a range of ideas and opinions - none of them incitements to violence or hatred - which it is now simply unwise to express in the UK, for fear of losing one's livelihood or one's liberty.

To be sure, a secret ballot is a bulwark of democracy. *But so is the free expression of ideas and opinions*. A secret ballot, however democratic, is meaningless if it exists in a climate where the chance to hear a range of opinions has been suppressed. You'll recall that Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il were re-elected by secret ballot with vast majorities - would you call those states 'democracies'?

HRH Prince Charles recently expressed his concerns about the world descending to a mass of nanotechnology 'grey goo'. He should be more concerned about the UK sinking into a mass of grey, unquestioned conformity of opinion, which is what these kinds of actions lead to. When it is forbidden to express ideas on the fringes of consensus, even though they be alarming and offensive to some, the people lose the ability to see where the fringes are. They may then be led by the nose to agree with any consensus which those controlling the expression of ideas want them to agree with. They may even vote for it, and with enthusiasm. But it's not democracy.

As Nat Henthoff has written, the cure for free speech is - more free speech. Not less.

llater,

llamas

Theodopoulos,

"Why not call for its end? Does modern democracy require I be in favour of spyrochetes, gonococci and viruses"?

No, no one is making you be in favour of anything - so please don't play the victim.

I don't agree with your generalisation about homosexuality either.

Both of us are free to express these opinions.

However, tell me something. Do you think that your opinions should give you the right to carry a banner saying or to stand on a street corner shouting "Kill Queers"?

Oh boy! Stand by for another blockbuster. Send for Reuben Chapple! I'm outa here. Give 'em the facts Reuben - just the facts.

David

You are confusing the issue again. Where someone incites an other to committ a crimminal act eg carrying a banner in a public place saying "Kill Queers" then I agree with you that this is beyond what is acceptable and therefore should be illegal(which it is). However the particular case which gave rise to this discussion does not fit this category.

Yes this man may have offended some people, but he did not incite anybody to committ a crimminal act and in that context his freedom of speech should be absoulte i.e 100%

"You forgot to mention the part of the ruling that reaffirmed that: "One has to bear in mind the cardinal importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society such as ours."

Well, it's a pity that the judges didn't apply that principal to the specific circumstances of this case then.

Llamas,

"Robert Kilroy-Silk says what he thinks about Arab culture, and is fired for saying it".

I certainly do not think his show should have been suspended for his remarks. However, my sympathy is limited. He is a chat-show host AND a taboid columnist. He knows about Auntie Beeb's sensitivities. It's a little like someone who works in marketing for Microsoft moonlighting over at Apple's marketing department. Neither would be pleased...and Auntie is clearly not amused. However, in typical heavy-handed style, she over-reacts and shoots herself in the foot almost guaranteeing 'poor' Mr KS loads of extra exposure and (no doubt) loads of lucrative offers to be a 'controversial' columnist or tabloid-TV host somewhere else.

Let's please not confuse him with a brave writer under the Soviet system destined for the gulag for criticizing the state.

At the end of the day freedom of speech is a very precious thing and it's important in democracies to protect it - except for a few incitements to hatred and murder, in my view.

However, part of what we are seeing on this thread is a reaction against the pendulum swinging away from the pre-1960s deferential society's views on what can or not be said in public towards a new minority-rights consciousness. The pendulum will probably swing back again in due course (I don't think your slippery slope is a downhill projectory - but is more like a valley with an uphill on the other side)

Frank,

"Oh boy! Stand by for another blockbuster. Send for Reuben Chapple! I'm outa here. Give 'em the facts Reuben - just the facts".

No comment (you see Frank how I can restrain my own freedom of speech when I know that the consequences of exercising it will be bombardment by 20,000 word dissertations....)

Please!!!

Spot the difference, David:

* Homosexuality - calling for it's end.

* Homosexuality - shouting "Kill Queers!"

Although not directly relevant to this case, perhaps it would be better if the law simply punished people for inciting others to commit crimes, rather than having a law as vague as "inciting racial hatred", and then trying to extend such a vague law to protect religious, sexual or other minorities.

The number of successful prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred has been very few over the years, and the sort of people who get prosecuted are obvious lunatics like the late Lady Birdwood.

Kevin,

"Yes this man may have offended some people, but he did not incite anybody to committ a crimminal act and in that context his freedom of speech should be absoulte i.e 100%"

Yes - but this case is a good example of what happens when the abstract argument in favour of free speech hits the imperfect reality of real-life situations of emotions that boil over and the police getting called and in which the law is then obliged to intervene and adjudicate. It is finely balanced. If a gay man were to stand outside a Catholic Church with a placard stating 'End Catholicism' this would in my view be 1) a rather silly way of trying to bring about the end of catholicism 2) likely to bring him into heated face-to-face exchanges with Catholics. If the police were called and told him to stop it because he was offending Catholics and warned him that if he continued he would be held (at least partially) responsible for what happened, he would hopefully think better of it and channel his anti-catholic church agenda in a different way. I would not feel much sympathy for him after such a warning, if he were prosecuted and found guilty of causing so much upset that he was threatenned and perhaps hit. I would also think that the law was also heavy-handed if it went ahead and charged him and he was found guilty.

However, I would conclude by saying 'what a foolish person and what an abuse of his freedom of speech' rather than to say that his case signalled the collapse of democracy!;-)

Theo...

"Spot the difference, David:

* Homosexuality - calling for it's end.

* Homosexuality - shouting "Kill Queers!"

I can spot the difference. I'm just interested to know where you think the line should be drawn in terms of freedom of speech.

I thought you might like to enlighten me - but you're free to decide...

David

The example you posit of a gay man displaying a placard outside a catholic church calling for a ban on catholicism is interseting. Yes some people may be offended, their reddress would be to enter into discussion with the protestor in order to lead to a better understanding of each others views.

If someone was so offended that they went up to the protestor and clobbered them, then quite clearly that would be an offence.

Surely commonsense will tell us when it is, or is not an appropriate time to air our opinions. However that should not detract from our absolute right to state them (and face the consequences)if we so chose)

Even more importantly I think that we have to learn as a society to get less hot under the collar about things we fundamentally dis agree with.

Theo,

unbelievable. Do you really exist? I'd be fascinated to read more of your beliefs, if they're as well thought out as that.

Oh, and Theo;

you can't endanger people by advocating homosexuality - you don't *catch* it, or *become* it, you either are, or are not - to claim advocating it is to claim, say, that advocating being a man is dangerous cos, gosh, it'll make women try and change into men. Which they won't, except in very specific circumstances which have nothing to do with any exposure to "advocacy".

Did you see the Simpsons last night (UK, that is), with Homer saying to Marge "did you catch Gay?". What was that, a documentary, or a satire on stupidity.

I fully accept your right to say what you like, of course, but you must then accept my concomitant right to rebut what you say.

Jake

David wrote:

'If a gay man were to stand outside a Catholic Church with a placard stating 'End Catholicism' this would in my view be 1) a rather silly way of trying to bring about the end of catholicism 2) likely to bring him into heated face-to-face exchanges with Catholics. If the police were called and told him to stop it because he was offending Catholics and warned him that if he continued he would be held (at least partially) responsible for what happened, he would hopefully think better of it and channel his anti-catholic church agenda in a different way. I would not feel much sympathy for him after such a warning, if he were prosecuted and found guilty of causing so much upset that he was threatenned and perhaps hit. I would also think that the law was also heavy-handed if it went ahead and charged him and he was found guilty.

However, I would conclude by saying 'what a foolish person and what an abuse of his freedom of speech' rather than to say that his case signalled the collapse of democracy!;-)'

Oh, I get it - he's allowed freedom of speech, as long as you don't think his opinions or his ways of expressing them are 'silly'. I see. If you don't agree with his opinions or his ways of expressing them, then what he's doing is 'an abuse of his freedom of speech'.

Does anyone seriously believe that a gay man peacefully protesting the Catholic church with a non-violent message would ever be arrested or charged with a public-order offence? Ever? Come on, now, look in your heart of hearts. You know it's not going to happen, because conformity of opinion has *already* become so pervasive that his opinion, and his right to express it, has now become more protected - in law, and in society - than other opinions. All opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others. . . . . If you don't believe me, take a look at what groups like ActUP do, every day.

Noone denies that what Mr Hammond did was probably a silly thing to do, and probably futile. But do we discount his free-speech rights, or those of others like him, because we think his message is marginal and unlikely to change anyone's opinions - least of all, the audience towards whom he directed it? Silliness and futility have now become grounds for arrest and conviction of a public-order offence?

It's worse than I thought . . . .

Not so very long ago, brandishing a placard that read 'Votes for Women', or 'Votes for Negroes', would have been way outside the mainstream of public opinion. It would very likely have incited a violent reaction. Would the person expressing that opinion have been 'silly', or 'abus(ing) his freedom of speech?'. Should they be charged with breach-of-the-peace?

Of course not! I hear you cry. The very idea! well, why is it OK for the state and the majority to pass judgement on an individual's ideas - to say that one is good, and we will permit it, and the other is not, and we will arrest you for saying it if anyone is offended by it?

If there is a public-order issue here, it is with the rabble who have so lost their self-control that they feel compelled to visit mayhem upon those who dare to disagree with them. And with the mentality that excuses their resort to violence, because, after all, we agree with their opinion. Democracy is all about protecting the right to express any opinion, and especially those opinions with which we disagree the most. If we do not do that, we allow the mob to rule. That may be your idea of deomcracy, but it's not mine.

llater,

llamas

Llamas

Once again your post hits the spot! Your logic is irrefutable and your heart in the right place.

Llamas,

You have misinterpreted my remarks!;-) the 'silly' comment was just my own subjective reaction and I did not then go on to say that 'silly' comments should be banned!

"Democracy is all about protecting the right to express any opinion, and especially those opinions with which we disagree the most".

So, I guess, as you do not do not think that any freedom of speech should be denied (no matter what is said), I guess you do not believe in any kind of censorship either? IE: people may publish and distribute whatever they like wherever they like (including hard core porn)?

llamas

"HRH Prince Charles recently expressed his concerns about the world descending to a mass of nanotechnology 'grey goo'."

If you persevere with this thread you may become inundated with 'gay poo', I'm afraid. But it was inevitable given Melanie's kick off. Such items trigger an alarm bell in the Brussels/Bruxelle/Brussel gay tranzi (thanks Caroline) Five-Minute-Warning centre. "Hetero Attack! Hetero Attack! the p.a. voice intones.

David has a greasy pole down into the blog basement. LOL. You're beautiful, David! Always on call. Blog on, baby.

David

Perhaps I should quote Dick Emery from his skit in drag, " Ooooh, you are awwwful ... but I laike yew!

Frank, Frank...Frank,

I don't know what to say...what ARE you ingesting at the moment?;-)

David wrote (at me):

'So, I guess, as you do not do not think that any freedom of speech should be denied (no matter what is said), I guess you do not believe in any kind of censorship either? IE: people may publish and distribute whatever they like wherever they like (including hard core porn)?"

Nice strawman. I never said that. If you look further up the page, you'll see where I discuss the legitimate limits on free speech, which would include active incitement to violence, incitement to law-breaking which goes beyond the merely-rhetorical, and other limits. These are reasonable, justifiable, well-understood and well-established.

I knew, of course, that the porn example would come up sooner or later. Unlike the US Supreme Court, I do not think that hard-core porn (define that for me, if you would) is something which should be permitted to be freely distributed whenever and wherever. There is a legitimate and compelling state interest in restricting that sort of material - because of the potential that it has to corrupt and deprave, especially children. However, such restrictions should be narrowly-crafted and specific to that interest. The only reason that I would accept such restrictions is that porn - generally speaking - is not merely an expression of opinion, whose only offence may be to offend the sensibilities of others. It may have the potential to do active harm by its mere presence. I liken it to the example of shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

That being said, I would not be in favour of any restrictions on the free distribution of porn (as hard as you like) between consenting adults. It's not my thing, and probably not yours either, I'm guessing, but neither you nor I get to decide what other people should or should not read, see or hear. From that, you can probably figure out for yourself that I don't think that the state has any business whatever in restricting any peaceful expression whatever of any opinion whatever on any subject whatever.

Furthermore, I think it is part of the duty of the state to protect any person in their peaceful expression of any opinion they wish to express. So long as a person does not actively incite violence or law-breaking (beyond the merely rhetorical) let them say whatever they like. The only offence is if someone tries to prevent them from doing so, and that offence should be prevented if it can be and punished if it cannot.

llater,

llamas

Llamas,

"the legitimate limits on free speech, which would include active incitement to violence, incitement to law-breaking which goes beyond the merely-rhetorical, and other limits. These are reasonable, justifiable, well-understood and well-established".

We agree that free speech is precious and that there should be only very limited exceptions to the principle of complete freedom of speech.

Where we disagree is only on the effects of some of the current incursions to freedom of speech of which the Harry Hammond case was one. I think you view this as a more serious threat to democracy than I do.

Please do not misinterpret my probings as being anything other than trying to understand in more depth the substance and basis for your views.

I was genuinely interested and wanted to see whether your views were consistent (which is why I asked about your views on censorship - which do broadly reflect mine).

Thanks for answering so fully and with such logic.

To clarify my position on "speech", I like the distinction often cited in legal opinions about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. In other words, speech should be foreclosed when it's both untrue and intended to cause harm to others. Otherwise, so far as I'm concerned, anything should be permitted speech.

Homosexual sexual acts are obviously hazardous to one's health. Those who engage in this risky behaviour should be quarantined more certainly than those infected with SARS.

St. Paul wrote that men treating men like women "will receive the penalty in their bodies," and, lo, it has come to pass.

Mr. Hammond should get a CBE for giving sound advice to the community.

David - you're welcome. Back at you.

Justice Holmes' dictum in Schenk vs US (1919) regarding 'crying 'Fire' in a crowded theatre' is indeed a very well-turned example, but it in its turn illustrates the perilous minefield that free speech can become, and why it is vital to democracy that we are ever-vigilant against any unwarranted infringment.

On its face, it makes perfect sense. But consider the implications. What of a person who institutes an unannounced fire drill in a crowded building, in the full knowledge that there is no fire? His purpose is to test evacuation procedures, themselves designed to save life and injury, and so is actually quite laudable.

What this illustrates is that free speech rights must always be conditioned, to a greater or lesser degree, by context, and, as with any right that is nearly-absolute, the user has also the responsibility to use it in ways appropriate to the context. For example, a strong opinion on this matter or that which is printed in a newspaper, may be a very different matter than the exact same opinion expressed before a highly-partisan crowd. The one is most likely to be read in a context of calm and taken for what it is worth. The other may be a strong incentive to violent action. Context may well be critical. That's why we have judges, and they usually do a good job. But the problem comes, of course, when decisions are taken by bureaucrats, who seek always a bright-line rule which avoids their having to think. Such was the case with Mr Hammond. The police, or the CPS, looked at his case in terms of a rigid formula. 'He expressed a divergent opinion. The crowd attacked him. He is at fault. Prosecute him.'

The danger arises when the courts start to think this way - as, indeed, did the appeals court in this case. The judges should be ashamed of themselves. They are supposed to be vigilant guardians of individual liberties - instead, they chose the path of popular opinion and a simple formula.

One other point I wanted to add was the other side of the coin - that free speech also includes, just as strongly, the right to be silent, according to the dictates of the individual conscience. For that reason, I oppose with equal fervour attempts to make people support (by enforced compliance or by the use of eg their tax monies) the expression of opinion which does not accord with their conscience. This becomes a problem most often in matters where the state becomes involved with religion, another area where it has very little business but, often, far too much interest.

llater,

llamas

What if a street preacher thinks God has told him to hold up a sign saying "stop immorality - stop Jewishness - stop homosexuality"? Suddenly it's not so funny. We are rightly sensitive to anti-semitism because of the tragedy of the holocaust, and because of the very reasonable belief that even low-level anti-semitism is intolerable, is following in the Nazis' footsteps, and poses the danger of escalation. Yet Hitler also persecuted homosexuals; and my guess is that (in the UK) there are many more homophobic assaults than anti-semitic ones. Why shouldn't we stigmatise homophobia in the same way that we do antisemitism?

What would I do if I saw a placard such as Mr Hammond's? Assuming that it was a lone protest (and not a weekly procession by the Klan) I would pity the preacher. I would wonder about his state of mental health.

I find myself wanting to agree with the remarks attributed above to Peter Tatchell - that occasionally being offended is a small price to pay in return for the privilege of free speech. But what if the local branch of the Klan held a permanent vigil with offensive placards, that I had to walk past every day? What if the purpose of the "protest" is neither to impart ideas, nor to incite violence, but to create a climate hostile to some group or other? That's a part of free speech that I don't want.

So in the end I have to agree with the present law. I am glad that Mr Hammond's banner was found to be breaking the law; but I think it was unnecessary to prosecute him unless his peculiar protest was a regular habit.

Well, whether homosexual practices are right or wrong is a legitimate subject for debate. To me, it would be no different from a preacher holding up a banner saying "stop adultery", or "stop fornication" or "stop Sunday trading".

WRT "Stop Jewishness" I suppose it would depend on context. If he was urging people to attack Jews, that would be unacceptable. If he was urging Jews to turn away from what he considered to be the sin of rejecting Christ, then I believe that such a protest ought to be allowed.

KJN,

A really good, cogent post.

Sean,

You either believe in freedom of speech per se on an equal basis for all (with a few exceptions relating to direct incitement to violence etc) or you do not.

If you believe that someone can hold a poster saying 'Stop homosexuality' why do you not think that someone should be able to hold up a poster stating 'Stop Jewishness'?

If you think that exceptions can be made because one group is 'more equal than others' then that is also Orwellian, isn't it?

Theo,

"Homosexual sexual acts are obviously hazardous to one's health".

Like certain men of a certain type (perhaps in your case because of the fall of Greek civilization?) you just cannot comprehend that homosexuals can indulge in much of the same loving intimacies as can heterosexuals (ie kissing, embracing etc) so you lump together all homosexual activity - no matter whether it is monogamous, involves condoms or is wildly promiscuous and dangerous - into one box neatly labelled 'homosexual acts'. How small-minded you are!

"Those who engage in this risky behaviour should be quarantined more certainly than those infected with SARS".

And, then, you take a jump in logic based on your misunderstanding and mis-labelling of the said behaviour to state that homosexuals with sex lives should be quarantined.

But, AIDS is not an airborne virus, Theo, and, unless you are going to indulge in swapping of body fluids with someone who has it, you will never be at risk of catching it.

So, you are free to say what you want (though you stop short of calling for gays to be put to death rather than just imprisonned) as you have done here. And, I am free to reply...

I presume you do believe that gays too should have freedom of speech, from their prison cells or elsewhere, do you?

Frank,

"If you persevere with this thread you may become inundated with 'gay poo', I'm afraid".

Open your eyes and read - the 'poo' on this site in relation to homosexuality nearly always flies in one direction - and it is rarely the gay participants who fling it (unless severely provoked) - and, anyway, isn't this just part of 'freedom of expression' - the topic under discussion?

"But it was inevitable given Melanie's kick off".

That's tautological Frank - if someone posts an article about freedom of speech, the law, and homosexuality, then, well, surprise surprise, homosexuals are going to contribute to the debate. If we do, then we're usually quickly castigated for daring to speak and characterised - no matter how mild or insightful some of our comments acutally are - as being 'gay radicals' who support positive discrimination and work in state departments charged with monitoring people's thoughts for political correctness. What utter nonsense! Some 'poo' is usually thrown in too (thankfully by only a very small minority of the participants on this site who are always male and never female...I wonder why that is, Frank, clearly a phenomenon worthy of some independent research don't you think?)

"Perhaps I should quote Dick Emery from his skit in drag, " Ooooh, you are awwwful ... but I laike yew!"

Well, dear Frank, this is hardly a surprise for those of us used to your 'sense of humour' (Ho Ho Ho). Have you ever thought of applying it to a lucrative career in show business? I'm sure that current demographics and viewing patterns in western countries are right for a new quiz show...let's call it 'Bait-A-Gay'...it could be run on the 'Weakest Link' format with a stern-looking intolerant host with a good track record in being very manly and proud of not liking gay things...trouble is the gay contestants would eat someone like that for breakfast...with some truly great put-downs that would expose the host for what he really was! Hilarious!! Bring it on!!!;-)

I didn't explain myself well. In general, I believe that someone should have the right to hold up a poster saying "Stop Jewishness". If that person is advocating violence against Jews, then such a protest should be illegal.

Spot the difference, David:

- quarantine
- prison

But, to answer your question, in my opinion everyone - including homosexuals - should be guaranteed the right to free speech.

The AIDS virus is not, as you point out, airborne. It is transmitted by conventional, if perverted, sexual practise. It is spread by those practises and by needle swapping among the infected. To ignore this for any reason is a clear danger to public health; as clear as the danger inherent with any other highly infectious disease.

Sean,

I would be interested in knowing Melanie's views on this. How would she have responded if the banner had said 'Stop Jewishness' and the holder of that banner had been prosecuted just as Harry Hammond was.

Would she still have typed the words: "What do these judges think 'legitimate' protest is, if not displaying a poster which merely causes offence?"

I somehow doubt it...

Well, I'm sure that Melanie Philips can answer for herself.

I don't quite adopt an absolutist position in free speech cases. I would always take into account the background circumstances in which someone was making the allegedly offending statmenet. Ordinarily,if someone were to stand in a town centre holding up a poster saying "Stop Jewishness" then I don't think such behaviour should be an offence. If an anti-Jewish riot was taking place OTOH, and someone marched around with a placard saying "Stop Jewishness", then I think it would be sensible to arrest that person on public order grounds.

WRT the Hammond case, I think the law was misapplied here. OTOH, if you had a British equivalent of Fred Phelps turning up at the funeral of someone who had died of AIDS waving placards saying "AIDS cures fags" and chanting abuse at the mourners, I think his removal, and if necessary, prosecution on public order grounds would be justified.

Sean,

I'm sure she can too. The point I was making was purely that some people make light of the offence caused to some minority groups by placards stating 'Stop X' whilst not treating with such levity placards stating 'Stop Y' if 'Y' happens to be their own minority group.

"If you had a British equivalent of Fred Phelps turning up at the funeral of someone who had died of AIDS waving placards saying "AIDS cures fags" and chanting abuse at the mourners, I think his removal, and if necessary, prosecution on public order grounds would be justified"

Oh, that Fred Phelps. The one who until recently (in my memory serves me correctly) had a photograph of the late young gay man, Matthew Sheppard (who was beaten and left to die in the snow strung from a fence by his attackers who did not understand the niceties of freedom of speech) with the words...'Now buring in hell' underneath. THAT Fred Phelps? Yes, I would agree that someone like him shouting abuse at mourners at a funeral of a loved one should be removed by the police.

Sean,

I should have said 'Fred Phelps...who had a photograph...of Matthew Shepphard...on his website'...typos!!

Theo,

I think that your comments are a good example of Gresham's law (which you cited - correct me if I'm wrong - on this site) in practice.

Thanks for providing such excellent examples of seeing this law in practice.;-)

Theodopolous Pherecydes: "It is transmitted by conventional, if perverted, sexual practise (sic)."

I didn't realise that heterosexual, vaginal intercourse was perverted. Perhaps that method of transmitting the HIV virus passed Theo by.

There seems to be lot of talk here to simply say that free speech is free speech full stop - no ifs no buts. I've heard some individuals say that with free speech comes a duty of responsibility to think about what you say and who it affects. NO. The listeners are the ones with responsibility for their responses, not the speaker. It may not be pleasant sometimes but that is democracy. It is not difficult or complicated. That's why democracy, like football, is so popular - the rules are simple and any fool can understand them. The UK needs more fools and less PC idiots.

Derek - while I understand what you say, I cannot agree. Every great natural right comes with some responsibilities attached to its use.

Lord knows, I agree with you that merely being offensive to people's sensibilities is no reason to restrict free expression. But there comes a point where merely offending crosses the line and becomes a positive incitement to disorder. The law reasonably recognizes that people can act, in the heat of the moment and under great provocation, in ways that they would not in calmer moments. I think the law must also recognize that there comes a point when expression is no longer about the expression of opinions, but merely becomes an attempt at provocation whose purpose is no longer to inform, debate or express ideas, but is merely to obtain a violent result.

The example was given, above, of a person like the vicious and loathsome Fred Phelps attempting to express his anti-gay message at the funeral of an AIDS victim. If he wants to express his message along the cortege route, in public, then that's probably merely offensive. If he tries to intrude into a private gathering - at the funeral home, or at the cemetery, for example - it would seem that his only intent is to attempt to provoke a violent reaction in an emotionally-charged situation. The concept of 'fighting words' comes into play - expressions which have the overwhelming purpose of provocation.

Or we might consider the example, as has been seen in the US, of an activist group that sets up shop in a residential neighbourhood and proceeds to put a PA system on the roof and blast its activist message across the rooftops at full volume at all hours of the day and night. It is free expression, to be sure, but it would be so offensive to a reasonable man that it should probably be restricted. As I tried to discuss above, free expression also includes the right to be free of unwanted expression - to not be forced to submit to someone else's expression without a reasonable option to avoid it.

If you don't like what's on TV, you can change the channel. If you don't like the message of a book, you can put it down. If a handbill or a public speaker offends you, you can toss it in the trash or turn away. But if an expression intrudes into the reasonable conduct of your daily life to such an extent that you cannot reasonably avoid it, then I think there is cause for restriction.

Your thoughts, if you please.

llater,

llamas

Llamas,

Wise words! I don't have anything to add as you seem to have covered well the importance of freedom of expression and the limited exceptions to the principle. The law was an ass getting involved in the case of Harry Hammond. An ass because he was merely expressing his opinions (which would be grossly offensive to some homosexuals or seen as 'sad' or 'laughable' by other homosexuals) and the law's involvement had 'unintended consequences' - it turned Mr Hammond from a placard-carrier into a kind of martyr, it gave the tabloids the chance to blow it out of proportion and to write some stories indicating that gays were now priviledged in terms of the protection of their feelings (although the Harry Hammond case, is, I believe, unique in the UK in a homosexual context). It also undermined the principle of freedom of speech because - and I only speculate here because I don't know the facts - some members of minority groups have a calculated (or sometimes just irrepressible) response to provocation and over-react.

Derek,

But do you think there should never be ANY limits (that could be fairly applied across the board to everyone - regardless of their minority group affiliation?)...what about where a group of people turn up outside someone's home with placards and shouting at that person because they do not like that person's presence in their community because he/she might be something they don't like (whether the person is an evangelist, a gay activist, or holds extreme political views is surely irrelevant). And, what about Llamas's point about people invading a graveyard during a funeral and shouting abuse at the family of someone who is being buried (again, regardless of what the person has done or is)? Surely this is not acceptable either?

Don't you think that the right to freedom of speech has to be balanced by a few exceptions of this type just to ensure that it actually is freedom of speech that is being exercised and not an intention to provoke or incite crime?

THere is also the right to privacy - should people be able to stand on a pavement (a public place) and interfere by shouting with a funeral ceremony or someone's private home life?

Surely making these provisos is not PC but just ensuring that there are proper checks and balances in place to ensure that all precious freedoms in a democracy are protected?

Dear all,

I don't equate your points with freedom of speech. To invade a private gathering or stand outside someones house and then be offensive has little to do with free speech, but more to do with free action. We do not have free action and in the cases cited these would be, quite rightly, public order offences - the difficulty not brought about by free speech but free action. Similarly, to set up a loudspeaker and blast your offensive views at a neighbourhood at all hours is 'disturbing the piece'. Even a fellow activist living in the area would call the police to have you arrested because of the noise not the content. What you all seem to be doing is adding an additional action to free speech to say that free speech should have limits. I don't agree with this as free speech stands alone. You cannot say, 'but what if you said this and in addition.....'. The 'in addition' stands alone and is judged. I don't think free speech without limits is ideal by any means but anything else is I think unworkable. I'm sorry if I'm not expressing myself too well here but I've got work to get on with.

The CONTENT of speech (or writings) should never be in question, only the manner, time and place of its expression; It's not what you say, it's how, that should determine whether illegal or not. Everyone should have an absolute right to say and think absolutely anything they wish (including incitements to commit crime--otherwise, many religious documents would be illegal today. And many globalization/Bush/U.S. protesters could be arrested before they climb on the bus to the rally. However, should these incitements result in more robust scrutiny by the authorities; c'est la vie.), but proscriptions on how, when and where public expression takes place have to be intelligently and reasonably crafted (ie; no blaring loud-speakers/midnight phone calls/violent or destructive behaviour, etc.).

Further, legally defining "offensive" is, like defining "smutty" or "vulgar", a very difficult exercise. Surely homosexuals realize that their very existence is considered "offensive" to many, never mind their advocacy. Likewise are Christians, Jews, Muslims, judges, Blacks, men, women, cops, lollipop men, etc. Everyone is hated by someone. Hate and its expression cannot be illegal, any more than "giving offense" can. The idea of outlawing "hate" is absurd and, yes, Orwellian.

As to the Hubbard case: It should not be a crime to get others so angry that they attack you, only if you get others so angry that they attack a target of your choosing. Hubbard did nothing wrong by peacefully expressing an opinion in public. Those offended by his opinion committed the crime by their unreasonable over-reaction. Were any of them charged?

(Incidentally, vaginally transmitted AIDS can only happen if the woman has a ruptured uterus or a bleeding vulva. Few, if any, cases of heterosexual AIDS through normal coitus, have been reported. Men cannot contract AIDS from normal coitus unless both the woman and the man have ruptured genitals. It is today, in the West, as it always has been, a desease primarily afflicting homosexuals and IV-drug users. It could be eliminated overnight if people chose not to indulge in these unsafe activities.)

Apparently my comments have not yet led to action based on the Blogger Corollary to Gresham's Law. Wonder why?

Perhaps because my points are obvious and true. It's all very well to say that AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual intercourse but it only takes a small amount of research to reveal that it was introduced and spread by the grotesque, hedonistic promiscuity in the homosexual bath houses of San Francisco, New York and other gardens of paradise.

Mr. Hammond's public display was only common sense related to public health. End homosexuality is only a start, though, now that the disease is embedded - thanks to anal intercourse among men.

I realise scripture is anathema to the gay lobby, but everyone should be impressed by the prescience of Romans 1:27. Read it and weep.

Of course, that doesn't recognise the fact that the worst area of the world for HIV infection at the moment is, in fact, Africa, where it is spread through unprotected heterosexual sex.

Derek - I understand where you may have difficulty expressing what you are trying to say.

It may help to consider that free speech, to be meaningful in any real way, must *always* have a form of action attached to it. It cannot exist in isolation, as a concept - it must always have a tangible, effective mode of application. Otherwise, it is no more than free thought.

Whether it be to say what you think out loud, or to print it in a book, or to plaster it on a billboard, or to broadcast it through the aether - if it is to be speech, and is to be free, it must be expressible, and that requires a mode of expression. Free speech means nothing if you're only allowed to talk to yourself.

I think you are trying to say that the content of speech should be always free, and that the only restriction that may be placed upon it is on the necessarily-associated mode of expression.

The difficulty comes in separating the content from the mode of expression, and this is where great minds have struggled for a long time - to sanction only the objectionable parts of the mode of expression without appearing to (or actually) sanctioning the content itself. It is the difference between being offensive (I don't like your message) and restricting the rights of others (I can't sleep because of the noise of your message). This can get awfully fuzzy. The bright line, I guess, is that restrictions on mode of expression must address a real and proximate restriction on the rights of others, and be narrowly-tailored to correct that restriction only.

Coming back to the hapless Mr Hammond. His speech was an expression of pure opinion. His mode of expression was peaceful and not disruptive of the rights of others. Those offended by his message had the option to turn away, and were not otherwise hindered in any way by it.

The suggestion that he was at fault for the mayhem that followed, and should be punished for it, is both laughable and sinister. If the police did anything, they should have stepped in to restore order and protect him - the peaceful, non-disruptive expresser of his opinion - from the rabble.

Further up the page, I was taken to task for suggesting that this and cases like it signal the beginnings of the death of democracy. When the forces of law and order side with the violent rabble and against the peacable individual - how do you suppose that bodes for the future of democracy?

llater,

llamas

BeefQueen,

Sorry, but AIDS in Africa is being spread primarily through anal intercourse, even amongst heterosexuals, not penile/vaginal sex.

Llamas,

"When the forces of law and order side with the violent rabble and against the peacable individual - how do you suppose that bodes for the future of democracy?"

I agree with everything you say in your well-argued posts - except on the conjecture you make about the implications of the Hammond case for future of democracy which I think you are exagerating. This really was (correct me if I'm wrong) a very rare and unusual case. If cases like the Hammond case became the norm, I would agree, that they posed a danger. However, parts of the British media sometimes report cases like the Hammond case as if they are part of some huge PC conspiracy that intervenes with the everday rights to freedom of speech enjoyed by citizens in the UK of all political persuasions. I think that this type of mis-reporting (and the everday simplifation and fabrication by parts of the UK tabloid press) is actually more dangerous to the future of democracy than a thankfully isolated case like the Hammond one. THat's my view - you may well disagree with it. Look forward to further discussion of it sometime in the future.

David - your points are well-taken.

I guess I would feel much more comfortable for the future if I saw positive action being taken to right the obvious wrong done to Mr Hammond. Overturning his conviction would be a damned good start, followed by a civil action for false arrest and imprisonment. Instead of which, the appeals court affirmed his conviction. If his case truly is 'rare and unusual' as you say, all the more reason to aggressively correct the injustice - if nothing else, to teach the police to be a bit more bloody careful about who they arrest, and the (especially) CPS about who they charge. As it stands, the precedent has now been put in place, and the police will have justification for arresting and charging others who express themselves in similar ways. The slope has been greased . . . .

llater,

llamas

A word of advice to anyone thinking of responding to Theodopolous' posts - don't! Just ignore him. This thread is about freedom of speech and PC. Theo will hijack you all into responding to his inflammatory comments about gay men etc and the real argument will get side-lined as it has on other threads.

I'm pretty appalled that in the course of this long thread no-one has mentioned (so far as I can see) that this man Mr Hammond is dead. Why is that important? Well, someone (widow, children or church or all three, I imagine) is obviously trying to clear his name. What is clear is that being convicted in this way was a slur on his character that someone is trying to erase posthumously. Perhaps it was the stress of the incident and the court case that led to his death at the age of about 69.

Another thing no-one has mentioned is that fact that for someone of his age things which might seem to us- assuming that most of us are younger than Mr Hammond, and many of us greatly younger- normal parts of modern society, were innovatory to Mr Hammond. I know an old lady who didn't know the word 'Lesbian', or what it meant, until she suggested to a girlfriend they revise for a college exam while they lay in bed together- she was in her twenties at the time. Such people are, through no fault of their own that I would swear to, at a disadvantage when they try and engage with modern trends.

What this case seems to me to pivot around is the importance and interpetation we give to language. For Mr Hammond, 'homosexuality' was a term expressing a particularly modern form of immorality (ok, maybe Mr Hammond should have read his Greek literature, but apart from little bits of the New Testament I'm willing to bet he hadn't). Note that he also condemns 'immorality', which I take to mean 'ordinary' promiscuity or adultery. He didn't consider, therefore, that when using the term 'homosexuality' he was condemning a type of person, but a type of behaviour- just as immorality is a (disputable) type of behaviour. The analogy to Jewishness in today's (and yesterday's) understanding just will not hold up: a much better comparison would be another type of behaviour, for example foxhunting, which is an activity in which we may or may not engage as we see fit (though many want to ban it).

At the moment the notion that a homosexual is as determinate as a Jew is not an accepted starting point, though many people would appear to like it to be. Mr Hammond was insensitively treated and wrongly convicted- and he's dead now, whatever stupidity he could be accused of. In my view the law should not be convicting people of stupidity- merely badness of one sort or another. Poor Mr Hammond- assaulted by the crowd and then by the Law, much like the man he aspired to emulate.

Eddie,

"I'm pretty appalled that in the course of this long thread no-one has mentioned (so far as I can see) that this man Mr Hammond is dead".

I was not aware of that - and I guess that most other posters weren't either.

"The analogy to Jewishness in today's (and yesterday's) understanding just will not hold up"

It does hold up in the context in which it was raised - namely: whether the principe of freedom of expression should be treated equally under the law regardless of the identity of the target (ie homosexual, fox hunter, Jew) of an offensive written or spoken word. One may, at a personal level, has different levels of tolerance for different activities but the question is whether the law should reflect these or be neutral. There is a consensus on this thread that freedom of expression is a very precious principle - a cornerstone of democracy - that all should have their's protected unless it incites or provokes crime. That consensus and the generally moderate and unoffensive ways in which the posters have communicates with eachother are, in my view, very welcome.

Finally, I am personally sadenned about the way Mr Hammond was treated and wish the police had charged the person(s) who assaulted him.

Matt,

"A word of advice to anyone thinking of responding to Theodopolous' posts"

You are right in one sense - although it is possible to reply answer T's posts with posts that refer directly back to the issue in hand - that of freedom of speech. In other words, one need not necessarily fall into the trap that I have concluded that his posts set, namely, to try to lure 'gay activists' into pouncing on offensive comments and trying to censor the freedom of speech being exercised. If that indeed is his strategy it has failed - just witness the comments that have actually been posted on this - largely constructive and well-argued - thread.

But your point is well made and I will almost certainly try to improve my own communications skills - by just ignoring T's comments unless they are well-argued and contribute directly to the discussion in hand.

My posts are not intended to "lure gay activists" into anything other than a realisation that Mr. Hammond's protest regarding stopping homosexuality was rational when one considers the public health issues.

The court has imposed a "heckler's veto" on Mr. Hammond (post mortem) and this is a great shame on the nation for it is the gay activist who represents a threat to public health, not Mr. Hammond dead or alive.

Theo,

I've already made my views abundantly clear.

Have a nice day!

Theo P

So there!

It seems David is still trying to recuperate from the onslaught by Reuben Chapple on the 'abandonment of marriage thread' which started on 26th November and, I would guess, is still in progress. I couldn't stand the blood in the end, so I pulled out - even I can get squeamish at a certain point. It was Big Bertha against a pea-shooter and the resultant psychological damage was awful to witness. A bit like the Road to Basra in the first Gulf War. The only difference being that, unlike Storming Norman, Reuben will not withdraw. And neither should you. Though flogging a dead Trojan filly is often pointless, it's the enemy lurking in the belly of his sometimes seemingly innocuos posts that needs to be constantly addressed. David is a proseltysing gay and an insidious one, to boot. And his constant ploy of "Oooo, ignore them, Matt, and perhaps they'll go away" (or whoever he is cosying up to at any given time within the thread into which he is insuating the gay agenda) - is a fair indication of the sad emptiness of his arguments. I recommend kindly tolerance, but never capitulation. Pink goo (as opposed to Princes Charles's "Grey poo" or the aforementioned "gay poo") is oozing into Western Civilation like the Blob in the old horror B movie. It is a highly dangerous substance, not just another life style as David and his chums would try to have us believe. He may not have made his views abundantly clear, as he asserts that he has in his last post, because that is impossible. But his agenda is limpid.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, Mr. Pulley.

I believe the social tide is turning away from the intellectual and moral vacuity of The Sixties. No one should be a bit afraid of telling the truth, and the truth is an avalanche of ridicule is beginning to engulf the moral relativists.

I think that, as surely as the picture of the three marines raising the American flag over Iwo Jima symbolized victory over the deep changes wrought by the Second World War, the photograph of Michael Jackson atop his car, thrusting his pelvis before his sycophants shortly after being indicted for child abuse will mark the beginning of a new day in the Anglosphere. A condom of social approbation will unroll on things like Gay Pride parades and the stupidly obscene language of television and other media, but there will be no suppression of speech; only multitudes of people who like Hammond, but perhaps for more scientific reasons, believe licentiouness is evil.

Frank,

...and your considered comments in response to the subject of this thread are...?...none, it would appear...

Frank,

"David is a proseltysing gay and an insidious one, to boot"

And you are silly old buffoon who is lazy about reading what people actually post and does not engage his grey matter before typing facetious and personal comments that nearly always miss their target by a mile and serve to reinforce the image of said buffoonery.

When you finally express something with which it is actually possible to have some kind of intelligent discourse, I may well attempt so to do.

However, waiting for that will probably be like waiting for Godot.....

I've never complained about buffoonery, David. That will never damage the species. It's buggery that Mr Pherycedes objects to and I was merely supporting that point of view. We are both trying to ensure that "free speech" enables us to say that. And in the posting to which you refer, I wasn't writing to you, I was writing about you, so I agree there is no further need for discourse, intelligent or otherwise, unless you so choose. And you will, Oscar, you will ...

Frank,

Freedom of speech? You ARE FREE...haven't you grasped that yet? You've been reading too many tabloids that give the impression that you can't express your bigotry and buffonery - but you are free to, Frank...as your daily postings show...

One day someone (unfortunately not Melanie, I guess) will write about chaps like you who imagined they were not free...you know, the golfing types who complain loudly at the 19th hole about the 'buggers taking over' etc etc...and 'of course you can't THAT any more' (having just said it)....

You are free also to post inaccuracies ('gay activist David') and ignore that my postings are fairly consistent with the Daily Telegraph...haven't answered that one, have you, Frank? I wonder why?...

You really are a buffoon...harmless I guess...but laughable nevertheless...

Just keep on with your silly own goals Frank...they're entertaining in a black kind of way....

But, just once in a while, do try to add something intelligent to a thread rather than trying to ingratiate yourself with your cleverer pals on here...;-)

Theo,

"The court has imposed a "heckler's veto" on Mr. Hammond"...

It was a mistake I agree..but is not binding on other judges who are free not to apply this precedent in other cases.

It is not therefore part of a slippery slope as some have suggested but a one-off incident in relation to freedom of expression by someone who opposed homosexuality and chose to do so with a placard stating 'Stop Homosexuality!'...

It would only be a slippery slope if other judges followed the precedent and started to convict other people for expressing similar sentiments.

Can you cite any other cases that have occured in the two years that have elapsed since Mr Hammond's conviction?

No...I thought not...so, it was a very rare case.

I can't think of any off-hand, David, and I'm not inclined to go Googling. Clearly there should be more protests like Hammond's aimed at stopping homosexuality. There should be protest, for example, over the recent 37% rise in HIV infections in Switzerland. Switzerland!

Life style choice? Public health hazard is more like it.

Sorry, that should be "37% rise in HIV infections among homosexual men..."

http://www.nzz.ch/2004/01/18/english/page.synd4642496.html

Oh dear...sorry again. Should be:

http://www.nzz.ch/2004/01/18/english/page-synd4642496.html

Theo,

you have lost me....how exactly do your posts relate to the diary entry on freedom of expression posted by Melanie?

we have established that the poor Mr Hammond's case was rare if not unique.

you are exercising your freedom of expression by informing posters on this thread of an increase in HIV among homosexuals in Switzerland.

you think there should be a protest in Switzerland against this and presumably if you wish you can fly to Switzerland and participate in some kind of individual or collective protest in which you hold banners stating your dislike of homosexuality.

All free expression activities in which you can presumably partake.

Now, what exactly is your POINT?

eddie -

Thank you for this insight into Mr Hammond's likely thinking.

I did not mean to suggest that Mr Hammond himself would have said "stop Jewishness": merely that "stop Jewishness" is an example of the offensive expression that we would be inviting, if we accepted the excuse of "religious expression" offered by Mr Hammond.

If Mr Hammond's legal team had won the argument that freedom of religious expression entitled him to hold up his sign, then, unfortunately, anyone would be entitled to hold up whatever sign they liked, with the defence that God had told them to do it.

Even if the courts imposed a strict test of scriptural justification, a "religious expression" defence would give Christians and Jews the right to hold up a sign saying "kill all witches". To most of us in 21st-century Britain, this statement would appear both bizarre and harmless; but there are still plenty of countries around the world where this kind of talk is deadly serious. There are probably hundreds of thousands of former citizens of those countries who now live in Britain; plus our homegrown evangelical community, many of whom are firm believers in the reality of witchcraft. So I don't think encouragement to kill witches would in fact be harmless, even in the UK.

So I am glad that the courts rejected the "religious expression" defence. I don't want people to be able to use this as an excuse to say and do things that would otherwise be unacceptable.

And it goes without saying that the mindless thugs who attacked Mr Hammond, instead of laughing at him, or looking away, should have been prosecuted for common assault at the very least.

If Mr Hammond's protest was just a one-off, I am sorry that he was prosecuted. He was insensitively treated, even though his conviction was right in law. We expect our police to deal with such an offence decently and sensitively, perhaps asking the person whether they realise they are breaking the law, and warning them to stop. I suspect that in nearly all cases (except speeding motorists) the police do the right thing: the papers often print stories about police (arguably) treating the victim of crime as the villain; but the number of such examples is only a tiny fraction of the total number of prosecutions.

Frank -

You've criticised someone for proselytising. Since this thread is about what limits, if any, should be placed on people's rights to proselytise, perhaps you could let us know your thoughts on the matter.

My point, David, is that there should be more protests against homosexuality, not less. Governments should applaud such protests, not suppress them as in the Hammond incident. HIV/AIDS is a real threat to public health that is being obscured by political rectitude and the drum beat of "inclusion". Stop homosexuality!

KJN

I intended to reply to your suggestion this morning, but Melanie has said with great eloquence, much more comprehensively than I could ever achieve, exactly what my thoughts are on the subject in her excellent piece in The Daily Mail this morning (see latest in the 'articles' section) and the weekend press generally is full of similar, if not so well put, comment.

As for David: young men proselytise, old men pontificate. Long may each of be allowed to do so without interference from the thought police.

One of David's accusations, that I am OLD, I can only answer in one way: mea culpa. As for the rest, it is all a matter of opinion based on the content of this blog. Don't pay any attention to us, we get up each other's nostrils. One remark I made on the spur of the moment I do regret, because it was a little cruel, "David, stop going on about being queer, then nobody will mind - except you." On second reading that was a bit nasty. In point of fact I have indicated to him on more than one occasion that he is an intelligent articulate young man, but wasting his talent in the wrong cause. Just my opinion.

As for your own thoughtful piss-taking, I do enjoy your subtle Socratean questioning modus operandi and the sardonic barbs. Points taken, of course.

Frank,

I aplogise for my comments about you earlier in the thread. They seemed justified in the heat of the moment but were in retrospect cruel - but, Mr Pulley, you have no idea just how far up my nose your constant appearance on every thread I'm on with your 'Greek Chorus' type refrain to other posters that I am a 'proseltysing gay' - regardless of what I actually type (if you look carefully at other threads you will see that I make many comments that have absolutely no relation to gay issues and that reflect a radically non-pigeon-holeable set of views -far from a dyed-in-the-wool lefty trendy or 'international marxist' that you assume I am because I happen to have called (like the Daily Telegraph) for the introduction of same-sex partnership rights NOT (for the umpteenth time) gay marriage.

I suggest we call a 'cease-fire' on our spat - as, in my view, it's based on faulty assumptions we have both made about eachother - as it makes us both look ridiculous and inteferes with other people's pleasant reading ;-)

Let's both be sensible enough to call it quits now and to move on...

Frank Pulley: "It's buggery that Mr Pherycedes objects to and I was merely supporting that point of view."

Well, thank God you're no longer a serving policeman, Frank!

Softee, softee ... eh?

Move on to what? A world where it's not only okay, but obligatory, for a man to express affection for another man by poking his willy up his friend's bum? As I continue to say - that's not only immoral - depraved, even - it's also unhygenic. And there are others who would agree. I'd rather the world we once had, where, in the main, friendship was expressed by a handshake or by offering to buy a drink.

On your last point, in my experience the offer of a truce usually entails giving some ground. I've already drawn my line in the sand. Any toes that appear over it will be metaphorically stamped on. And I'll take my chances on 'looking ridiculous' -the 'eye of the beholder' will decide, no doubt. As it always does, but more and more the mouth of the beholder is afraid to describe what the beholder sees. Try not to take it so personally. You are what you write, as far as blogs are concerned. I accept that, so should you.

But keep smiling.
FP

David

Sorry, my last post (I bet you wish it was) was directed at you, not BeefQueen.

Beef Queen

I wholeheartedly concur with your sentiments!

Frank,

"And I'll take my chances on 'looking ridiculous' -the 'eye of the beholder' will decide, no doubt".

Yes, exactly...I was trying to save you from embarrassing yourself...but I guess that was 1) a little late in the day and 2) over-compassionate on my part...looks like this thread has now been deserted so, go ahead, go on about buggery to your heart's content...

Frank Pulley: "A world where it's not only okay, but obligatory, for a man to express affection for another man by poking his willy up his friend's bum?"

Oh, if only it were, if only it were! I'd have a much bigger smile on my face!

Theo,

"HIV/AIDS is a real threat to public health that is being obscured by political rectitude and the drum beat of "inclusion". Stop homosexuality! "

For goodness sake, this is meant to be about freedom of expression - something which you clearly have no problem in exercising.

Why on earth do you keep stating that HIV/AIDS is your problem? It clearly is not as you are not at risk of contracting it unless you indulge in certain types of risky behaviour.

Homosexuality existed before the advent of AIDS and will after the end of AIDS - if you wish to parade around with a banner saying 'stop AIDS' you are more than welcome to do so and it is most unlikely - despite the Harry Hammond case - that you will be arrested for doing so.

However, doing so is most unlikely to actually 'stop' anything....can't you exercise a little common sense and actually see that?...

All these public health/immorality posters still seem to miss the fact that the major incidence of HIV/Aids is in staunchly straight sub Saharan Africa

Stuart,

J.S. Kern wrote: "Sorry, but AIDS in Africa is being spread primarily through anal intercourse, even amongst heterosexuals, not penile/vaginal sex."

So it appears they now agree: straight people in sub-Saharan Africa are responsible for the spread of HIV. However, it doesn't count because it's the type of sex that gay people also have. That seems to be the basic gist of the homophobes' argument.

Anyway, these same people probably think the statistics are irrelevant because it's only poor, black people and not rich, white people who suffer.

David: Let me see if I can make my opinion a little clearer. I apologise for my inabilty to phrase it in a way you can understand.

[Speech should be unfettered with the exception of speech that is both untrue and a danger. Mr. Hammond's statement was true (homosexualty exists/Hammond wants to put a stop to it)and his protest posed a danger to no one.

In the exact case at hand, "Stop Homosexuality", it is my opinion that such protests should be promoted rather than suppressed since homosexuality represents a clear threat to public health. Rather than condemn Mr. Hammond for his little sign, the police and government should have been on his side in the matter.]

Now, David, much of what I have said is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree and call me nine kinds of a @#%$^&*, but surely it needs no more exegesis.

Incidentally, I agree with you completely that I could go to Switzerland and hold up a sign. But since aggressive homosexuals are notoriously unwilling to change their disgusting and perverted sexual practises, I favour working to enable quarantine of all those infected with HIV/AIDS - homosexual or not - and drowning the rest (metaphorically, of course) in a sea of ridicule.

Theo,

You just can't keep to the issue of freedom of expression...can you? ;-)

"I favour working to enable quarantine of all those infected with HIV/AIDS - homosexual or not"

Gosh, are you just going to advocate it? Or are you going to join the legions of doctors, lawyers, politicians etc who struggled briefly with this issue briefly in the early 1980s and concluded that it was impractical and would not solve the problem. Sounds like you are about to re-invent the wheel...

"and drowning the rest (metaphorically, of course) in a sea of ridicule".

What? just on the Melanie Phillips website? or on a multitude of blogs? Or on a speaking tour of the US...the possibilties and the time you will waste will be endless (and counterproductive...as your adversaries will be waiting to counter your every argument at every step of the way...free speech, old chap

In the 80's, when quarantine was suggested for "the Gay Plague", it was rejected because of ignorance about the nature of the disease. Read Andrew Sullivan's interviews in Front Page Magazine today for a description of this phenomenon.

Better writers than I will provide the ridicule. Read Littlejohn today in The Sun about his encounter with the Gay Police group calling for his arrest. He also mentions the Hammond affair in his article.

Just as a matter of curiosity, old chap, what is your counter argument to the thesis that gay sex is dangerous to public health?

Theo: "Just as a matter of curiosity, old chap, what is your counter argument to the thesis that gay sex is dangerous to public health?"

Maybe I can field this one.

Eh, it's not?! I don't believe that my having consensual sex with another man endnagers the health of my friends, family - anyone!

Theo,

I know that gay sex can be safe or dangerous according to the type of behaviour in which a person indulges. People who knowingly catch and/or transmit STDs or HIV are reckless, stupid and, in some cases criminal. The greatest danger, however, is to their own personal health and not to 'public health'.

Some people have responded to AIDS since the early 80s by becoming celibate or sticking to monogamy.

So, the range of gay sexual behaviours ranges from celibacy to rampant promiscuity.

I believe that the rate of infection with HIV among gay men in major metropolitan areas in western countries is approx. 16% which means that 84% of gay men (and 99.9% of lesbians) DO NOT actually have it.

However, the element of risk is largely restricted to those people who themselves indulge in unsafe behaviour and not to the general public, except in exceptional and extremely tragic cases such as with blood donations in the early days before screening of blood.

Please remember: I am an individual not an apologist for the behaviour of all homosexuals - so I will never make excuses for bad or dangerous behaviour in which some people indulge. However, some moralists infer that all homosexuals are in someway responsible.

If one adopts a libertarian perspective on this, one might argue that we should all enjoy our personal freedoms as long as 1) that enjoyment does not affect others and 2) we take responsibility for our actions and their consequences. This might mean, in brief, that people can smoke, drink, have sex as they wish...but THEY must pay (including financially) for any consequences of their actions.

As a non-smoker, who driks moderately socially, never practices risky sexual activities, and drives extremely carefullly, I sympathise with the libertarian perspective (and believe that eventually it will be the libertarian perspective that will by necessity dictate policies in many western countries in about 20 years from now - as the public sector starts to collapse under the weight of too many commitments that ought to be taken care of by individuals).

However, if gays have to become responsible for arranging their own health care...then so should all people who suffer from avoidable conditions (heart conditions due to unhealthy diets, lung cancer due to smoking etc etc). This would need a re-ordering of health priorities and systems in all countries.

Perhaps such a system might make irresponsible risk-takers of all shades think very carefully about taking the risk knowing that they will have to pick up the tab.

This might sound brutal, but western societies are, in my view, headed in this direction. All it needs is for America, the engine of the world's economy, to hit a long recession and many things that now seem unthinkable would soon start to be thought, said and done.

I clearly therefore do NOT believe in the slogan 'Stop homosexuality' because I believe it is the behaviour of each individual homosexual on which each individual homosexual should be judged - and this can be good, bad, loving, responsible, irresponsible etc according to the individual involved. 'Stop homosexuality' is to me quite a meaningless phrase because homosexuality has always existed and always will unless some magical cure of which people wish to avail themselves becomes available.
It is based on assumptions that generalise unduly about all homosexuals behaviour and beggs questions such as 'How', 'When', 'with what methods' etc etc. It is as meaningless as someone holding up a placard stating 'Stop Human Nature'...now, there's one for your to ponder...

Finally, I do not believe that anyone should have their freedom of expression prevented unless it incites a crime. However, there are laws - such as libel laws - and codes - such as press codes of conduct - that tabloid journalists can ignore at their peril.

Theo seems to be determined to miss the fact that the biggest group with AIDS/HIV are black sub-Saharan Africans - is he suggesting that these people (in the case of Botswana 50%+ of the population)should be quarantined gainst their will. I think a certain Herr Hitler had similar ideas about public health and containment. What if people did not want to be quarantined - use of force, shoot to kill - very Christ-like. This is what happens -you move towards a Theocracy -a religious dictatorship. It is one thing to protest - but if certain types of Christians were to get political power, you would soon have the situation where the strength of their beliefs, that they know better than others what is good for them, would lead to the imposition of all sorts of rules - demolition of all mosques and synagogues - and ultimately what do you do in a theocracy with those who despite all efforts refused to believe - quarantine them? Thats why it is so dangerous for religions ever to gain power - they turn from moral codes for individuals into the very worst kind of tyrannies that can justify almost everything

Stuart,

"Theocracy" = "Theo's Law"? LOL

Good point - the novel The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Attwood is a good example of what could happen (and did happen in some of the early American colonies). Just don't see Jesus quarantining sinners or the ill in the New Testament

Jesus didn't know anything about communicable disease. Hammond knew about both.

Why quarantine for anything if not for The Gay Plague? Is SARS more of a threat to the population in general than HIV/AIDS? Of course not, but they quarantine SARS patients and even suspected SARS patients.

While I'm protected from second hand smoke (of all things), I must put aside blood from myself or trusted friends in order to insure myself a safe transfusion because of a legion of buggers and drug addicts. What a travesty.

Theo,

You see...I give you a considered response and you don't engage in dialogue you merely ignore it...I won't bother again...you hardly can complain about your freedom of expression being limited, can you?

Theo

"While I'm protected from second hand smoke (of all things)" - as a non-smoker I object to second-hand smoke. You can choose whether you want to indulge in sex with a man and decide 'No' - however, it is sometimes difficult to avoid second-hand smoke. Don't you think that lung cancer is serious???

"I must put aside blood from myself or trusted friends in order to insure myself a safe transfusion because of a legion of buggers and drug addicts" Excuxse me..i)doesn't blood screening exist in your country? ii) have you ever thought about contributing to the common good by donating blood yourself?

There are many terrible situations in the world today because of man's (not woman's) mistakes and wrong doings. Why not just hold up a placard stating 'Stop Human Nature'?

Theo,

or even just 'Stop Men'...;-)

"Jesus didn't know anything about communicable disease" surely a) He did as the Son Of God and therefore all knowing and b) What about leprosy.
Jesus didn't know about this, that or the other sounds like the excuse that some rather blood thirsty right-wing Evangelicals in the US make re. Christian support of nuclear weapons etc.
The reality of Theo's post is that its a short step from quarantining AIDs sufferers (an illness that (aside from blood transfusion) you can only catch from willing interaction with a sufferer), to quarantining all gay people - and I would guess thats what he would want. And he still avoiding the point that the biggest group of AIDs sufferers are not his b*%%ers (presumably he fears one day it will be made compulsory) but black African men and women from societies where their attitude to said b*%%ers is even more reactionary - per Mugabe and others - maybe he sees the suffering millions of Africa as all perverts too!