Sweden To Outlaw Anti-Gay Hate Speech
Chief Thracian
anti-gay verbal slurs and condemnatory lectures as "free speech". All
other western democracies have free speech on the books...yet most
have no problem censoring extremely hateful public speeches against
individuals and groups, that can do real harm. Why can't the USA do
this too? Because she is a hypocritical nation, that refuses to
rescind homophobia. (After all, she has no problem standing up to
racist hate speeches, and other public denunciations of other, non-gay
groups.) Now, here is a news article that gives a glowing example of
how free speech lives quite comfortably along with censorship of
violent-extremist speech.
---begin article:
SWEDEN TO OUTLAW ANTI-GAY HATE SPEECH
http://www.planetout.com/news/article-print.html?2002/05/17/3
Associated Press
Friday, May 17, 2002 / 05:33 PM
SUMMARY: The Swedish parliament on Wednesday passed a government
proposal to change the constitution to outlaw hate speech against
gays.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- The Swedish parliament on Wednesday passed a
government proposal to change the constitution to outlaw hate speech
against gays.
Lawmakers approved the measure 196 to 74, with 36 abstaining and 43
absent.
Since it involves changes to the constitution, the legislation, which
is scheduled to take effect next year, must pass another parliamentary
vote after national elections in September.
The Scandinavian nation of some 9 million people has liberal freedom
of expression laws, but speech that threatens or condemns a group of
people because of their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin,
or religious faith is banned.
The Social Democratic government proposed widening the restrictions to
include hate speech that targets sexual orientation.
Violations are punishable by up to two years in prison.
Many opponents worried the proposal could lead to hate speech
convictions for preachers reading passages about homosexuality from
religious texts like the Bible or the Quran.
---end of article
My further comment: So what if preachers "worry" about this? Are they
above the law? Do they think their own particular form of worship
holds supreme authority over any other laws, whether instituted by
state or church? I believe that any and all anti-gay speech--including
(nay, especially) that which arises from religious text--has no place
in the modern world, where free speech is supposed to celebrate and
protect, not villify and murder.
Marie C. Bennett
(Chief Thracian) wrote:
> Why can't the USA do
>this too?
Because free speech is not a one-way street. If you want others to
tolerate YOUR speech, you must also tolerate theirs.
*sigh*
Whatever happened to Voltaire's "I may not believe in what you say,
but I will die for your right to do so." ?
Jeff North
There is a huge difference in a speech that is factual and one that contains
outright lies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
New World Dictionary entry:
"Fundamental Christianity" - the idea that there is an all-knowing,
all-seeing, all-powerful, universe-spanning entity that, for some
inexplicable reason, is interested in my sex life.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great and Powerful Oz
>There is a huge difference in a speech that is factual and one that contains
>outright lies.
And nowhere is the line clearer than in this ng.
=Uncle Robbie
...activating anti-whinge subroutines...
Marie C. Bennett
>outright lies.
True. If one is caught spreading demonstrably false information about
an individual, it is already punishable by law as 'libelous slander'.
It is worth discussing whether spreading demonstrably false
information about a whole group should be punishable as slander, too.
But outlawing speech about a particular group just because you don't
like it should be out of the question. "Seeing two guys kissing makes
me throw up" expresses an opinion, and should be tolerated as such.
"All homosexuals have AIDS, that's why we must lock them up" on the
other hand is a derogatory statement that is based on demonstrably
false data (it is factually wrong that every single homosexual has
AIDS), and maybe it would be prudent to make it illegal, just as
saying "Mr. X has AIDS and should be locked up" is already illegal.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
news:d25feug2jaa03kloi...@4ax.com...
> [snip]
I agree. No sorry, actually, that was "me, too".
by LjL
ljl...@tiscalinet.it
Myk Cooke
gung ho about criminalizing anti-Gay speech? The problem with democracy is
that the majority may not include you.
Gay people are a minority and when we're outnumbered, constitutional rights
to free speech become extremely relevant. What you are doing is suggest we
sabotage that power and freedom. I thought power and freedom was what gay
rights was ultimately about!
Mike Cooke
"Chief Thracian" <use...@chiefthracian.mailshell.com> wrote in message
news:6d039a2f.02051...@posting.google.com...
JTEM
"Myk Cooke" <mykilln...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote
> Is it so hard to imagine laws criminalizing pro Gay speech that you
> are so gung ho about criminalizing anti-Gay speech?
I'm a free speech advocate myself but, you're out your ass.
There's a big difference between "I am gay and that's a good thing"
and "He is gay and should be stoned to death."
You're comparing apples & buicks.
The point is, there are many places in this country -- the birth place
of protected "free speech" -- where you can get fined or jailed
for saying "Nigger."
That's offensive to me. The laws against it, I mean.
"Nigger" is an insult, it's offensive, yes, but who cares?
Anyone who's spent more than five minutes on usenet has
received more than their share.
What about when it isn't a matter of a childish insult? What about
when it's a lie, "slander"? Why should that be protected? Why
should a Paul Cameron have the "Right" to lie about gay people
and his "research"? Why should malice be "protected"?
The U.S. is something like a minority of one right now. I'm not
sure which other country -- if any -- protects lies as "free speech."
I don't know which other country -- if any -- says that if you are
careful to slander enough people that's the same not slandering
anybody.
"Joe Smith swallows drugs like candy and rapes innocent young
white girls."
Slander.
"All black men take drugs like they were candy and rape innocent
white girls."
Protected free speech.
Chief Thracian
> The U.S. is something like a minority of one right now. I'm not
> sure which other country -- if any -- protects lies as "free speech."
> I don't know which other country -- if any -- says that if you are
> careful to slander enough people that's the same not slandering
> anybody.
I think your response was very well thought out. Here is what I'd
propose as a method of protecting free speech, while forbidding
slander of gay people:
I believe that free speech in this country is being abused,
and used as a weapon of hatred against gays. Most other
western democracies have outlawed homophobic attacks--both
verbal and physical. Yet they defend free speech, don't they?
I think that American free speech is a distortion of what it's
supposed to be...in that it wrongly defends even the most
violent of hate speech. All liberties must have their
restrictions, else they soon lose relevance. The restriction
on free speech should include the three following rules:
1) No promoting the injury, death, or torture of another
person. (As in: "These faggots should be stoned to death.")
2) No invocation of one's religious beliefs to promote the
injury, death, or torture of another person. (As in: "God says
these faggots should be stoned to death.")
3) No promoting prejudice against a people or person, that is
known to provoke violence or other persecution against them or
her/him. (As in: "These people are faggots.")
Meanwhile (until we earn our freedom as equal-class citizens)
I think we should declare a "Hetero Shame Week", immediately
following "Gay Pride Week"; here in San Francisco and in all
other U.S. cities with a significant lesbian/gay presence.
That is...if we don't all get rounded up first, and tortured
in laboratory experiments, or made into wallets and lampshades.
HETERO SHAME WEEK: whereby all public display of hetero
affection be outlawed for that week. Anyone breaking that law
would go to jail for 10 days, and be fined $500 (which shall
be donated to one or another les/gay rights organizations).
Any hetero who can't afford the steep fine, or time away from
work...ought to heed well the advice to keep his or her public
affections under strict control, for the duration. See how YOU
(heteros) like it!
Sincerely,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
a.k.a. "Chief Thracian"
---
Lavender-Velvet Revoluton
http://surf.to/gaybible
Marcus Winberg
> "JTEM" <jay...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<2zyG8.10119$Bn5.4...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>...
>
> The U.S. is something like a minority of one right now. I'm not
> sure which other country -- if any -- protects lies as "free speech."
> I don't know which other country -- if any -- says that if you are
> careful to slander enough people that's the same not slandering
> anybody.
Lies, slander, etc *are* protected as free speech in our constitution. We
have got the strongest free-speech, free-thought, and free-press
constitution in the world -- stronger than the USAean in fact. But there are
exceptions.
"Persecution of minorities" is one such exception. So, you can say "Jews are
filthy". That's speech. If you print a leaflet with that sentiment,
distribute the leaflet widely, and encourage people to join your group then
that is "persecution of minority".
The law already exists for gender, and ethnic belonging, etc. Now sexual
orientation will be added to the list.
Cheers,
Marcus
JTEM
"Marcus Winberg" <marcu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "JTEM" <jay...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > The U.S. is something like a minority of one right now. I'm not
> > sure which other country -- if any -- protects lies as "free speech."
> > I don't know which other country -- if any -- says that if you are
> > careful to slander enough people that's the same not slandering
> > anybody.
> Lies, slander, etc *are* protected as free speech in our constitution.
Not at all. Against an individual or corporation they can (and have)
gotten people sued.
It's only when it's against a group -- and, as far as I know, only in
the U.S. -- that it suddenly becomes "protected free speech."
Our laws are as I stated: If you slander enough people the law no
longer sees it as slander but "free speech."
> "Persecution of minorities" is one such exception.
Which, if you think about it, is about as retarded as you can get.
Lying about a group, slander, is okay (Paul Cameron) but
expressing an opinion is not.
Marcus Winberg
JTEM <jay...@yahoo.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8LIJ8.3556$fT5.1...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
>
> "Marcus Winberg" <marcu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > "JTEM" <jay...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > The U.S. is something like a minority of one right now. I'm not
> > > sure which other country -- if any -- protects lies as "free speech."
> > > I don't know which other country -- if any -- says that if you are
> > > careful to slander enough people that's the same not slandering
> > > anybody.
>
> > Lies, slander, etc *are* protected as free speech in our constitution.
>
> Not at all. Against an individual or corporation they can (and have)
> gotten people sued.
I make no claim to understand the US constitution, but there's been a fairly
big debate here in Sweden about it. It's not easy to change the
constitution. A change has to pass two votes in two different sessions of
our parliament, with a popular vote between the two sessions.
It sounds like we're 100% reversed as you describe the situation. Here you
can't get sued for "slandering" a person, but if you slander a whole group
you can. :) That's a generalisation, I know. There is a thing called slander
in Sweden too, but I don't know the legal requirement for it.
JTEM
"Marcus Winberg" <marcu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> It sounds like we're 100% reversed as you describe the situation.
> Here you can't get sued for "slandering" a person, but if you
> slander a whole group you can. :) That's a generalisation, I know.
> There is a thing called slander in Sweden too, but I don't know the
> legal requirement for it.
As far as I know, "Slander" here is little different than "libel." In
both cases it's something that you knew or should have known to
be untrue.
The big differences are that libel is limited to print (like in a news
paper) and with slander you can only sue for damages.
Light Templar
>
> "Marcus Winberg" <marcu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > It sounds like we're 100% reversed as you describe the situation.
> > Here you can't get sued for "slandering" a person, but if you
> > slander a whole group you can. :) That's a generalisation, I know.
> > There is a thing called slander in Sweden too, but I don't know the
> > legal requirement for it.
>
> As far as I know, "Slander" here is little different than "libel." In
> both cases it's something that you knew or should have known to
> be untrue.
>
Both slander and libel fall under the general legal catagory of defamation
of character. Both have to meet the same or very similar legal
requirements. I believe that the only, or main legal difference is one is
verbal defamation, and the other is written defamation.
The list of requirements goes something like..
The statement(s) must be untrue
The statement(s) must result in some material loss. Material loss can be
measured in direct financial or material loss, or social damage that results
in financial or material loss. Mental anquish itself is not considered,
but financial or material loss due to mental anquish (loss of work time,
etc..) can be.
The statement(s) must be against a real person. I can say Charlie Brown
has sex with Snoopy and Charles Shultz cannot sue me for defamation. I can
insult people in a newsgroup that post under pseudonyms and as long as there
is no reasonable expectation that the real identity of that person is widely
known, he can't sue for defamation.
Seems like there are some more criteria, but I can't remember at the moment.
> The big differences are that libel is limited to print (like in a news
> paper) and with slander you can only sue for damages.
I believe you can only sue for damages in either case.