Can you say what you think?
On the phone in this morning - should you be able to say what you really think?
There's a row over the law which makes "homophobic hatred" a crime -- and what you can or can't say about homosexuality.
The House of Lords says the law has got to guarantee freedom of speech -- and that people should still be able to criticise publicly gay relationships if they want to. But the Commons say it shouldn't -- and that letting people say what they want will mean more attacks on homosexuals. But would that mean comedians won't be able to make jokes about gay people? Do you have a right to say what you like -- or are there some subjects that are off-limits? And isn't the problem actually having THOUGHT something, rather than said it?
Text 85058, or email breakfast@bbc.co.uk - or post your thoughts here
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
Subscribe to 5 live Breakfast
You can stay up to date with 5 live Breakfast via these feeds.
5 live Breakfast Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Podcast
5LNPI: Do you have sympathy for Gary McKinnon?
10:21 Fri, 27 Nov 09
Do you have sympathy for Gary McKinnon? He's the British computer hacker who could be sent to the US to face trial. He's admitted to hacking into American military computers, and has since been diagnosed with a form of autism.
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
You should be able to say what you want. Ideally, you'd actually THINK before you say it, although as William James said "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices", so it is not a guarantee of assimilation and use of knowledge and logic.
In this example today, I don't know if homosexuality is nature or nurture. More importantly, I don't care, as it is not important to me. I'm not saddled with a belief system based on authors of books thousands of years ago and so have no axe to grind one way or another. Why condemn someone for their sexuality. We've surely got better things to worry about?
Complain about this comment
The gentlemen was missing point when he said that Gay people can choose whether they are homosexual or not. This comments shows an amazing lack of understanding of the issues. A person may decide whether they wish to outwardly act on their homsexuality by forming relationships with same sex partners, or they may decide to deny their sexuality and either not form any relationships or have a heterosexual relationship. The fact is that the person is still homosexual regardless of the path they choose, the distinction is the lifestyle they choose. Many Gay people due to pressures have lived less than fulfilling lives and relationships because they have felt unable to live as they wish.
Homophobic violence including verbal has had a devestating impact on many young people causing issues of low self esteem, depression and in some cases leading to suicidal acts. Young people should not have to listen homophobic taunts, in the same way we would not want young people to have to listen to racist abuse.
Complain about this comment
I have no idea why Parliament is involved in this argument. In my opinion they are both right in some respects and wrong in others but one has come down on one said of the argument and the other side - well differ. No. Thought isn't the real problem - I like to think but I temper my more ridiculous ideas and do not utter them. Much!
So no you cannot say all you think because bigotry hides behind Freedom of Speech too often. "I have the right..." "I will defend your right to say it....." etc. Absolute tosh - in my view - because it is grabbed at to excuse boorish and hateful behaviour but watch these same claimants run from all the other controls, perhaps on temperate behaviour behaviour. I do not exclude myself.
Most of us - me included again - refuse to believe we can be wrong and saying what we think on some subjects can become a diatribe too often and then maybe tempers are so frayed - physical emphasis of said view results.
SUBJECT: AS THEY THRILL CROWDS AROUND THE WORLD
ANAGRAM: L CAD HONESTLY TRUTH HARD SLOW WORRIED
My anagrams mean absolute nothing of course. But in a way they say what I think. Someone please tell me - my anagrams are wrong. It would be a more satisfactory option for me than if I - er - my anagrams are NOT wrong.
Complain about this comment
I wish the old saying "live and let live" was still applicable to today. I reckon there are not huge numbers of people who would go out of their way to offend or humiliate by saying what they think, because most people are pretty decent and recognise the boundaries. But there are always the feral and nasty lot, and it won't make any difference to them anyway whether there is a law or not.
i hope this isn't going to go down the lines of just homophobia and religion, it is the same phone in we are getting used to, by another name. MOD bonuses get my vote.
Complain about this comment
Its some pretty chilling legislation for whether you have crossed as line depends on judging your 'intention', which makes it a thought crime.
Complain about this comment
It's all a bit 1984 to me and another example of Labours goal of a totalitarian state.
Complain about this comment
'It's all a bit 1984 to me and another example of Labours goal of a totalitarian state'
Better that than the total anarchy and nihilism that you support.
Complain about this comment
Do we not already have laws to cover this?
I am getting increasingly concerned with this and similar laws which in my view already exist.
Infact,i recently wrote (i'm not a writer!) a hub on hubpages about Rules Vs Values.
In my view every rule we create, does not fit every single scenario, and will need some judgement or interpretaion in given cases. I do not think this is need to then add another rule.
We should be much more focussed on the value behing the rule. I.E. not to assault physically or verbally or cause pain to others. How or under which 'thread' this harm has been caused should not matter.
If we bring in this rule. It makes a bigger deal of the whole situation, over protects and highlights an unecassary 'difference'.
Introducing another rule will just need further rules to police the already unecassary rule.
Just let the value and existing law be?
Complain about this comment
'It's all a bit 1984 to me and another example of Labours goal of a totalitarian state'
Better that than the total anarchy and nihilism that you support.
----------------------------------------------------
Pol Pot and Stalin would be so proud of you
Complain about this comment
""""""crime -- and what you can or can't say about homosexuality.
The House of Lords says the law has got to guarantee freedom of speech -- and that people should still be able to criticise publicly gay relationships if they want to. But the Commons say it shouldn't """"""
Of course one should have the right to say what they want about homosexuality! After all the Bible has been "rewritten" to allow homsexuals into the church. One can say what they want about the Royal Family so why not homosexuality? It seems homsexuals have more rights than hetro's in what can be said, and what can't! After all when it comes down to it homosexuality is a sin. Or was till in closet homosexual priests and Bishops decided to "come out of the closet" and "rewrite the Bible".It seems ever since the sixties homosexuality seems to be the "in thing" sad but true i'n afraid!
Complain about this comment
No blog for todays phone-in?????? even if it is Afghanistan - again.
Complain about this comment
"No blog for todays phone-in?????? even if it is Afghanistan - again."
maybe its a conspiracy????
anyway jason burke wasnt accurate in what he was claiming.
first there is no evidence to prove browns claim of three quarters terrorism plots relating to the region of paksitan/afghanistan. but burke made it a fact unchallenged by nicky.
second he said that the usa gave the taliban the option to hand bin laden over if they wanted to avoid war, that is only partially true, since the taliban asked bush to provide the evidence before handing him over. . bush couldnt-didnt instead went to war. on this burke claim i prefer chomskys assertion to be more accurate along with the media reporting of that time. again another thing not challenged by nicky.
nicky was host of the phone in pre iraq war .. he pretty much white-washed issues then too, now hes here for the afghan surge ..
so little time for the $15 trillion dollars worth of gas to be had from turkmenistan - uzbekistan , other pipeline deals and the extensive military infrastructure that is costing billions, not to mention the intent to get into pakistan. sadly this neo con ideological war is supported by lib dems and the tories.
Complain about this comment
Can we say what we think
Not since tghe boreds went
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS