h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7885918.stm

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/02/breaking-anti-gay-protesters-banned-from-britain

So Geert Wilders and Fred Phelps have both been denied entry to the UK due to hate speech.

I'm really not at all sure what I think of this.

TRiG.

Its wrong, they should have been allowed in, just denying them entry, or attempting to scilence people with views that might not necessarily fit with our own, doesn't stop people from having those views...

What's the difference between an authority telling a subordinate to go and kill some person and that authority telling it to a crowd? When do you have the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre? If the likely result of some speech is harm to innocents then, can there be an absolute right to free speech?

It's not about whether we restrict free speech, it's about where we draw the line. I think it helps to remember that the right to free speech is intended to serve a purpose, it allows debate so that we can determine what the truth is. Once there, we can speak that truth to power.

A rally is not a debate. I would let hatemongers in but restrict, to a forum or debate, their right to speak. Think how entertaining it would be to have one of our more articulate gays on stage with the good Rev Phelps.

" what 2legs said.

The Rev Phelps denies that we have evolved from baboons. In his case, he's right.

I logged in to bring up the question of the rights or wrongs of the implications for free speech of the law against "incitement to hatred", in light of both these stories. Only to find this thread.

The decision to block the entry into the UK, I would assert, the correct one in light of the fact they were coming to the UK with the expressed purpose of breaking our laws.

I suspect, but don't know the truth of it, that they were inspired to come here AFTER Wilders was denied entry and that they got the outcome they were hoping for. Being refused entry to the UK serves their purpose, giving them media attention, reinforcing the idea that they persecuted for the piety and righteous Christian faith and increasing funding.

I think the decision to ban Wilders was a bad one, but they were right to ban Phelps and his backwards offspring.

Geert Wilders is a hate-filled little fascist, Fitna is a badly made piece of trash and all they wanted was some attention. Banning him gave him a lot more attention than he would have otherwise gained. He wasn't doing anything illegal (Stealth, Parliament isn't bound by some of the laws it passes, inciting hatred is one of them) and he is an elected politician from another EU nation.

Phelps is an entirely different kettle of fish. He advocates violence, he harasses people at funerals, he entirely opposes free speech. He's also a convicted criminal. He has no moral or political authority - he doesn't represent anyone. Mainstream Christians oppose everything about him. He already rants and raves about the UK - this isn't going to make a difference or give him any more publicity.

Sorry, I was not clear, I was speaking of denying entry to the Phelps as being technically the right thing.

Phelps was a civil rights lawyer, he represents himself when people are fool enough to take his church to court and it's healthy source of income.
He doesn't oppose free speech, he is heavily dependent on it for his churches business, when people try to curb his free speech his church has been written a check. What he is opposed to is freedom of expression. They're not the same thing.

What he believes represent the values of significant number of American evangelicals and baptists, it his methods and picketing of soldiers funerals that disagree with, not his literal interpretation of the bible.
His moral authority for his preaching is the bible. Unlike "mainstream Christians" he really believes in the bible.
If this hasn't given him more publicity then how come we have heard about and are here talking about it? And what makes you think his prime audience of American Christians won't have heard about it too?

>>If this hasn't given him more publicity then how come we have heard about and are here talking about it?<<

Because we're both well-read and well-informed. I only saw this on the BBC News website one day. It'll probably be in this months gay press but that's it. Its impact was extremely limited.

>>when people try to curb his free speech his church has been written a check.<<

In the States, but the US has an unusually broad definition of free speech and unusually strong legal protections for it. When he tried to sure the government of Sweden when they issued a similar ban, he lost.

Also many states have successfully legally curtailed his funeral protests while avoiding breaching the First Amendment.

>>What he is opposed to is freedom of expression. They're not the same thing.<<

Isn't freedom of expression a subset of freedom of speech? If not, how are the two related?

>>And what makes you think his prime audience of American Christians won't have heard about it too?<<

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and other Conservative Christian media types have all denounced him repeatedly. They won't give him or his family airtime these days.

I think we need an "Unnecessary Harrasment" law in the UK.

From Papparazzi to confrontational picket lines there seems to be an attitude that passionate, nosey or greedy people have a right to make other peoples lawful pursuits in their lives very uncomfortable and I cant see any good reason why we let it carry on.

From protesters outside hostles for sex offenders to protesters outside abortion clinics I can understand the arguments of the protesters but they are not stopping crimes they are simply harrassing people. The people who run and use the places are fully aware that there are those who think what they are doing is wrong so shouting and waiving signs (not to mention the criminal actions that sometimes carry on from protests) are not adding anything new to the debate.

There's nothing wronf with *voicing* ones objections but to disturb the peace of someones legal actions is a step too far.

Im not arguning against rallies and mass demonstrations aimed at making an impression on those in government and political positions, more against the protesters who hackled the parrading squaddies on their return from overseas tours of duty.

If you have a gripe about your loval bus operators carbon footprint you'd get arrested for shouting in the face of a bus driver about it so why let some bearded rug-butting fraks get away with it. Im opposed to the illegal actions of this government but I dont think it gives me the right to bother people who arent responsible for those decisions.



On a more personal note Im tired of seeing stories about the misdemeanoursof clebrities relatives getting national coverage or the smallest pimple on the face of major clebrities being treated as if it were News. If Lilly Allen wants to stand on the red carpet to preen and pout for the ranks of photographers fine, but she shouldnt be stalked when she goes to buy a bottle of milk.

"Isn't freedom of expression a subset of freedom of speech? If not, how are the two related?"

Freedom of Speech is a subcomponent of Freedom of Expression. Though they do get used as synonymous, but I would contend that that because the term 'Free Speech' as term has been overused and the meaning expanded to meet that of Freedom of Expression.
I see Freedom of Expression also able to encompass that of freedom from/of religion, free expression of one's sexuality, free thought and more.