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

... where XXXX means "pope".

Obviously, if I know you're a Catholic and I come up to you and scream in your face that the pope is the antichrist, OBVIOUSLY that would be offensive.

If I baldly stated it as my opinion, on this site, I expect many people would find that offensive.

However: if I said "This man over here, with whom I vehemently disagree, is going round saying that the pope is the antichrist" - is that offensive?

If I'm doing so in the context of drawing attention to a pattern of, to me, repugnant and ridiculous bigotted and inciteful opinion, should *I* be censored for it?

If so, how would one ever be able to engage bigots like this in any form of debate? Particularly if they are allowed to say what they say, but I'm not allowed to repeat it? The BBC interviews members of the BNP...

Opinions, please...

H.

Is this really a new topic?

The statement 'The Pope is the AntiChrist' may not be offensive per se, and it may not be a libel, per se, but again, who is benefitting from the repeating of this rather juvenile statement.

Is it something that the BBc, an agency governed by a fairly rigourous Charter which deals with matters such as religious tolerance, should *really* be proliferating across it's website?

Yes, it's a new topic. The other thread is about whether or not I'm being discriminated against because I'm not a Christian.

This one is about whether a statement you describe as "rather juvenile" is so offensive that posting it leads to censorship - if you're me, of course. Not if you're a Christian - at least not immediately.

The BBC has a charter which, if I remember aright, contains the words "educate, inform and entertain". It was an EDUCATION to me to discover that some people think that being a "real" Christian involves loudly condemning the Pope as the Antichrist. I thought that I ought to INFORM people that there are people who really do think this - and in fact don't just think it, but say it out loud and publish it on BBC websites.

Is it any more reprehensible to make this known than it is to make known, as the BBC and the press have done, the racist opinions of the people who were not, due it is said to police and CPS incompetence, ever convicted of murdering Steven Lawrence?

Offensiveness is about context. People do not complain if Samuel L. Jackson uses a certain word beginning with "n" in a Quentin Tarantino movie. If George W. Bush used it in a campaign speech, there would be rather more comment.

I'm trying to make the point that in the context I've used it (condemnatory reporting), the phrase under discussion should be acceptable.

H.

But the crux of your complaint appears to be that the original postrer is allowed to post the opinion and you are not. Therefore we are back to the descrimination issue.

Any chance you could provide a link to the *original* comment, in order that I can read it in context before continuing with the discussion. I've had an (admittedly) quick look and I can't find it.

Unfortunately, I haven't kept a list of links - the collection of quotes is rather long, and I've copied only the texts. I'll have a look....

H.

Oh, and the crux of THIS thread is NOT who can post what. The crux of this thread, as the subject line is intended to suggest, is to question whether the phrase "the pope is the antichrist" is offensive AT ALL, in the context I was using it.

Specifically, if I was talking about someone I had seen and heard preaching like that in the street, IRL, rather than someone posting here, would I be prevented from talking about it?

H.

Thanks for that. You've obviously been involved in debate with the individual concerned more than I have, and would have a much better idea of where to look.

The phrase is offensive IMO and shouldn't be used on site. I'm not a Catholic (in fact I'm an ex-Catholic). I think I know who said it originally (I hope there's not two of them) and he should have been reprimanded for it and appropriate action taken.

If you want an argument that it's offensive, try swapping other revered and respected religious leaders and figures from other religions and cultures with XXXX and see what happens. I don't buy the free speech defence, as there's no real speech there - it's a content-free metaphysical claim with no argument.

Whether H should have been modded for putting it all together, I'm not so sure. If the comment was removed because it was offensive the first time, it should be removed again. However, it was reprehensible of the original researcher to say it, but not so for H to repeat it. We don't know what's been done about the other researcher. I rather hope he's either going to become a proper member of the community or go away.

One part of me is a little uncomfortable with the thought of bits of a researcher's postings being taken and strung together out of context as part of the guide, but if this is the person I think it is, then it's certainly not unfair on him or misrepresentative of his views as far as I can see.

I wrote something on free speech for the Post once. It's at A792812

Otto

" If the comment was removed because it was offensive the first time, it should be removed again"

That's the point: it was posted under the old moderation system. That is to say, it was posted, and read within an hour by a moderator. I only came along and copy-and-pasted it several days later. It was therefore deemed by a moderator to be NOT offensive.

It has been removed since in response, presumably, to a specific complaint about what it said, IN THE CONTEXT IT SAID IT.

But the context is everything. I can quite happily and defensibly use the word "N****r" if I'm talking about Douglas Bader's dog. I would expect to get into trouble if I used it in any other context.

As Gerry Sadowitz said - it's OK to say I prick my finger, but not to say I finger my p***k.

In the original context, I agree it was offensive. THAT'S THE POINT. My use of it is quite different.

Another example:
If you were Jewish, antisemitic statements would offend you. But if your local MP made and antisemitic statement, and the BBC reported it verbatim, would you complain to the BBC for reporting it? Or thank them for showing you what a bigotted git your MP was?

I'm just the messenger...

H.

There is a bit of a difference between my MP and the individual concerned here, surely?

I've said all I'm gonna say on this in this other thread on the subject. I don't really see what the problem is.

Actually I think you will find the dog you are citing belonged to Guy Gibson the leader of the Damnbusters raid.

What a lot of hot air!

Confirmation - was Gibson's black labrador.

Didn't Sinead O'Connor say something similar a while back about the pope?

Well she is a little outspoken about lots of topics. I believe Ian Paisley tried to say something similiar in the European Parliament but lots of MEPs sat on him.

And in a nice piece of circularity, there's a link to Ian Paisley's website (IAN PAISLEY HAS A WEBSITE! ) on the home space of the person who originally posted the nonsense I'm being threatened for repeating.

H.

Threatened? How can they threaten you on a website? Oh no, you are not one of those mad conspiracy theorists that Jon Ronson hangs round with.

Ian Paisley has a website?

marchingoopanddooohwn dot com?

I'm being threatened by the only people who can threaten here, with the only thing they can threaten:

The management have threatened to suspend my account if I quote verbatim the post made by the Christian in a guide entry.

Obviously, the power of the threat depends to an extent on the importance one places on the ability to contribute here...

H.

Otto:

I was thinking more along the lines of NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR.org

H.

I have a friend who is an Organgeman working here in London for one of the big three as I belive they are now. Everytime he gets drunk, he gets completely out of control and starts yelling 'Ulster says No!' at anyone who will listen. When he gets really really drunk, he starts holding his own Orange parade up and down the nearest major thoroughfare.

For obvious reasons I don't see him much.