Free Speech What Do Grans Think?

People think it will always be what they see as the good guys who have that power, it if course isnt.

That doesnt answer the question though. Elon musk is currently putting controls on what is said on Twitter, with enormous reach, is that ok.

We decide at the ballot box I suppose.

I don’t think it is acceptable to advocate stoning people, or burning witches, (to use extreme examples). It is ok - if odd - for people to believe that others deserve such treatment, but incitement to violence is (and should remain) against the law IMO.

Inciting violence is against the law.

Who will decide what is acceptable.
We have recently had Truss and Johnson running the country, are they good people to decide? Elon Musk is running Twitter, and actually like his predecessor is trying to control speech (just in a different way) is he an acceptable person to be given that power?

But doesn’t there have to be limits on what is acceptable speech? What if a speech advocated stoning adulterers or homosexuals?

I am much more frightened of those who want to control speech than someone I consider homophobic. I have never met anyone who I would wish to be put in control of what is acceptable speech.

I think he needs to separate his role as preacher from his role as councillor. Representing people in a councillor role has nothing to do with ’sin’, unless and until someone breaks the law. Even then councillors have no special enforcement powers or dispensation to act outside of the law.

If a constituent were rude to his mother, was having an affair, or had a Buddha on a necklace a preacher might feel that they were breaking Christian commandments. If they were members of his congregation he might see it as appropriate to admonish them, but as a councillor it is none of his business.

He does have a right to his views, and to express them in his church, but the problem arises when he expresses them outside of that context. Even in church there are lines to be drawn through. What about an imam preaching jihad, for instance? Or someone urging followers to burn heretics at the stake or to stone adulterers?

It’s tricky, as it is true that some views are tolerated over others, and that can clash with the principle of allowing freedom of religion (or expression of that religion), but not all views are compatible with a peaceful and tolerant society, or even the law of the land, and the law has to take precedence.

Can it be possible to reconcile a belief in ‘sin’ in the sense that he seems to see it - something against the word of God that should not be tolerated - with a desire to represent all constituents fairly? If an adulterous liar who is both disrespectful to his (or her) parents and jealous of the neighbours asks to rent the Town Hall to screen The Life Of Brian or hold a Halloween party, what does he do? Is it possible to be true to both his congregation and his constituents?

Maybe he could argue for hating the sins but loving the sinner; but that approach doesn’t sit well with public tweets about Pride, and he does seem to be deliberately and disingenuously conflating Pride the carnival with pride the sin. He doesn’t seem to be wrestling with his conscience here, which is fine as a preacher (so long as he isn’t advocating discrimination) but it is not fine for a representative of a political party in his role as councillor.

Of course people with religious views can make excellent politicians, and many if not most of our laws are based on religious principles, but when these principles part company with the law the law has to prevail I think.

He did explain exactly what he meant:

Cllr Lawal tweeted: “Just to clear something up.

“In no way am I suggesting that LGBT people should be persecuted or should not live freely in which or whatever way they want.”All I did, which my right to do, is point out that both Pride & Homosexuality is Sin, which it is.”He added: “I believe in Christ and I will not be silenced.

I think logically, even though he says he is a councillor for all people, if I was part of the LGBT+ community in his area I would not be voting for him .

As a Christian he seems to be just following biblical instructions and principles as in the Bible but you are not allowed to do that anymore. We have had the same issue here with people losing their jobs because of ‘hate speech’. Moslems as well as Christians have been judged harshly for following their beliefs as set down in their bibles/korans. There is no free speech, it doesn’t exist. Religious people have been persecuted forever and so it continues.

But haven’t we merely exchanged one sort of oppression for another. In the past people could lose their jobs because of their sexual orientation. Now they can loose their jobs for what they say. Wouldn’t it be lovely to live in a time when everyone’s views were respected.

And the suggestion that this councillor couldn’t represent gay people is simply not a given. Politicians have to represent a lot of people they don’t agree with. Generally they do it very well.

HousePlantQueen

Skydancer

I think most of us have known a better time. A time when there were fewer people, when there was more respect, when people had better manners .... things have gone downhill in recent years in almost every aspect of life.

A better time when people "knew their place"?. When men were blackmailed/outed/beaten up for being "queers"?.. You stay in your fantasy of the good old days, I prefer where I am now, thank you.

This says it for me.

I’d add, where women ‘knew their place’, which was in the home accepting all manner of domestic abuse silently. Having said that, it’s my belief misogyny is growing.

That's a point of view

There are 2 types of respect

1. Basic respect and treating others with good manners and decency

2. Respect for someone as a leader, a person in authority or a role model

Anyone who demands both but won't give you 1 until you give them 2... Deserves neither

VioletSky

I think people have just learned to give respect where it is earned, not demanded

I think people absolutely have a right to demand respect, if 'respect' is the opposite of 'disrespectful behaviour'. The idea that someone has any right to denigrate someone else's sexuality is unacceptable to me.

Pride as a carnival is not everyone's cup of tea, and it has, arguably, been hijacked by vested interests so is no longer a joyful camp celebration of being gay. I'm not sure that it will carry on for much longer, as it is already fragmenting.

But what it used to symbolise - the right of gay people to be treated the same as straight ones, not to be accused of being 'sinful', and to be able to congregate without let or hindrance is a big step forward and should not be allowed to be diminished by people in positions of influence.

Blimey GSM

Yes we have Skydancer. A time when we as heterosexual people born and bred here were in the majority, a time when we didn’t have to kowtow to those who were not, and to people whose sexual preferences are in the minority.

Skydancer

I think most of us have known a better time. A time when there were fewer people, when there was more respect, when people had better manners .... things have gone downhill in recent years in almost every aspect of life.

A better time when people "knew their place"?. When men were blackmailed/outed/beaten up for being "queers"?.. You stay in your fantasy of the good old days, I prefer where I am now, thank you.

I think people have just learned to give respect where it is earned, not demanded

I think most of us have known a better time. A time when there were fewer people, when there was more respect, when people had better manners .... things have gone downhill in recent years in almost every aspect of life.

That makes such a terrible personal advertisment

Would not buy

Sago

Skydancer

We are not free to express our opinions any more unless they are what is believed to be politically correct. We all have to be careful these days. If I expressed some of my views on this site I would be banned that's for sure.

Absolutely!

I so agree.

Feelings or opinions?

I think feelings are only appropriate if a minority group is causing direct harm to an individual

Which seems unlikely

I agree with you Skydancer. Many of us have to keep our real feelings to ourselves, even among family and friends - almost without exception to protect the sensitivities of minority groups.

Skydancer

We are not free to express our opinions any more unless they are what is believed to be politically correct. We all have to be careful these days. If I expressed some of my views on this site I would be banned that's for sure.

Have we ever really had freedom of speech in the sense of been totally free to express our opinions without repercussions?

For example, my elderly BIL regularly trots this phrase out, but I know for a fact that back when he was a business owner/employer, he wouldn't have thought twice about firing employees for speaking their mind if he didn't like what they said.