Banning Bigotry & Hate Speech

[tenni]

I know that those in the US frequently argue about their first amendment as justification for permitting bigotry and Hate Speech that is found to be unfounded. So, spare us that rhetoric and examine this from the angle of the right of a publication not to print comments that they find unfounded. This editorial states that the person who is promoting hate speech and bigotry may start their own blog or publication but a media does not have to print it. That is found particularly in the last three paragraphs in bold.

Does mainstream journalists and media outlets have a responsibility to ensure that the dialogues they host on their web pages and letters columns are free of outmoded hatred or are they censoring and preventing freedom of speech?

btw This editorial comment is from the most national conservative news media in Canada...The National Post.

Like all mainstream media web sites that allow users to comment on published stories, CBC.ca reserves the right to delete “offensive” comments. This apparently includes use of the term “same-sex attraction disorder” to refer to the condition otherwise known as being “gay.”

I know this because a Halifax-based social conservative named Kevin McDonald has been contacting news editors and reporters across Canada with his complaints about the CBC policy.
Back in February, McDonald wrote a short entry in the comment section under a CBC story about Canadian Olympian Mark Tewksbury, in which he referred to Tewksbury as being afflicted with “same-sex attraction disorder” (SSAD). When that comment was deleted, McDonald complained to the CBC through its ombudsman’s office, arguing that his use of the SSAD term is legitimate because “people can and do leave the homosexual lifestyle with therapy,” and “thousands [of people] leave the gay lifestyle every year.” In response, he got a note from a CBC moderator who explained as follows:
We appreciate that this is an issue that you feel strongly about. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion that the term “same-sex attraction disorder” is acceptable.* But as you will also be aware the notion that homosexuality is a “disorder” is not recognized by any mainstream medical or mental health organization. Indeed, the American Psychological Association and all other major national health organizations have expressed concerns that therapy promoted to modify sexual orientation is neither safe nor effective. To suggest that homosexuality is a “disorder”, a “malady”, as you wrote, is not only without scientific basis, but considered to be needlessly offensive.
In response to this, McDonald has unleashed a wave of email upon Canadian journalists, declaring that “Canada’s public broadcaster is imposing a particular ideology (the idea that homosexuality is only ever normal behavior) about an ongoing, unsettled social controversy and excluding any dissent of that opinion.”
As someone who writes for a conservative newspaper, and who has spent years railing against political correctness, I would love to get riled up over this alleged instance of CBC censorship. But I just can’t — for two reasons.

The first is that — on an objective, scientific level — the notion that “therapy” offers a “cure” for homosexuality is simply preposterous: Everything I know about such therapeutic programs suggests they are acting camps for sad, guilty people who want to pretend away their biologically programmed sexual instincts for the sake of their religious beliefs. (As a friend of mine once put it: If you really believe that gay-reversal therapy works, ask yourself this question — ‘Would you ever let your daughter marry a “straight” “graduate” from such a therapy program?’) And so putting aside the offensiveness of McDonald’s remarks, they strike me as outright pseudo-scientific gibberish. In a free society, people should be free to spout all the pseudo-scientific gibberish they want, of course — but they have no right to use a media company’s bandwidth for this purpose.

The second, related, objection is that hate speech is hate speech. I happen not to be a fan of strict hate speech laws — especially since the speech they censor isn’t always, strictly speaking, hateful. But the fact is that they exist; and are embedded in the terms-of-use policies in all publicly disseminated media; and so long as that is the case, they should be applied consistently. If we would never tolerate the dissemination of comments that suggest blackness is a “disorder,” or that ethnic Jews suffer from some sort of “disorder,” why would we permit the same label to be used with gays? (McDonald would counter that sexual orientation isn’t a biological characteristic — it’s something we freely choose, to which I say: see above.)

McDonald lists off all sorts of religious authorities that declare homosexuality to be a defect. But so what? Racist bigotry isn’t any more acceptable from Christians who cite the Curse of Ham in Genesis 9:20-27. So why should bigotry against homosexuals get a free pass when they cite other portions of the Bible — or Koran?

As an editor, I can attest that there is no shortage of letter-writers who see homosexuality as a freely chosen sin. And if they wish, they all are free to start their own blogs, activist groups, and political parties dedicated to their parochial beliefs. But mainstream journalists and media outlets have a responsibility to ensure that the dialogues they host on their web pages and letters columns are free of outmoded hatred. The CBC has made the right call.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/21/should-use-of-the-term-same-sex-attraction-disorder-get-you-banned-from-a-cbc-message-board/

[DuckiesDarling]

Quite bluntly, Tenni, you are so fond of telling the US how Canada's free speech is better than our First Amendment, doesn't look like speech is free if it's gonna be censored by media outlets. I'd rather live somewhere where I can read everything and make up my own mind than somewhere the government decides what is fit to read. :2cents:

But that being said, every site has it's own rules. Take this one for example, the rules are simple. Flame the idea not the person yadda yadda. Drew reserves the right to remove any post that is objectionable. It's his site so it's his right. Other sites can remove material if it doesn't follow it's terms of service, sites can even be removed from the net if they are found to be out of line with the FCC such as child porn sites. But the existence of the WBC and the page full of garbage wouldn't be possible without the first Amendment and free speech. Doesn't mean I have to go read it, that's my freedom of choice.

[tenni]

DD
I do have you on my blocked list but read your comments sometime by not signing in. I'm giving in to this recent incorrect perception of your's though. Quite awhile back you posted that you would not comment on my words.

Quite bluntly, Tenni, you are so fond of telling the US how Canada's free speech is better than our First Amendment,

You have misunderstood. I believe that we have more freedoms than people in the US in certain areas but I fear that they are becoming endangered by continually manipulating the media. I believe in limits on free speech when it becomes hate speech. Deciding what is hate speech is complicated though. Nothing in life is free and that includes what we say. Consequences happen whether you are blithering on about bigoted views or minority rights that are not popular.

In this particular situation, it is about responsibility of a media source to act and decide what should be commented on by a reader. When is it responsible journalism and when are you permitting promotion of bigotry. This happens all the time in certain media like the Globe and Mail. I've tried to figure out when they block or prevent anyone from commenting. So far, certain criticism's of the government seem not to permit access to commenting. The report is printed but comments are blocked. It isn't as bad as it might read. The "fanatics" go crazy with their posts. There is little intelligent commenting in certain articles that are critical of the government actions. In other cases, there is plenty of commenting and it is permitted. Some post that the elected party seems to be paying professional commentators because they seem to have a pre programmed response card to go by. They are really dumb too...lol

I do believe that an untruth may be stated over and over again and people will believe it. I'm beginning to think that most of the public are not very good at critical thinking but even if you are, brainwashing can happen.

Various media limit what they will cover though due to restrictions space etc. It is good to read or see comments from other societies. This issue is not really about what the media posts but what/when the media decides should not be permitted by a commentator like this fanatic. I agreed that this situation was handled correctly but we only became aware of it when the commentator tried to lay charges. Interesting.

I think that it is also interesting how people do not use the word "nigger" and yet say they support freedom of speech. The negativity and unacceptable aspects of certain words and the power is interesting as to how that has evolved. The article is correct in how making statements about certain groups is forbidden but not about other groups.

[jamieknyc]

The First Amendment bars the governemnt from censoring what is published in the media. It does not mean that a private media organization cannot make its own TOS and delete offensive content. If the law tried to force them to do so, that would be barred by the First Amendment.

[Darkside2009]

Interesting discussion. To my mind therapy is designed to modify behaviour patterns, and ways of thinking. It can be used for people with depression or ingrained habits, like smoking; alcohol or drug abuse; over-eating. It is also used in cases where the person is a convicted paedophile, in order to amend their behaviour.

With paedophiles, we have limited options, we can either lock them away to stop them being a danger to children, we could execute them, if we think we can't eradicate their sexual behaviour patterns, we can spend vast amounts of money trying to monitor their daily activities, or we could try therapy to modify their behaviour.

This seems to be the thinking behind this idea that homosexuals can revert to heterosexuals by behaviour modification therapy.

Although I've heard of such therapies before, I've never known anyone that has been involved in such a programme, so I don't know what is involved. I imagine it is some kind of aversion therapy. The human mind is fragile, and just as one can get anyone to break under torture if that torture is applied for long enough I suppose it is logical to assume that some people could go through indoctrination in such a programme and come out the other side holding views different to those they entered the programme with.

Since no one could force homosexuals to undergo such a programme, one must assume that those who have, have done so of their own free will. If they have, then this might suggest they are already unhappy with their life and their attraction to the same gender and wish to alter it. Just as an alcoholic or smoker must really want to quit in order for the programme to be successful.

Just as an aside, I read in a paper today that Apple had such a programme as one of it's apps and the writer was asking them to remove it on the grounds of it being offensive.

In one of our newspapers here, we often have letters written in to the paper on religious versus secular issues. The editorial policy seems to be to allow the letters to continue for a short period before calling a halt to the issue involved. People get to read both sides of the issue, if they wish, and are then free to decide for themselves what they believe.

During what we refer to as the Troubles in this country, the Government had a policy of denying the IRA/Sinn Fein representatives the oxygen of publicity. This manifested itself in banning the BBC and other news organisations from broadcasting the voices of those representatives. The BBC responded by showing film of the representative being interviewed and employing actors to do the voice-over quoting word for word what the representative was saying. Truly farcical, I think you'll agree.

[darkeyes]

Just as an aside, I read in a paper today that Apple had such a programme as one of it's apps and the writer was asking them to remove it on the grounds of it being offensive.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/21/gay-cure-apple-iphone

[Darkside2009]

http://exodusinternational.org/love-won-out/questions/


Well I had a look at the link to the Guardian and clicked through to the organisation itself, to see what they were advocating.

It was as I suspected, a behaviour modification programme for those already unhappy with their attraction to members of the same gender. I've posted the link itself so anyone that wants to can read for themselves, rather than getting a second-hand account. They can then make up their own minds as to whether they think it is offensive or not, personally I don't find it so. I think that those that wish to avail of it will do so, those that don't wont.

On a lighter note, i remember reading a statement on someone's profile that amused me. It said if homosexuality was a sickness, let's all phone into work tomorrow saying, "Can't come to work today, still queer"

[coyotedude]

There are two issues involved in this post: "free speech" and "responsible journalism".

Regarding free speech: Censorship is a slippery slope.

Who decides what is hateful speech?
Who decides what is inappropriate?
Who decides what is to be banned?
Who draws the line between appropriate and inappropriate speech?

Most free societies run on the following principle:

The majority rules, so long as the fundamental rights of the minority are not violated.

Everyone is in the minority at some point in their lives. By protecting the free speech of the minority, we protect our own right to speak freely.

I understand tenni's frustration with what he deems to be hateful speech. I myself am not so fond of those who spread lies and misinformation about people of different sexual orientations or gender identities.

Yet I am also aware that this very forum of which we are so fond is banned in many countries throughout the world. In those places, governments see our speech - indeed, our very existence - as inappropriate and harmful to their societies. If certain politicians in the US had their way, the same would happen here. The freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution helps protect us from that fate.

Regarding "responsible journalism": Journalists are both the guardians and the biggest beneficiaries of free speech in a free society. So I find it ironic when media outlets censor speech themselves. Yet in the US and Canada, media corporations are typically for-profit private entities, not arms of the government.

The question boils down to what is meant by "responsible journalism." If by "responsible" we mean that journalists may only report on what we agree with, then I have a problem with that. But if by "responsible" we mean that journalists must be discerning of facts, even if those facts challenge our deeply held preconceived notions, then I would agree.

Peace

[darkeyes]

Well thats that then.. for now... but they've tried twice.. what does that say about Apple's commitment to gay rights?

.. and with 140.000 odd signatures on a petition.. loathesome as the app is... what does it say about ours 2 freedom of speech and expression?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/23/gay-cure-app-apple-iphone

[tenni]

"The question boils down to what is meant by "responsible journalism." If by "responsible" we mean that journalists may only report on what we agree with, then I have a problem with that. But if by "responsible" we mean that journalists must be discerning of facts, even if those facts challenge our deeply held preconceived notions, then I would agree." (Coyotedude)

Coyotedude
Well articulated thoughts. Thanks. One question for you is what is this "we" that you are referring too? (we agree with). I strongly agree with your second interpretation of "responsible journalism". Too much is moving towards "opinions" in reporting in the media. I like the approach of all journalistic "news" identifying for the reader/viewer that what is being said is "opinion" or "editorializing".

"By protecting the free speech of the minority, we protect our own right to speak freely." (quote Coyotedude)

Ah, but the commentator has freedom of speech if he goes out and starts his own blog site. No one will arrest him or prevent him from publishing. In Canada, publishing hate comments that are unfounded (lies not able to be proven) is one of the factors in determining hate crimes. Why should his bigotted views be given credibility of being published in a credible news source? If it violates other people's rights and promotes bigotry, why permit such propaganda in a credible news source? The changes that are happening by the use of newspapers on the internet permitting commentary from its readers is both good and bad. It gives an opening as to what some readers think about a news event. Is there a line in such commenting that should be drawn? I think so but would be pissed off if my opinion was removed.

As far as forums of this nature are concerned being banned in certain countries, these are not our countries or more than not "democracies". This is a forum of ninety-five percent opinion and self reporting. This forum is not journalistic with high credibility (a point many forget and believe posts). Sometimes, studies etc. are reported here though. I find it curious when "outspoken" frequent posters attack scientific studies. It is as if these mouthy commentators should be given credibility if they present their thoughts with confidence.

Self reporting has a role in such internet sites as this but until proven by credible studies, they are a sharing experience. If a group of bigots start a website to promote this cure homosexuality stuff and state that it works, how many will believe it compared to research scientists using scientific processes make such a claim? Which will the majority of readers believe? Dunno. But if a news source like the CBC permit such comments, I don't know but they may have more credibility. I just don't know. I fear repeat a lie sufficient times in the comment section and it becomes to be seen as credible. I know that this has happened as far as politics is concerned. lol

[Diva667]

http://exodusinternational.org/love-won-out/questions/


Well I had a look at the link to the Guardian and clicked through to the organisation itself, to see what they were advocating.

It was as I suspected, a behaviour modification programme for those already unhappy with their attraction to members of the same gender. I've posted the link itself so anyone that wants to can read for themselves, rather than getting a second-hand account. They can then make up their own minds as to whether they think it is offensive or not, personally I don't find it so. I think that those that wish to avail of it will do so, those that don't wont.

On a lighter note, i remember reading a statement on someone's profile that amused me. It said if homosexuality was a sickness, let's all phone into work tomorrow saying, "Can't come to work today, still queer"

I think the problem with these programs (and the reason why the APA list them as abusive) is twofold. First they represent gay people as damaged somehow. Stating over and over that gay people are morally, spiritually, developmentally damaged. Secondly their are parents who (sometimes with the best of intentions) force their teen-age children to go through these programs. That is not OK. Children and teens do not have the right to refuse to undergo these treatments, if they are forced into them by their guardians.

Just last week one of the leaders in this movement stated that even celibate gays fall short of God's best. (http://exodusinternational.org/2011/03/identity-matters-letter-from-alan-chambers-for-march-2011/)


So that's my opinion on this matter.

Lastly it isn't censorship if their are other outlets for it to be published. As long as the government does not try to shut people up , its just a buisiness decision.

[elian]

Just last week one of the leaders in this movement stated that even celibate gays fall short of God's best. (http://exodusinternational.org/2011/03/identity-matters-letter-from-alan-chambers-for-march-2011/)


That doesn't surprise me, there are some people who just aren't satisfied no matter what you do. Maybe they ought to stop judging others and read their Bible more.

Ultimate case of upholding free speech, the US Supreme Court just ruled that the Westboro Baptist "Church" is free to demonstrate at funerals of US Military Members killed in action and others.

Normally, I almost like it when WBC comes to town because usually it's their 3-5 people holding up bizarre hateful signs to our 50-100 moderate people standing up to promote diversity and tolerance. They actually end up being a unifying force for good in the community - not because of their message but in spite of it.

When they announced that they were going to picket the funeral of a family who recently lost 7 young primary school children in a fire I was still pretty pissed off.

Of course, they might make an announcement but they don't always actually show up. In this case it was a rural area with no public land to actually hold a demonstration, save the road - and I'd hazard a guess to think that if they showed up plenty of people wouldn't have hesitated to run them out of the street with a vehicle.

I know there are kind and generous Christian people, but this link will give you a little insight into "WBC" if you don't already know..

http://www.atheistnexus.org/page/nate-phelps-2009-aa-speech

[Darkside2009]

[QUOTE=tenni;196570][I]

As far as forums of this nature are concerned being banned in certain countries, these are not our countries or more than not "democracies". This is a forum of ninety-five percent opinion and self reporting. This forum is not journalistic with high credibility (a point many forget and believe posts). Sometimes, studies etc. are reported here though. I find it curious when "outspoken" frequent posters attack scientific studies. It is as if these mouthy commentators should be given credibility if they present their thoughts with confidence.
----------------------------------------


Curious, I've always looked at these forums as simply a means of exchanging views and ideas and examining my own beliefs in the light of the views expressed by others.

I don't respond to all posts on here for the simple reason most of them are of no interest to me. Of those I do respond to, I do so because I feel I have something to contribute. Does that make me one of the Outspoken, mouthy commentators?

If anyone does not wish to read my posts they can simply skip over them, or place me on ignore. I will not be offended.