Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6019510)

"hate speech" can be viewed as pretty meaningless, unless it's something you care about. When people start campaigning for Christians preaching that gays will burn in hell, to be deported then we can look at it.

Is the hate speech of a cleric really classed as "racial hatred?" What if he's a honky, like me?

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6019511)

No. I'm really not.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6019517)

Well that is the freedom of speech we all want, now if they were calling for people to chop the heads off gays it would be a different ball game

It is still inciting racial hatred regardless of the ethnicity of the preacher.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6019527)

You just did, they are a small but dangerous minority, you made a generalisation that enveloped the whole of the middle east.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6019507)

You are suggesting that all Muslims and in fact the whole of the middle east are extremists.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6019554)

So the crossover line is calling for someone to be killed? I've seen loads of people on this forum calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment. Are they engaging in hate speech?

That is people discussing a change in the law, not terrorism.



No I didn't, Kizzy. Only Mohammedans would take offence at me calling their prophet a paedophile, so it stands to reason, that they're the ones I would be addressing. The only way you can read what I said, and assign the meaning you gave it, is actually if those are your beliefs.

That is how your post read jesus, you may have meant Mohammedans but that is not what you inferred.


Now unless you think every person in the middle east thinks/believes that, then it's quite an absurd accusation to throw at me.

Originally Posted by Ninastar (Post 6019547)

even if it's generalising, it's true.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/uploads/6/...dex_top_10.png

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6019596)

1) That is people discussing a change in the law, not terrorism.


2) That is how your post read jesus, you may have meant Mohammedans but that is not what you inferred.



3) Why is it absurd? I can only comment on your post, it was not clear what you were trying to say but that is how it sounded to me.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6019611)

See... now ninastar thinks it's true.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6019617)

1) I've seen people say it would be better if person x was murdered loads of times. The case of the children being accidentally murdered in a fire started by the parents and their friend (Sorry the name really escapes me) is a prime example. If someone would have actually gone through with it and then said they'd seen James (for arguments sake) say it a few times, do we start trying to deport James?

2) Mohammedans are followers of Mohammed. There is no other thing I meant to infer. Just not every single one of them on the planet.

3) Seemed pretty clear to me, and Alex didn't read it that way.