Should BBC journalists be executed?

Journalism is, after all deeply offensive to many tyrants or would be tyrants, and journalism IS a lifestyle choice.

Put simply my view is that debating the merits of whether the execution of someone for the fact that they are gay, is disgusting. And that there can be no relativism about it. It is entirely wrong.

Therefore the BBC made a huge mistake for which, they have refused to apologise properly.

Or do you think that ‘freedom of speech’ only applies to people who want to murder gay people?

***Note to Pink News – keep an eye on this Luke person. I have a suspicion that he is a troll.”

These statements of Mr Murphy had me giggling a lot!
As I have explained above, I believe speech should only be restricted when it causes a direct and clear violation of rights.
Mr Murphy asks me what I intend to do to protect various odious people’s free speech rights. Not much. But that doesn’t mean I’m not in favour of their rights.
As for his imputing of a double standard to me. No, nothing could be farther from the case, and I have already acknowledged the BBC’S double standard, which could be justified on Utilitarian grounds (although I personally would disagree with the justification).
I found Mr Murphy’s statement to the effect, ‘look out for this Luke guy’ a little amusing, but also a little offensive. Perhaps, by the offense principle, his speech ought to be banned (lol)! For I have never been described as a troll before, and don’t know exactly what he might be trying to imply by such a description. If he thinks I’m some anti-gay weirdo, who’s in denial about their sexuality- far from it. As I said above, I’m 21, proud to be gay, and am having great fun in life. In fact, probably a great deal more fun in life than I imagine Mr Murphy does, but I suppose that’s idle speculation!

To be impartial means if the evidence is overwhelming, uninformed viewpoints do not need to be treated equally.”

You say they presented no evidence from medical authorities as if that would be evidence in favour of opposition to the motion. It isn’t necessarily. Many evangelical christians belief that, whatever the genetic or biological basis for sexuality, it is still immoral, so the evidence you cite can be used by both sides of the argument.
No matter how obvious the answer to a question might seem, framing the question does not mean that you are breaching impartial. I fail to see any breach of impartiality.
Impartiality in debate does not involve giving information to the debaters, otherwise it would mandate giving information to people on question time or any questions, prior to those shows.
“So, the BBC throws a discussion to people who only have access to one side of the story. It is grossly irresponsible…No encouragement whatsoever for anti-gay fanatics to even consider their position or the evidence. Nothing but an encouragement to spew hatred. It’s a scandal.”

I agree, it is irresponsible, and I’m annoyed at it. But freedom of speech trumps any offence you or I might have. As far as I’m concerned, let hatred be spewed- but don’t stop it through preventing speech. Stop it through campaigning, stop it through funding, stop it through education, stop it through rallying, stop it through lobbying, stop it through boycotting (although I believe this is only appropriate in some cases), etc. But the day we stop it through muzzling is the day we cease to be a democracy, as I would define it.

Yes, the double standard is bad.

As to my sexuality, yes, I’m a very happy 21 year old gay man, thanks!

“Freedom of speech is a qualified freedom – it is only allowed when that freedom does not impinge on the rights of other people – in this case – the right for gay people not to have to defend our right to exist on a publicly funded website.”
I concede that, like any right, the right to free speech must be limited. The question is, what principles restrict the right? There have been two main principles proposed in moral philosophy- Mill’s harm principle and Feinberg’s offense principle. Mill will not sanction limits to free speech simply because someone is harmed by the statements of others. Mill gives the example of a corn dealer, and suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve the poor in most circumstances. It is not acceptable to express the same view to an angry mob, ready to explode, that has gathered outside the house of the corn dealer. The difference between the two is that the latter is an expression “such as to constitute…a positive instigation to some mischievous act,” (1978, 53), namely, to place the rights, and possibly the life, of the corn dealer in danger. Mill distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate harm, and it is only when speech causes a direct and clear violation of rights that it can be limited.
By Mill’s principle, since discussion of the motion itself does not cause a direct and clear violation of rights, it should not be limited.
Now, most liberal democracies today restrict freedom of speech more than Mill’s principle would permit. Often they adopt restrictions which seem to derive from Feinberg-esque thinking. Feinberg thought we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that we can legitimately prohibit some forms of expression because they are very offensive. Offending someone is less serious than harming someone, so the penalties imposed should be less severe than those for causing harm. This principle is difficult to apply because many people take offense as the result of an overly sensitive disposition, or worse, because of bigotry and unjustified prejudice. At other times some people can be deeply offended by statements that others find mildly amusing. The furore over the Danish cartoons brings this starkly to the fore. Feinberg suggests that a variety of factors need to be taken into account when deciding whether speech can be limited by the offense principle, which I won’t go into.
But I personally think the offense principle is deeply flawed, as even a cursory consideration of it will confirm. ‘Offense’ is a highly subjective notion, and if not careful, the definition could end up banning freedom of speech because when offending bigots. Indeed, on an associated note, the offense principle, Feinberg argues, lies behind the penalties for sodomy that ranged from twenty years imprisonment to the death penalty in the USA. He reasoned that these are victimless crimes and hence the punishment has to have a basis in the supposed offensiveness of the behavior rather than the harm that is caused. So the offense principle can be a bludgeon to destroy important rights.
As such, yes I am in favour of anything being debated, so long as it abides by Mill’s principle. Just to check that my interpretation of Mill’s principle is correct I spoke to my philosophy tutor and asked him whether Mill would allow the BBC debate. He confirmed my obvious expectation. And I think Mill would’ve been right.

No, it wasn’t. He can’t be so thick as to not get it, can he? I honestly believe the BBC is homophobic. Their response to complaints is pathetic and patronising. They give the impression that LGBT people are second-class citizens. Until I see a debate entitled “Should black people be executed?” then I’ll continue to believe that the BBC are ignorant homophobes. That question is disgusting and offensive too, but I’m sure it’d bring out all the racists who’d like to ‘discuss’ it. Obviously, such a hideous thing shouldn’t EVER be up for discussion – and the same goes for the execution of homosexuals. It legitimises hate and makes it seem that killing people because of their race or sexuality is a perfectably reasonable thing to discuss. This gives the green light to hate and violence against those people.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This apology is pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-9WS3XxtWo

I learned by reading each and every newspaper globaly, most of which saw this BBC tripe as an affront to human dignity.

No more BBC cash from me.

Take me to court and I will show this BBC affront as to why I will no longer pay it.

Given the laws that presently exist, I will win.

Its well known the BBC is anti-gay as well as anti-Jewish, anti-American and anti-Israeli.

That’s what happens when the commies run the beeb!

Robin excellent . . . clarity, and to the point even though the point is distubing in its perversity.

I say bugger them.

The populous do not have a forum for debate, and the BBC was disingenuous to allude that one exists.

The west buggerred up with all the God Crap, and now they are taking it literaly.

Blame the past missionaries and their “GOOD BOOK”, spoiling these societies.

All they have done is repeated the bull espoused to them
without having controls.

So Mr Horrocks, you are now saying that for Africans the merits of genocide are still a matter for legitimate debate. This is to hold them to a lower standard of morality than Europeans.

Congratulations.

To your homophobia you can now add racism (patronising variety).

Do yourself a favour and stop talking.

To be impartial means if the evidence is overwhelming, uninformed viewpoints do not need to be treated equally.

The BBC presented no information about what the experts think. (links to the APA, the RCP etc; links to biological explanations for homosexuality; it has given LGBT people no chance to tell readers what it is like to be gay, no information about the consequences of liberal laws in Europe.

So, the BBC throws a discussion to people who only have access to one side of the story. It is grossly irresponsible. Furthermore, the framing of the question means those who argue from the position that there is no issue, are seen to be on the fringe.

In short, the BBC has decided the middle ground is that we are discussing what penalties we should impose on gay people. The framing of the question instructs the reader to bypass the discussion on whether homosexuality is immoral in the first place, whether the state should intervene at all in private relationships.

No encouragement whatsoever for anti-gay fanatics to even consider their position or the evidence. Nothing but an encouragement to spew hatred. It’s a scandal.

You say that a debate about whether gay people should be executed for the fact that they are gay is acceptable because of a freedom of speech arguement.

In your post above you say that ‘debate’ whether the Holocaust was ‘justified’ should also be acceptable using the same criteria.

However you are wilfully ignoring the fact that as a public service broadcaster would NEVER engage in such a debate.

Are you seriously claiming you can’t see a double standard here.

Are you gay Luke?

I really don’t understand your agenda. You claim to be in favour of freedom of speech but you ignore the fact that no society in history has allowed absolute freedom of speech ; and you ignore the clear double standards being applied by the BBC.

Freedom of speech is a qualified freedom – it is only allowed when that freedom does not impinge on the rights of other people – in this case – the right for gay people not to have to defend our right to exist on a publicly funded website.