Re hate speach – doesn't the world, and the ghosts of the 50+ million who died in WWII say something to us – that real hate speech, and speech that ties in with cultural background hatreds, should be band. If only hate speech had been banned in Germany in the 1930s.

Perhaps no one would have walked the the gates of the compounds, that had a sign "work makes free" in German. The greatest lie on the face of the earth. Instead 6 million Jews, and millions of other undesireables, including germany's gays walked through those gates. Only one way. Because they exited through hitler's chimneys.

And the hatred of the Jews came from what conservative church. Whose hierarchy is a disgrace before God for how they violate the very meaning of Jesus life on earth as a mescsage for all people.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Gay bigotry sounds truly disturbing . . . I would be grateful if you could clarify this further.

(Report comment to the moderator)

The liberal wing is currently in the ascendancy, and so Christians may feel threatened that they're losing their freedome of speech. But what happens if the balance of public opinion swings the other way – it has in the past so who says it can't happen again?

I passionately believe in free speech – but I'm not sure it's a widely held belief by most gays on here. I believe Christian bigotry exists – but the above comments also show gay bigotry isn't a figment of my imagination either.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

We will have to see the fallout in the future.

(Report comment to the moderator)

What next? Legislation to protect red heads? Small people? People with a third nipple? We should get rid of the laws that protect the religious not put more lawsin place.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

You take the rough with the smooth free speach wise – you don't silance people, you chalange them. Voltare is often misquoted as saying 'I deplore what you say but I defend your right to say it' I'd say this: I deplore what you say and I'd love you to say it so that I can shout it down.

(Report comment to the moderator)

"In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

Reads the section under question. "For the avoidance of doubt" clearly suggests that even the homophobes who wrote it knew that the law was never intended to be used in such circumstances anyway. So, all it does is, like section 28 before it (which never resulted in a successful prosecution), enshrine in English law the idea that homosexuality is something that should be criticised. It maintains the idea of homosexual "practices" and "sexual conduct" being morally questionable in English law (if not actually criminal), something which I had hoped was finally got rid of with the repeal of the sodomy law. This is the religious homophobes in the legislature clutching at straws, testing their strength and hoping against hope that that they can keep the state at least nominally homophobic, lest they lose their last toehold in the fight for everybody's "mortal souls".

HM Government and the Commons (which the people elected) were right to scrap this completely ineffective, yet offensive, amendment and that the unelected Lords should dare to challenge the Commons on a point of morality more than once is outrageous!

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

We mustn't confuse the issue. Church groups that try to change someone's sexuality, electroshock therapies and "electrocuting people" are not issues that involve freedom of speech. This law does not affect any of these activities, as far as I understand.

You say that religion and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and I agree with you. A religious person will agree with us too but for different reasons. But what each of us thinks is only relevant to a degree because the law's intent is to forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, race…

So whatever you advocate for one category, you must expect to have to respect for another.

I'm in two minds about this, so I'm not entirely sure where to side on this issue, but your argument feels a little emotional and personally I feel uneasy about taking away people's freedom of speech on the basis that what is said can be offensive.

I'd rather run the risk of being offended than finding myself sued for speaking my mind.

(Report comment to the moderator)

i must be a monster…

You're talking about Gay Bullying, this story is about something else.

I've pointed out that the great british GOVERMENT has not efectivly handled the issue of bullying and left the door open to allow this.

Try comparing apples to apples not apples to pears.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

As for Rowan Atkinson's comment, I think we need to have more gay comedians ragging on about straights and their behaviour even if its offensive to them to even the field. Maybe that will make them think twice and what its like to be on the receiving end of cheap jokes at our expense. Here in the states, some gay comedians often refer to straights as "breeders". Its a derogatory reference and it pisses many of them off. British gay comedians should start doing the same to demonstrate how unkind words have consequences. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(Report comment to the moderator)

It's obvious that this kid didn't have any backbone, and his death is actually an advantage to the rest of us.

(Report comment to the moderator)