Homophobia on the buses.

[australopithecus]

This.

A proposed bus advert by a Christian group would have been like a "slap in the face" to gay charity Stonewall over an anti-bullying message, the High Court has heard.

Transport for London banned the Core Issues Trust's "ex-gay" advert because it could cause "widespread offence".

It told the court there was a "storm of protest" as news of the advert spread.

TfL said the mayor was aware but denied he influenced the decision, weeks before an election.

The advert, which was to read "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!" was also paid for by Christian group Anglican Mainstream.

Dr Michael Davidson, co-director of the Core Issues Trust, is asking the court for permission to have a judicial review against TfL's decision to ban the adverts.

 

[Prolescum]

Since the news of this advert broke Dr Davidson has faced "considerable hostility", he added.

That's what happens when you piss off swathes of Londoners.

Go fuck yourself, you pathetic little whiney twat.

 

[malicious_bloke]

Well hopefully when I take over the world and rain cleansing fire from the sky down on London, i'll hit this arsehole at the same time.

PS. And southend-on-sea. There's literally no excuse for it.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Am I the only one that thinks that they should have the right to look like complete tools and rile up Londoners with advertisements? I mean, in hindsight, they now have more publicity than they could ever ask for - but freedom of speech shouldn't be checked just because it gets some men's panties in a bunch or some women's boxers in a ... whatever metaphor works for boxers.

 

[australopithecus]

It's not a matter of freedom of speech, they still have the right to ply their nonsense if they want. All that has happened is that a government body that oversees transport in London has said they don't want their advertisement on public transport, because it almost unashamedly implies homosexuality is a bad thing. I'd agree there's no right not be be offended, but if there is an appropriate time and place for blatant homophobia, it's definitely not on public transport.

You have to remember though, freedom of speech in America is not the same as it in the UK.

 

[Epiquinn]

I don't really know how the public transport system in London is organized (i.e whether it's publicly funded or owned by a private company etc.) but:

1. If it was the decision of the bus company (public or private) that they don't want such ads displayed on their buses, then they have every right to make that decision.
2. If some governmental body (that doesn't actually run the public transport system) intervened and decided that such ads can't be displayed on buses, then it is an infringement on free speech.

It's trivial to say that the laws regarding freedom of speech are different in different countries. The principle of freedom of speech is universal and that's the interesting thing here.

 

[australopithecus]

I don't really know how the public transport system in London is organized (i.e whether it's publicly funded or owned by a private company etc.) but:

1. If it was the decision of the bus company (public or private) that they don't want such ads displayed on their buses, then they have every right to make that decision.
2. If some governmental body (that doesn't actually run the public transport system) intervened and decided that such ads can't be displayed on buses, then it is an infringement on free speech.

It's trivial to say that the laws regarding freedom of speech are different in different countries. The principle of freedom of speech is universal and that's the interesting thing here.

Transport for London is a government run body, and based on the events given in the article the advert was deemed acceptable by an independent advertising regulator. TfL, after it became clear that there was a large public opposition to the advert, decided it wouldn't be shown on public transport.

The laws regarding freedom of speech do differ here than in the US. Whether I agree with laws against specific types of speech or not, this matter doesn't fall under freedom of speech. No one has had their right to free speech curtailed, a private institution has not been allowed to advertise, nothing more.

 

[Nemesiah]

I don't really know how the public transport system in London is organized (i.e whether it's publicly funded or owned by a private company etc.) but:

1. If it was the decision of the bus company (public or private) that they don't want such ads displayed on their buses, then they have every right to make that decision.
2. If some governmental body (that doesn't actually run the public transport system) intervened and decided that such ads can't be displayed on buses, then it is an infringement on free speech.

It's trivial to say that the laws regarding freedom of speech are different in different countries. The principle of freedom of speech is universal and that's the interesting thing here.

Transport for London is a government run body, and based on the events given in the article the advert was deemed acceptable by an independent advertising regulator. TfL, after it became clear that there was a large public opposition to the advert, decided it wouldn't be shown on public transport.

The laws regarding freedom of speech do differ here than in the US. Whether I agree with laws against specific types of speech or not, this matter doesn't fall under freedom of speech. No one has had their right to free speech curtailed, a private institution has not been allowed to advertise, nothing more.

a private institution has not been allowed to advertise, nothing more.

I believe the ad was somewhat ofensive, however, "it offends me" is a very slipery slope one can go down. If they are given an oportunity to adverise with a diferent worded ad then I believe it is ok. IF however they are denied the opportunity to advertise because of what they represent (people wanting o turn gay people into heterosexuals (should that even be posible)) then it is an infringment on the rights of tose advertising and on those that would seek such service; if we do not alow people to be twats (not criminals, that is different) we risk losing the freedom to act as we desire.

I believe in this case is not that the private institution was not given a chance to advertise but rather why was it not given the chance. While the cause cited is the "widespread offense" I believe there can be a touch of "your ideas are not be heard" and that, even in the case of wrong ideas can lead to censorship.

I believe this is an interesting topic since it shows that tolerance is very difficult to implement when it is time to be tolerant to ideas contrary to your own. True tolerance can't be solely for the progresive popular Ideas, it has to be also towards the backwards moronic ideas otherwise is jut a polpularity contest.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Transport for London is a government run body, and based on the events given in the article the advert was deemed acceptable by an independent advertising regulator. TfL, after it became clear that there was a large public opposition to the advert, decided it wouldn't be shown on public transport.

The laws regarding freedom of speech do differ here than in the US. Whether I agree with laws against specific types of speech or not, this matter doesn't fall under freedom of speech. No one has had their right to free speech curtailed, a private institution has not been allowed to advertise, nothing more.

There's the kicker:

The Laws regarding the freedom of speech differ.

However, one must ask: were gay pride adverts and notations allowed to be put on the buses?

For once, I agree with Nemesiah. If you think people are being moronic tools then it should speak for itself.

 

[Prolescum]

These fuck jockeys are promoting the unethical stance that gays can become straight through therapy. It isn't about freedom of speech (not that it was anyway - their rights aren't being impinged upon by an organisation changing its mind about allowing them to promote that view); the framing of the argument is all wrong and being distracted by this other piffle.

 

[AyameTan]

I think they should be permitted to plaster their hate-filled uninformed bigotry on buses. It's not on the level of funeral-picketing, and one can simply look away.

As Hytegia implied, however, they should also allow adverts for gay pride parades as well.

 

[Prolescum]

The real story here is that these fuckers are attempting to peddle pseudo science, not this well-worn non-argument about freedom of speech, which doesn't even apply here. Just like we reserve the right to limit what people can post on this privately owned forum (in our case, spam and persistent idiocy), TfL reserve the same to not plaster bollocks over their buses if it will piss off their customers.

Don't get me wrong, personally, I think these pricks should be given prime-time audiences and ridiculed for the sheer stupidity of their positions and the paucity of their arguments for holding them, however, it's still up to TfL to choose what they advertise.

 

[AyameTan]

The real story here is that these fuckers are attempting to peddle pseudo science, not this well-worn non-argument about freedom of speech, which doesn't even apply here. Just like we reserve the right to limit what people can post on this privately owned forum (in our case, spam and persistent idiocy), TfL reserve the same to not plaster bollocks over their buses if it will piss off their customers.

Don't get me wrong, personally, I think these pricks should be given prime-time audiences and ridiculed for the sheer stupidity of their positions and the paucity of their arguments for holding them, however, it's still up to TfL to choose what they advertise.

Is TfL a public entity, providing services for the general public? If so, then they should allow the adverts. It's not like they're printing bomb-making instructions or advocating violence. It's just plain ignorance.

 

[Prolescum]

Is TfL a public entity, providing services for the general public?

Yes it's a public body, the transport authority for London.

If so, then they should allow the adverts.

Why? How does this follow from your question?

It's not like they're printing bomb-making instructions or advocating violence.

No, it isn't, and your moral equivalence is invalid. Seriously.
They're promulgating the spurious idea that homosexuality is an addiction, a mental illness, or simply a choice. This is categorically wrong, along with the fact that their customers have made their voices heard.

It is completely understandable for TfL to change their minds on who advertises in their space. Can these arseholes still say that homosexuality is X,Y,Z elsewhere? Yes. Are TfL required to be the soapbox? No.

Freedom of speech doesn't apply.

It's just plain ignorance.

Please explain, because this makes no sense to me.

 

[AyameTan]

Why? How does this follow from your question?

Because as a public entity, the advertising they provide would be a public service. As such, they should not discriminate. I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom (even though it's largely nonsense).

No, it isn't, and your moral equivalence is invalid. Seriously.
They're promulgating the spurious idea that homosexuality is an addiction, a mental illness, or simply a choice. This is categorically wrong, along with the fact that their customers have made their voices heard.

Why can't this be settled by boycotts? As long as they're willing to pay for the adverts, what's the issue?

It is completely understandable for TfL to change their minds on who advertises in their space. Can these arseholes still say that homosexuality is X,Y,Z elsewhere? Yes. Are TfL required to be the soapbox? No.

Freedom of speech doesn't apply.

Are the TfL personnel accountable to the public? Can they be voted out? If not, then I don't see how their decision was fair.

Please explain, because this makes no sense to me.

The proposed signage is ignorance with no basis in fact. That's what I meant.

 

[Prolescum]

Because as a public entity, the advertising they provide would be a public service.

What? This is completely arse backwards. It's not a public service, it's a funding mechanism for a public service (transport).

As such, they should not discriminate.

They are not discriminating, though. That is hyperbole.

I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom

So what? So am I. Their freedom of religion is not being impinged either.

(even though it's largely nonsense)

I would argue that it is all nonsense. Some of it even gibberish.

Why can't this be settled by boycotts?

Because organisations that provide advertising spaces have the (probably contractual) right to revoke whatever they want from said spaces. Advertising spaces, although publicly viewable, are not public spaces but private property, ergo, freedom of speech or religion isn't applicable.

As long as they're willing to pay for the adverts, what's the issue?

The issue is TfL no longer want to display their advertising because it is offensive to their main source of income: commuters. Blowing it up into an irrelevant debate about freedom of speech or religion is a complete waste of time.

The focus should be on the peddlers of drivel.

Are the TfL personnel accountable to the public?

Yes, but not directly; they report to the Greater London Authority and the mayor, Boris Johnson.

Can they be voted out?

No, they aren't elected representatives.

If not, then I don't see how their decision was fair.

Fairness has nothing to do with it either.

The proposed signage is ignorance with no basis in fact. That's what I meant.

I see. That did come across as a bit weird the way I read it

 

[malicious_bloke]

These fuck jockeys are promoting the unethical stance that gays can become straight through therapy. It isn't about freedom of speech (not that it was anyway - their rights aren't being impinged upon by an organisation changing its mind about allowing them to promote that view); the framing of the argument is all wrong and being distracted by this other piffle.

Essentially this.

Promoting unevidenced medical or psychological "therapies" should be against the law. If some horrid faith healer or homeopath wanted to promote their bullshit on the side of buses I'd hope the committee would tell them to get bent.

Gay "reparative" therapy doesn't work and hurts people. The advertising standards agency should step in to prevent it, let alone the London Transport folks.

 

[Frenger]

These fuck jockeys are promoting the unethical stance that gays can become straight through therapy. It isn't about freedom of speech (not that it was anyway - their rights aren't being impinged upon by an organisation changing its mind about allowing them to promote that view); the framing of the argument is all wrong and being distracted by this other piffle.

Essentially this.

Promoting unevidenced medical or psychological "therapies" should be against the law. If some horrid faith healer or homeopath wanted to promote their bullshit on the side of buses I'd hope the committee would tell them to get bent.

Gay "reparative" therapy doesn't work and hurts people. The advertising standards agency should step in to prevent it, let alone the London Transport folks.

This is truely important. This kind of bogus nonsense may seem like bogus nonsense to some people, but it really does register with others.

A colleague at work refused to acknowledge the LGBT celebration week, which of course she is free to do so. If she wants to remain a twat then so be it. But what was actually frightening was when she said if she were to find out her daughter was gay she would kill her. When I looked stunned she reduced the punishment to "visit the doctor".

I asked her what she thought the Doctor would do, and she said fix her. I said if you took your daughter to a doctor, said "my daughter is gay can you fix her" they would call you a twat and tell you to grow up.

"Can't they fix her genes?"

She couldn't understand that there is nothing to fix, it isn't something that needs to be "fixed", it's not even a thing, it's just a different sexual orientation.

The problem is, people are twats, and stupid advertisments like this fuel that twattery.