Genuine freedom is the right to say things that some might find offensive, as long as it doesn't directly lead to violence

They arrested him for repeating what the Bible says

The Mosaic Code consists of 613 injunctions, which are found in the book of Leviticus and other books in the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of the Code might be considered hate literature, because it targets people on the basis of their religion, gender, and sexual orientation.

The book of Joshua contains numerous examples of genocides ordered by God against the inhabitants of Canaan. These were based on the Canaanites having followed a different religion from the Hebrews. A casual reader of the Bible might conclude that God is teaching that people who do not worship him are sub-human and have no right to exist. Five examples from other books in the King James Version (KJV) of the Hebrew Scriptures include

rickyp wrote:fate

Genuine freedom is the right to say things that some might find offensive, as long as it doesn't directly lead to violence

So if a Muslim cleric preaches the struggle against the West .... thats okay because memebrs of his audience doesn't immediately run into the streets killing..
They return to their basements and begin building bombs.

I find it strange that you don't think the Westboro Church is doing harm to the families of veterans or firemen when they picket their funerals... Or that, the harm must be endured unless the Westboro tribe escalate to violence.

If, its only the advent of the use of violence that ends ones right to free speech - you leave an enormous amount of room for intimidation, provocation, and abuse. Abuse that the audience, including the targets have to endure or "walk away". At what point are you prepared to protect the rights of the targets or the audience to enjoy access to public space without having to endure this noise and abuse?

They arrested him for repeating what the Bible says

Yeah, well, there's a lot of hateful language in the Old Testament.

Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings.

He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”.

A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.
Challenge

Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”

He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.

“As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”

EDINBURGH, Scotland, August 9, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Court of Session in Edinburgh has fined a Scottish man £40,000 ($62,020 U.S.) in damages after he sent a message on Twitter calling a lesbian same-sex "marriage" advocate "a danger to children."

Lesbian Jaye Richards-Hill sued David Shuttleton, an antiques dealer from Barrhead, near Glasgow, for defamation because of his remarks about her homosexual activism.

Shuttleton reportedly also sent messages to First Minister Alex Salmond and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon relating his concerns about Richards-Hill, a teacher and adviser to Education Secretary Mike Russell,

Calling people who disagree with his anti-gay campaign "normalphobes," Shuttleton told the Daily Record, "It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community. It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws."

While the huge award may set a precedent in cases involving alleged "homophobia" in Scotland, Shuttleton stated that he will challenge the ruling, claiming that the judgment came "by default," because he failed to file his defense properly.

"It's just a technicality,” Shuttleton said. “I put my defense in the wrong format so I’ve been working on it and it’s finished, but it’s just the case went through in the meantime.”

The Scottish media are labeling Shuttleton a "delusional fool," "bigot," "lunatic," and "Christian fanatic racist homophobe." But news sources portray Richards-Hill as a "respected parent and teacher" who is a "leading campaigner for marriage rights for gay couples."

danivon wrote:Calling someone a 'danger to children' is quite serious, so it is not a non-story. Freedom of religion does not - last I checked - extend to defamation, and unless you can show why the court was wrong to find against him, it is a story in which I am finding it hard to find sympathy for Shuttleton.

Doctor Fate wrote:This is a matter of freedom of speech.

Is one not entitled to an opinion? If said "danger to children" wants to sue, that is her right, but what is her actual damage?

Clearly he's allowed to say a lot. But once he starts making defamatory statements about a particular individual, that is different.

While there is a right to free expression, it is tied to a responsibility to stand by your words and their effects.

GMTom wrote:so someones opinion that same sex marriage is a danger to children is a serious threat and is now defamatory?

Are people not entitled to their personal opinions and allowed to speak of these thoughts? We see he is able to be prosecuted for his opinions

yet in the very same article we find the Scottish media calling him a "delusional fool," "bigot," "lunatic," and "Christian fanatic racist homophobe."

is he now allowed to sue these media sources for the same libel?

or do they have freedom of speech since they are giving opinions from the politically correct side of the aisle?

GMTom wrote:uhh, your own statement linked the daily mail headline "Twitter Bigot..."

"if they wrote it and it's untrue" I agree they would not be sued for giving such an opinion but his statement was just as simple, his opinion only about how this gay right activist. How's it different in the least (except the Daily Mail is on the side of political correctness)

bbauska wrote:http://thesaurus.com/browse/bigot

noun

a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race