Talk:Homophobic hate speech

message: and must be merged to anti-gay slogan. I object to the name in many, many ways. It is POV, and anything written in this article, no matter how NPOV, is always going to be tainted by the profound bias of the title. I will be doing my utmost to have this page moved, forthwith. Sam Spade 06:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is irredeemable 

message: Why is the factual accuracy of this article in dispute?  -Seth Mahoney 00:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the article is totally disputed, as I say above, is entirely irredeemable. It uses the term 'hate speech' as tho it were an NPOV lable for anything, rather than an offense to freedom and intellectual dignity. Sam Spade 01:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That someone can freely (or not) use hate speech does not mean they are not using hate speech. There are some objective standards by which we can call something hate speech (e.g. does it intend to incite hatred towards a group, is in intended to make members of a specific group feel inferior to others, etc.) which have nothing to do with whether we permit such hate speech to occur. -- Matty j 04:15, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
I am objecting to the use of the term hate speech. If you review the article on hate speech, you will see that it is a controvercial concept, inherantly objectionable to many. Therefore I find it POV and non-factual to use the word in this article as tho it were an accepted term. I am, BTW, the one who listed the article of VFD, and I am not alone in seeing it as inherantly irredeemably POV. Sam Spade 04:19, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that it is necessarily POV, but even if it were, that doesn't mean that it is non-factual.  So, I repeat: why is the factual accuracy of this article in dispute?  -Seth Mahoney 00:32, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy

message: The majority hgas spoken, and we're keeping the article. I decided to herald in this new age by rewriting. Comments if you please. Sam Spade 21:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD 

message: :Others see this as an attempt to legislate morality at best, and at worst an attempt at destroying the religious rights ability to proclaim its values, in other words enforced political correctness.
I think this, at the very least, needs to be contextualized. Perhaps a paragraph on the religious nature of dissent against this concept? As it is, this reads as though there's something intrinsic about religion which is being attacked by this concept -- and there isn't. It just so happens that some people use their specific religion to justify their derogatory/inflammatory views about homosexuality. The same could be said about sexism and racism. I think that needs to be contextualized rather than universalized as it appears here.
I also humbly object to the "legislate morality" comment. For one thing, the acknowledgement of hate speech has nothing to do with the legislation of laws against it (that's a separate and perhaps more important issue). Secondly, even if "homophobic hate speech" is legislated against, it would not constitute "legislating morality" any more than legislating against "racist hate speech" (as in some countries) would be. No moral actions are affected by this legislation unless one assumes it's a moral obligation to impose one's views onto another, whether they be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. -- Matty j 21:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
:You bring up 2 central points. #1 religion. Every major religions holy texts contain what could easilly be refered to as 'homophobic hate speech'. #2 point, the law. Yes, this law is nearly identical to "racist hate speech" or any other kinds of 'hate speech' for that matter. One difference however is that 'homophobic hate speech' laws interefere with religion. And yes, most religions do find it to be their moral obligation to impose their views, particularly historically. I agree that more content should be added, but my abilities are limited as far as adding bulk content due to my over-riding anti-"hate" speech/crimes POV. Sam Spade 22:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: religion/law

message: Is anybody disputing anything, or can I take the diapute header off? I will take no response whatsoever to mean I should remove the header. I will take any sort of objection (including rewriting the article) as reason to keep the header. If I hear two knocks and one whistle, I'll go fix another pot of tea. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 05:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute header 

message: this article should be renamed from Homophobic hate speech to Anti-gay hate speech. MPS 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily disagree, but why do you suggest this change?  That is, a suggestion is nice, but an argument for that suggestion is better.  -Smahoney 05:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homophobic hate speech