Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

Hi Schraf,Can I make a couple of comments?I seem to be a little confused about what can and can’t be done in the USA, and whether the kind of things Brian is shocked by would really be allowed to happen in the States. According to Holmes there are laws to protect people from verbal abuse, so the kind of things that Brian is so against (like monkey noises at football matches, or other examples of raw race hatred) would also be illegal. If this is true then there isn’t too much difference on either side of the pond, although our laws (from what I can gather) might be a tad stricter as to what is defined as racial hatred. I think very oppressive is a bit harsh and that this is where the emphasis probably differs between the UK and the US. I suspect (although I’m no expert on the law) that the thing that shaped the UK laws was the need to protect people from unacceptable treatment. It’s all well and good saying that if everybody can answer back etc but does this take human nature into account? I don’t think it does — people just keep their heads down and mutter about how wrong it is. That’s why legislation was passed to stop people being treated differently because they happen to be in the minority. So when you say: you’re missing the point slightly. The way to reduce racism etc is to increase education of the issues, and while part of the function of such laws is educating people that such behaviour is wrong, their main use is protection.Whether to extend this protection to religion is a much more confusing thing (you should see the problems involved in a new incitement to religious hatred bill over here), although you could ask what right a majority have to effectively crow about how superior they are to everyone else? This isn’t about simply feeling superior remember it’s about forcefully (and despite the protestations of Paul Harvey) loudly stating it. I’m not entirely sure exactly where I stand on this but, on balance, I feel that giving privileges to one religion just because they are in the majority is unfair.

I can feel myself dragging the topic at a tangent here... but sod it If I could modify this analogy I would liken it to a class full of kids, one of which is constantly called names by two or three others, to the point where they feel totally miserable (they don’t have to be directly threatening or physical to genuinely hurt). Does the teacher turn around and say "Just stop moaning and ignore them?" Hell no!And that’s really where I have to stop stretching analogies because I’m not talking about playground name-calling and hurt feelings. Incitement to Racial hatred laws (and similar ones) which we have in Britain, that are absent in the States are there to protect groups of people from a culture of harassment and abuse that is just as nasty and abusive as the more in-your-face examples, and yet harder to pin down. I believe these laws work to stop this kind of culture without the principle of free speech being eroded. After all true free speech is a fallacy isn’t it? It’s always: Free Speech as long as I suppose this discussion is all about where you draw the line.On a slightly different tack: I really don’t see the difference between government and these other examples. A company is obliged to protect it’s employees, a school to protect it’s staff and students: so why isn’t it expected that a government protect it’s citizens?

Hiya KJAs Contra has pointed out, I don't think we still do have those kind of laws over here, or if we do then they are of the "It is legal to shoot a Welshman within the town walls on a Sunday" variety. There might be something, somewhere about defacing the queens head or similar but I'm unlikely to get shoved in the tower for it.Now the outdated, confusing and downright discriminating blasphemy law...that's a different matter. (Although I'm not even sure that's been used in the last 10 years or so)See my reply to Schraf for a response to your other comments