So are the people who sign the petition not expecting there to be a reaction to the petitions they write?
Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
So are the people who sign the petition not expecting there to be a reaction to the petitions they write?
That's where we disagree then. I do think that journalists should be held responsible when they ruin civilians lives and actively cause harm.
Yes lot's of people write horrible things about other people and their actions but you can't just group together "horrible" writing and tar it all with the same brush. Things like albums or paintings are voluntary choices where the point of them is that the artist throws it out to the public expecting to get a positive response. There shouldn't be such an issue with sexuality, it's not something people choose or something that should envoke any type of response - it's a basic human right.
It might be getting more attention because the subject killed themselves yes, but that's only natural. But why does that matter? The fact is that Littlejohn abused his power as a writer for one of the most powerful papers in the UK to single out one person for their sexual orientation. Regardless of the conclusion, he should be prosecuted for it.
Then I can't see what your point was.
Not really. The mail is going to ignore this until it's over. We already know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred
Obviously this isn't an ethnicity problem, but over time a lot of the same or similar laws apply to both. Many on here will say a law to prevent the bullying of a creed is not the same as one that protects transgender people, but that won't be the case forever.
So send him to jail. Over time saying that Lucy Meadows cannot teach children because she is transgender will be the same as saying someone can't because they are black.
It matters because it is a fundamentally unfair way to run a legal system. We have a difference of opinion regarding freedom of speech, I think it protects people no matter how unsavory their opinions are. You disagree.
The important thing here for me is not to allow freedom of speech to overpower privacy as an automatic response. Newspapers are allowed to discuss whatever topic they wish from whatever moral or philosophical or ideological viewpoint. I don't care if Littlejohn keeps talking about trannies and gays in a negative way - but when he singles out a random person then he's crossed the line.
I believe laws regarding discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities should be extended to cover sexual orientation. I just don't think there should be laws against people saying mean things.
Except in cases of race? But not in cases of sexuality or gender identity?
In any cases.
If you replace the word 'trannie' for 'black' in his article, he would be asking for this woman to lose her job because she's black.
If you believe hate speech against ethnicity and sexuality are similar then why don't you think he's crossed the line to the point where he should be persecuted?
I believe protections against discrimination should be extended to sexuality. In the state where I live, you can be fired for your sexuality. I think that should be changed. As we have protections for race from discrimination in housing, employment, etc, we should also have them for sexuality.
No class should have laws preventing people saying mean things about them.
We're not talking about the ability to say mean things about different classes - rather individuals who don't want the attention.
I think he should be able to say "This teacher is black. She should be fired", yes. That's free speech.
And you don't think that incites hatred?
That's irrelevant. I don't think there should be laws against inciting hated.
Yes there should. The law is there to protect people and stop them from being victimized.
The law violates free speech.
Don't agree = ridiculous opinion. The arrogance from people who are actually quite dim is hilarious. Ah well.
Al, I have no idea how you can talk about arrogance in others, you take the absolute piss with it in this Forum. You're also incredibly condescending.
I agree with Eboue.
Free speech shouldn't be above justice.
Besides, free speech isn't even a real fecking thing in the media anyway. Everything is directed by editorial policy and by the interest of the owners. If one writers for the Guardian were to say "vote torie" that would never make it press, similarly if someone in the mail were to write "legalize drugs" that would never make it to press either.
When the media actively censors itself and keeps on toeing the company line I think it's important to tell their defense of free speech to go feck itself. Free speech, rather, is the notion that everyone should have the right to free thought and make to their own opinions and decisions and that's a notion I wholeheartedly support. But what is more important is peoples right not to be bullied by these giant corporations.
This was the mails reaction to her suicide by the way: "It is regrettable that this tragic death should now be the subject of an orchestrated Twitterstorm, fanned by individuals – including former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell – with agendas to pursue."
Because the best way to apologize for this is to criticize those who point out what you've done. It's fecking disgraceful.
Besides, free speech isn't even a real fecking thing in the media anyway. Everything is directed by editorial policy and by the interest of the owners. If one writers for the Guardian were to say "vote torie" that would never make it press, similarly if someone in the mail were to write "legalize drugs" that would never make it to press either.
When the media actively censors itself and keeps on toeing the company line I think it's important to tell their defense of free speech to go feck itself. Free speech, rather, is the notion that everyone should have the right to free thought and make to their own opinions and decisions and that's a notion I wholeheartedly support. But what is more important is peoples right not to be bullied by these giant corporations.
This was the mails reaction to her suicide by the way: "It is regrettable that this tragic death should now be the subject of an orchestrated Twitterstorm, fanned by individuals – including former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell – with agendas to pursue."
Because the best way to apologize for this is to criticize those who point out what you've done. It's fecking disgraceful.
You are misunderstanding what free speech is. It has nothing to do with private organizations. The Guardian could prevent their writers from publishing an article about their favorite flavor of ice cream if they wanted. Free speech would come in when the government starts prosecuting someone for it.
I know that, it's the goalposts I'm arguing here.
Why is there a difference between saying "Kill these people" to saying "I despise the existence of these people and they should be persecuted by society"?
I know there's the element of inciting violence, but emotional abuse is for me as bad physical abuse.
For the rest of us, it's not.
I consider death threats to be different because they are typically used to try to surpress free speech. i.e. We'll get you if you keep saying that.
Oh, and the whole papparazi thing should be illegal too. It's fecking disgusting that people can have a job which basically asks them to harass people.
I've just read the Littlejohn article regarding Lucy Meadows, and though I obviously disagree with the sentiments entirely and wouldn't sanction it if I were editor, I don't consider it to be an unreasonable subject for an article.
Though I agree with transgender rights and anti-workplace-discrimination laws, I accept that the parents quoted felt uncomfortable with the teacher and wanted to highlight what they felt was a genuine issue with their children's education. I think they're bigots, but that shouldn't mean they can't have their concerns aired in the press.
Though I agree with transgender rights and anti-workplace-discrimination laws, I accept that the parents quoted felt uncomfortable with the teacher and wanted to highlight what they felt was a genuine issue with their children's education. I think they're bigots, but that shouldn't mean they can't have their concerns aired in the press.
So, we can only suppress speech when it suppresses freedom of speech? Isn't that a little bit hypocritical? Why can't I suppress freedom of speech with my freedom of speech? What if I just incite say, the deaths of people who happen to be travelling through Heathrow one day - I'm not doing it because there is anything morally wrong with people who are at the airport on that particular day, but rather because I'm a hateful person. Is that fine? I'm not taking away or attacking their freedom of speech, I'm just taking their lives.
And I know my argument above is quite silly so just ignore it but how about freedom of personal expression and privacy - is that also surpassed by free speech? Can I suppress freedom of expression with my freedom of speech?
The whole thing is quite absurd really, and the only reason freedom of speech is defended so much for newspapers is because they're not seen as being run by an evil as big as extreme islamists - who we actively suppress, ironically enough because papers like the mail often incite hatred towards them.
Airing an opinion in the press is completely different to pointing the finger at one single person as the subject of the entire issue. There was no need for Lucy Meadows to be named and shamed in the mail. The sentiment of the article can be achieved without a witch hunt.
Their concern was with a specific case related to their children, not the general principle or idea. 'Human interest' stories and opinion pieces are very common.
Regarding your earlier point about trying to draw a distinction between those 'in the public eye' and 'normal' people, I don't agree. I don't think there should be one rule for the rich and famous and one for everyone else.
If it's with a specific case, then it should be taken up with the local authorities and the school, it doesn't justify a witch hunt. If the parents wanted the law changed to get rid of all trannies in schools then fine air those views all you like. If however, all you are interested in is the witch hunt then it can't be justified.
And my distinction wasn't just for rich people and everyone else - rather people who put themselves in the public eye and people who want to get on with their life. To use my example again: If I went on x-factor it would be completely justified for people to say I'm a disgrace to music but if I'm singing in the shower then it would be morality abhorrent for the daily mail to run an article about my singing voice and for them to ask me not to sing in the shower.
If a rich and famous person wanted to leave the public eye but the press continue to harass them its just as bad.
I'll concede that drawing the boundaries is very difficult, and it's all a little bit arbitrary, but I just happen to draw the boundaries slightly further towards the liberal end of the continuum than you do. And you favour more liberal free speech laws than those in power in China and so on and so forth.
Aye, those fecking goalposts.
Going back to the Mail, unsurprisingly this hasn't had the same reaction from them as they had on those unfortunate Aussie DJs.
Maybe there is an avenue for discussion. Maybe. But the article is just vitriol hiding behind journalism, which isn't unheard of for a Daily Mail columnist. If he wanted to air his views on a bigoted blog, that would be fine, but it's harmful for it to be in a national newspaper.
This is from Marina Hyde many years ago
The bloke clearly has some serious issues with those who dare to have different sexual preferences...or loads of pent up, confused sexual thoughts himself.
The bloke clearly has some serious issues with those who dare to have different sexual preferences...or loads of pent up, confused sexual thoughts himself.
Was Lucy Meadow's transition really a news story? Was it a story worthy of national importance? She was one of many trans teachers, teaching assistants and other school staff up and down the country. So why the outcry?
There was no need for the national press to pick up on a local story, which I dare says came from a small minded collection of parents who probably sought out the press thinking they'd get a small amount of money out of the story.
What has since transpired, is a horrible, whilst not confirmed yet as suicide (but everything is pointing towards this), it would be yet another statistic in years to come. I would ask those involved in this debate to research the Julie Burchill article with regards transgender issues, which caused much outrage within the trans community recently. The PCC, found this week that that article hadn't broken any of the editorial codes, and in doing so mentions that one of the reasons is that it's a collective attack on the trans community rather than an individual attack. Had it been a indiviual to whom she had written the article about then codes would have been broken.
Littlejohn's article was a brutal attack on Lucy Meadow's uncalled for, and would have added further worries and stress upon her at a particularily stressful time. If indeed she took her own life, it can be seen as one of perhaps a few contributary factors in her decision to do so. I haven't signed any of the pettions as there seems to be so many popping up, but I do think it's time for him and his likes to be removed from the press. There was a time and place for that style of journalism and that left this land in the 70's.
As for the Mail itself, on the same day it reported Lucy's death, it had another story about two prisoners who are undergoing treatment towards gender reassignment. They can't help themselves, they seem to have a hatred towards transgender people full stop, and feel that every transgender person in the world is a news story. The way they go on, it's as if they are the News of the World or the Sun from the 70's and 80's outing stars as being gay. Being gay or trans isn't a news story, and I just don't understand and never will understand why the media think it's fair game to often destroy a person's life just because they may be gay or trans.
There was no need for the national press to pick up on a local story, which I dare says came from a small minded collection of parents who probably sought out the press thinking they'd get a small amount of money out of the story.
What has since transpired, is a horrible, whilst not confirmed yet as suicide (but everything is pointing towards this), it would be yet another statistic in years to come. I would ask those involved in this debate to research the Julie Burchill article with regards transgender issues, which caused much outrage within the trans community recently. The PCC, found this week that that article hadn't broken any of the editorial codes, and in doing so mentions that one of the reasons is that it's a collective attack on the trans community rather than an individual attack. Had it been a indiviual to whom she had written the article about then codes would have been broken.
Littlejohn's article was a brutal attack on Lucy Meadow's uncalled for, and would have added further worries and stress upon her at a particularily stressful time. If indeed she took her own life, it can be seen as one of perhaps a few contributary factors in her decision to do so. I haven't signed any of the pettions as there seems to be so many popping up, but I do think it's time for him and his likes to be removed from the press. There was a time and place for that style of journalism and that left this land in the 70's.
As for the Mail itself, on the same day it reported Lucy's death, it had another story about two prisoners who are undergoing treatment towards gender reassignment. They can't help themselves, they seem to have a hatred towards transgender people full stop, and feel that every transgender person in the world is a news story. The way they go on, it's as if they are the News of the World or the Sun from the 70's and 80's outing stars as being gay. Being gay or trans isn't a news story, and I just don't understand and never will understand why the media think it's fair game to often destroy a person's life just because they may be gay or trans.
Good post.
The school was fully behind her decision and supported her throughout. throughout. Littlejohn just couldn't accept someone like that being treated with compassion and understanding; it was a complete hatchet job and their cowardice shown through when they spiked the story after the backlash, not prepared to stand behind what they orinted. They're just hoping it blows over now. Until the next time...
The school was fully behind her decision and supported her throughout. throughout. Littlejohn just couldn't accept someone like that being treated with compassion and understanding; it was a complete hatchet job and their cowardice shown through when they spiked the story after the backlash, not prepared to stand behind what they orinted. They're just hoping it blows over now. Until the next time...
Don't vote for BNP. Don't read their pamphlets. You've done your bit to fight racism.