---

by Kneon Light
In your opinion. Not mine.

---

Yes, probably why it arrived in a post with the name "Byron" at the top.

---

I disagree (i'm sure you'll be surprised to hear!). Going back to the original post if it was about opinions being silenced then there wouldn't be this fuss about the Jerry Springer show. It is no-one's opinion that jesus was gay and wore nappies. It was the offence caused that was the problem.

---

No, it was someone's opinion that a gay Jesus in a nappy was funny. The problem wasn't the offence caused, the problem was how the offended people acted.

---

I think we'll have to just agree to disagree otherwise this thread will go on forever!!!!!

---

It will if you keep evading the points raised. Not that I'm suggesting you don't have an answer if you leave now, not at all.

---

by Kneon Light
And I finally got the quotes right!!!!!

---

At least something came out of all this than

Just one more point I would like to make...
If I know there is this law that a specific group of people with different views to mine can use to sue me, and even if I know that in the end the judge will be on my side, will that not automatically make me think twice of saying it because of all the hassle it can cause me?

Doesn't sound unreasonable and unrealistic to me that something like this could go on in the heads of people who want to say things that are not in line with the views of the *cough* majority *cough*..... isn't even the fact that this law exist silencing opinions.

"No, it was someone's opinion that a gay Jesus in a nappy was funny. The problem wasn't the offence caused, the problem was how the offended people acted."


If you mean abusive phone calls, then yes I agree with you. If you mean legitimate complaints to the BBC then that is everyone's right to complain.

"It will if you keep evading the points raised. Not that I'm suggesting you don't have an answer if you leave now, not at all. "

Evading the points raised??????? I've spent every evening this week trying to answer your points. You asked me why I thought there should be a blasphemy law. I answered. I don't expect you to agree with my answer but I've explained why I think it should exist.

Just one FINAL point from me. People such as Chambler have joined in this debate without deliberately causing offence. You on the other hand have constantly spouted rubbish simply to offend - see posts refering to "cretinous", "Baby eating druids" and "holy wars" to see what I mean.
As I have stated before I find some your posts on this thread far more offensive than the Jerry Springer Opera.


(Edited by Kneon Light 15/01/2005 19:36)

(Edited by Kneon Light 15/01/2005 19:37)

(Edited by Kneon Light 15/01/2005 19:45)

---

by Kneon Light
If you mean abusive phone calls, then yes I agree with you. If you mean legitimate complaints to the BBC then that is everyone's right to complain.

---

After they've seen something it is. The 50,000 complaints piled in before Jerry Springer was even aired, and since the theatre has yet to recieve a single protest I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest those 50,000 hadn't seen the show on stage. To their credit, Ofcom rejected the lot and rightly said it wasn't their job to censor programmes before people had a chance to decide for themselves.

---

Evading the points raised??????? I've spent every evening this week trying to answer your points. You asked me why I thought there should be a blasphemy law. I answered. I don't expect you to agree with my answer but I've explained why I think it should exist.

---

What you didn't do was explain why you disagree with my reasons for opposing the blasphemy law. Okay, fine, you said you'd had enough, but not before you loudly reject them without addressing them. Not that I'm massively bothered since I've spent a good deal less than every night of the week on this thread.

---

Just one FINAL point from me.

People such as Chambler have joined in this debate without deliberately causing offence. You on the other hand have constantly spouted rubbish simply to offend - see posts refering to "cretinous", "Baby eating druids" and "holy wars" to see what I mean.

---

The disproportionate offence you took to a couple of lighthearted posts and a commonly used slang word says more about you than it does me. A slang word that, oh the irony, I used because something stronger would be inappropriate here. Feel free to replace "cretinous jury" with "daft jury", "foolish jury", "Baldrickian jury", "nincompoopish jury" or any other term you don't find offensive. If such a thing is known to man.

---

As I have stated before I find some your posts on this thread far more offensive than the Jerry Springer Opera.

---

I could say the same about your bizarre suggestions that my views on aggressive Christian fundamentalists mean I'm no better than a racist, hate Christian Aid and approve of bullying children. I haven't until now because I'm able to debate without relying on wild accusations to distract the conversation. If you are as offended as you incessently claim, I suggest you do as I'm now doing, and leave this thread be.

Shame this thread got out of hand, really.

For what it's worth, I though the opera was hilarious.

From what I understand, the second act (the bit with the "blasphemy" is really supposed to represent the hallucinations/dreams of a dying man - which is why the religious icons took the form of his previous guests. And Jesus admitting to being "a bit gay" - just plain funny IMO.

An intelligent viewer can see that it's not an all-out assault on all that the Christian church holds dear, but a parody. A comparison of abberant domestic behaviour or practices to the strange and frankly ****ed-up behaviour portrayed in some parts of the bible. I guess they're probably asking who has the right to judge these people (especially as they seemed to show the guests in a quite sympathetic light), but people make of it what they will, and while some people were amused and entertained, others were clearly horrified - which is their business. They can also choose to complain or protest - particularly as this was broadcast on a channel that we *have* to pay for whether we like it or not. I approve, though. Art should be challenging sometimes.

I was reading today that the person who wrote the play did not want the play to go on TV, as he thought that it was unsuitable for "family TV." But surely it was on after watershed? If you're old enough to be up at that time/ your parents say you're old enough to be up at that time, and you watch it, then it is not the BBC's fault if it causes offence to you. People chose to watch that programme, the BBC just provided it for people who wanted to see it, which many people did.

The whole point of watershed is so that programmes seen as unsuitable for family viewing. Therefore I don't feel it's fair to say that Jerry Springer the Opera is bad because it is not for family viewing.

I also think you are only blasphemous/racist/sexist if you have the intent to be. For example, I have a black friend and we have a pet name for him, which could be seen as extremely racist by other people, but he does not take offence at all (in fact he encourages it) and we do not mean offence by it, but if another person happens to walk by and hear me calling him that name, is it then justified for them to be calling me racist? I don't think the writers of Jerry Springer the Opera set out to upset anyone, I just think someone thought it would be a giggle to make a farce of the programme Jerry Springer. And why not make it contraversial, controversy stirs things up, gets the emotions flowing and causes inspiration. If programmes or any form of art wasn't provoking and didn't provoke any emotion, then I see that as pretty pointless.



(Edited by Miss Corrupt 16/01/2005 22:10)

---

by Byron
(quotes)
Not that I'm massively bothered since I've spent a good deal less than every night of the week on this thread.

---

How wonderful for you. What does that have to do with the debate? Honestly, in some of your replies to Kneon Light you're coming off like some precocious kid.

I can see how Kneon was offended by the tone of some of the orginal posts. It did come across (and maybe I read it wrong) that you were tarring with the same brush all those that chose to protest at the BBC as "Religious nutters". Whether it was before or after the broadcast, as people who are paid subscribers of the BBC they have a right to protest at content they feel is clearly outside of the BBCs own guidelines. I'm sure you'd respect the right to protest of those against the recent War in Iraq for example?

With any group there is going to be a few on the fringe who give everyone else a bad name, the Animal rights movement being a case in point.

I will take it that that i've misunderstood, and that the crux of your post was against religious extremism, and not law abiding citizens who have a right to protest at what is shown on a channel they are forced to pay for.

"In other news...."

Subject: Leftie drug crazed homeless bums go on the rampage in the city protesting about the war.

In a shocking display of idiocy today London was infiltrated by a bunch of tree hugging liberals who are against the War in Iraq. Don't those weed-smoking fools know that the US and the UK have chosen a righteous campaign to free the Iraqi people of their hated dictator. Hopefully they'll all soon grow up, put their bongs away, and get a job working for Rupert Murdoch....

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)
How wonderful for you. What does that have to do with the debate? Honestly, in some of your replies to Kneon Light you're coming off like some precocious kid.

---

And dragging the spat back up again is by contrast very matrue?

Neither of us was going to "win" it, I left it be, nothing's going to be gained by kicking off again.

The comments are there for anyone who wants to read them. Debating who was justified is just going to kick off another 40 page flamewar.

---

I can see how Kneon was offended by the tone of some of the orginal posts. It did come across (and maybe I read it wrong) that you were tarring with the same brush all those that chose to protest at the BBC as "Religious nutters". Whether it was before or after the broadcast, as people who are paid subscribers of the BBC they have a right to protest at content they feel is clearly outside of the BBCs own guidelines. I'm sure you'd respect the right to protest of those against the recent War in Iraq for example?

With any group there is going to be a few on the fringe who give everyone else a bad name, the Animal rights movement being a case in point.

I will take it that that i've misunderstood, and that the crux of your post was against religious extremism, and not law abiding citizens who have a right to protest at what is shown on a channel they are forced to pay for.

---

No misunderstanding about my target. But big misunderstandin about my intent. I've not said anyting about suppressing the protests, so I'm baffled how you took my opposition to *what* they were protesting as opposition to their *right* to protest it. Surely you know by now I support the expression of people I disagree with?

I fully support their right to protest, as I fully support my right to protest their protests .

---

by Byron
(quotes)
And dragging the spat back up again is by contrast very matrue?

---

For me it wasn't so much dragging it up, I tried to get into the debate earlier but T21 crashed with loads of SQL errors. By the time I did get into the debate I was reflecting my opinion that the debate could have been a bit more civil.

---

I've not said anyting about suppressing the protests, so I'm baffled how you took my opposition to *what* they were protesting as opposition to their *right* to protest it.

---

My bad - I was just trying to get across that as (on the whole) law abiding and peaceful protesters that your comments seemed somewhat unfair.

---

Surely you know by now I support the expression of people I disagree with?

---

*giggles* - Not if that old thread about letting BNP members in universities is anything to go by no But thats a whole 'nother argument so lets not go there

---

I fully support their right to protest, as I fully support my right to protest their protests .

---

I agree you do have every right to protest their protests - I just think thing you were a tad harsh in doing so.

---

by Funky Monkey
For me it wasn't so much dragging it up, I tried to get into the debate earlier but T21 crashed with loads of SQL errors. By the time I did get into the debate I was reflecting my opinion that the debate could have been a bit more civil.

---

On that we are all agreed!

---

My bad - I was just trying to get across that as (on the whole) law abiding and peaceful protesters that your comments seemed somewhat unfair.
...
I agree you do have every right to protest their protests - I just think thing you were a tad harsh in doing so.

---

Even leaving aside the abusive phonecalls, they weren't just protesting, they were trying to bully their oponents into silence with the courts. Trying to persuade people of your point of view is one thing, forcing it on them another entirely.

If talk of blasphemy prosecutions hadn't come into it, I'd have been a lot less forthright.

---

*giggles* - Not if that old thread about letting BNP members in universities is anything to go by no But thats a whole 'nother argument so lets not go there

---

Let' not! (Incidentally, I've since changed my mind on that one.)


(Edited by Byron 20/01/2005 16:48)