Did you somehow miss this part: "vs google, the yellow pages, my copy of the EFPA members list, and my parents' christian nutjob network." You know, the part where he produced evidence? Most of which you could verify rather easily, by the way. Of course, his parents' network is probably the best source--and I don't know how you'd verify that. Perhaps if Anonymouse took screenshots of his google search results, pictures of the relevant yellow pages, linked an online version of the EFPA members list, and typed up the relevant parts of his parents' network? I mean, if not even other fundamentalist Christians can get in touch with these people, how would they have anyone to treat?

Yawn

You aren't getting the fact that the existence of the internet allows people to conduct local 'business' in an international forum where local laws have no impact and are between hard and impossible to track down and shut down. Did Anonymous even check craigslist, let alone the millions of blogs and forums on the net?

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his naive assertions.

The forum is how the parents would find such a group to send their kid to. Many of these types would even arrange transport.
It's just like anything else that is censored. Ban it offline and it grows exponentially online and in the black market. Which is why you rarely can spend a few hours surfing without running into pics of naked kids. Why you can buy drugs and rent hookers from a website.

No problem. You generally don't strike me as being willfully ignorant. Willfull ignorance annoys me almost as much as hypocrisy.

So sharing their political ideology doesn't count as ties ? 

Right. Then we still have to same problem. You are seriously applying the label "fascist" to Germany and every other country with hate speech laws ? 

Different degrees and types of the same crime demand different ways of being dealt with. 

The fact that people can't read minds isn't a solid enough scientific basis ? You're asking for evidence that it doesn't work, when there's no evidence that it does. That's like asking for evidence that you have no invisible dragon.

I'm making the argument that if you can't prove a therapy works or not, then it's completely useless. They are more than welcome to borrow that argument. 

Then we agree that sharing facts isn't a waste of time ?

Not sure how that relates to what I was saying, but sure, okay. When will you be leaving to join the nearest holy war ? 

What's so naive about actually checking facts before you make a statement ? 

Okay, then show me one of these german "work camps" that holocaust deniers get sent to.

Um, even if I did support "the tactics of slavery", that still wouldn't make me slave. 

Only if you weren't trying to make an argument yourself. So were you trying to link "victimless crimes" to hate speech or not ? 

So how do I contact one of these mythical black market ex-gay therapists ? Which secret society do I need to infiltrate before I get access to the secret underground website where they hang out ? 

Because if these people are only real in a "can't prove they're not" way, then I'm not sure who's being willfully ignorant here.

Ridiculous. Psychiatry is a medical SCIENCE. Any method used for any scenario can be tested for accuracy.

Right then, lets just shut down all psychiatry, since more of it is unproven than proven.

My entire focus from the very beginning has been to halt attacks on free speech. Why would I limit it in the process?

Soon as it starts.

Lulz. So pathetic I'm not even going to waste my time. Anyone with half a brain who isn't an enemy of democracy can see right through you. And so I'm now done here.

Oh, okay. Cool! 

So...neither of you have been really upset or hurt by anything the other has said? I only ask because I've been talking with a number of suicidal/depressed people lately, and they get upset and hurt very easily. I'm thinking about volunteering for a crisis hotline, but I really wish I could get paid for doing those things...

Unless people other than my parents are willing to fund me for merely existing... (I highly doubt it)

Is it even possible to function with only half a brain? Also, since I don't even know what I'm supposed to be seeing through to, am I "an enemy of democracy"?

I agree. Though I find such attitudes tiresome pretty much all the time...

  Yes, absolutely it is possible.  If you are actually interested then Google "hemispherectomy" or "Christina Santhouse".

I am not the one who decides what is ok to say and what isn't. What I am saying is that the people who make that decision might not always agree with you. Just look at all the people who come on here and try to pass off false "facts" to support their religions. When things are banned based on their factual evidence, you have a group of people who are making the decision what is factual and what isn't. So you are not really banning what is really false, you are banning what that group of people believes to be false. As you know, people can have some pretty absurd beliefs about what is true and there is nothing preventing the committee that makes these decisions from being irrational. Right now, the particular decision makers in the UK agree with you. Are you so confident that the next person in that powerful position will be on your side as well? That every single person who is granted the power to make such decisions in the future will also agree with you? 

I see a very big difference between using activism and using the police power of government to force your ideas on others. Are things getting worse in the UK? From my perspective it seems to me that gays are accepted by the majority of the population, or at least by a larger portion than in recent memory. They are here in the US as well even though we don't have a single law against hate speech. 

Yes, always. There is not a single law on the planet that is perfectly applied. I challenge you to find a single law where no innocent people are punished and all guilty people are punished.

I am 100% against allowing anyone to force another person into this therapy or any other therapy. Which is why I would support a law banning them from doing it to children, since most of the time children cannot consent. If a person voluntarily goes to the therapy, they are making that choice and are free to quit at any time. Saying they are "forced" into anything is like saying that someone who voluntarily decides to be a submissive in S&M is being forced to be a slave. The extent to which people, especially children, are being forced into therapy is a completely separate issue from whether the organization should be allowed to run an advertisement on the bus. If anyone is forcing anyone into the therapy, there needs to be a law against that. There does not need to be a law infringing on free speech.

Religion has no power over me except for the power they are able to exercise using the government. I support a government that is very weak precisely so that the power isn't there to be abused by anyone be they religious or not.

My community thinks there are a number of things wrong with me, yet I continue to make my decisions myself. Insofar as the gay rights activists want to be treated equally under the law and want to live their lives without having their harmless activities and desires be outlawed, they have my complete support. If you want to use government power to try to coerce people into liking or at least approving of you, I don't support it at all. Some people will be homophobic no matter what laws you pass, get over it and move on. 

Because of the activism of the gay rights movement, which I do not oppose. I oppose speech restrictions. Can you make a case that speech restrictions are what led to people becoming more accepting of gays? It was more speech in the form of parades, rallies, protests and a concerted effort to portray gays in a more positive light in popular media that led to our current improvements. It wasn't from using government as a tool to shut up bigots- the bigots controlled the government. Government was an obstacle to the gay rights movement having many discriminatory laws. The speech came first, and through building pressure those discriminatory laws have slowly changed. Now you apparently want to use the government to control the speech of people who oppose gay rights. Why? Are you afraid they might eventually be able to build up the same support the same way as gay rights activists and put in laws that discriminate against gays?

So? Should whether or not I can put an advertisement on a bus be related to what someone with similar views/propaganda has done on some other continent? 

I would oppose a law against making lynching anyone legal. I do not support a law banning anyone who supports such a law from speaking. Just a few hundred miles from me the other day the KKK held a rally. These guys are real scum and filled with nothing but hate speech. If they were in power somehow there is little doubt they would support all sorts of atrocities. Know what happened? 61 KKK members showed up and found a counter protest of over 1200 people standing against their hate. That is how you deal with these clowns, not by using government police power to shut them up.  

http://www.abc24.com/mostpopular/story/Ku-Klux-Klan-Rallies-in-Downtown-Memphis/mEFdNK96_UGUPExIrvM3xw.cspx# 

Have you already forgotten that not too many years ago the idea of gay marriage was considered "utterly insane"? 

Under Sharia law gambling and alcoholism are illegal and repeat offenders can be put to death. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, the death penalty still exists. In my state, the Muslim American Society was involved in the attempt to prevent casinos from opening up. It has ties in both countries and supports traditional islamic laws.  

http://muslimamericansociety.org/main/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_American_Society

Why are we comparing them? Why not? Both are groups which are targeted by religious assholes who think they should micromanage how people live their lives. Both are groups that religious people seem to believe need therapy, and both are groups that religious extremists would want to kill if they had absolute power. 

What is the difference stoning someone who has gay sex and stoning someone who gambles? I don't see one. 

The freedom you are infringing on is the freedom of the minority. Speech laws will never ban speech that is popular with the majority in a country where the number of votes are what determines power. The reason why this story has made few waves in the UK is that most people in the UK don't agree with offending gays. If gay bashing was still popular, then the government would have banned the gay pride advertisement as offensive and not this one. The government is always slightly lagging behind the opinions of the voters.  

Unless you are a mind-reader it is impossible for you to show that the person who created the advertisement is not in fact ex-gay. The only evidence you have is they say they are ex-gay. Either they are lying, or they really are. How could you possibly know? Since you cannot prove the statement is an outright lie, you have to allow the possibility that it might be the truth, even if you believe that is unlikely.

All over the place. The idea of getting married and "living happily ever after" pervades our society. Probably one of the most prevalent organizations with these types of ads is Focus on the Family. They even have a daily radio bit where they inform me what kind of a lowlife heathen I am and how I am responsible for destroying the fabric of our civilization. 

Not to mention that gay rights activists have repeatedly thrown polyamory under the bus. Whenever they are faced with the objection "if we allow gay marriage that will lead to polygamy" their pat response has been that such ideas are ridiculous because marriage is obviously "an agreement between two people, not more." Which to me is as absurd and hateful as declaring marriage is "between a man and a woman". As if there is something wrong or bad with a person who loves multiple people.

My point is that there are a lot of things people can get offended over, and banning speech because it offends you is dangerous because you have no doubt said something offensive at one point or another yourself whether you intended to be offensive or not.

Yes it does, and imo it is much better than restricting speech.

Banning speech you don't like is a cost. 

Then why has it been shrinking in countries without strict hate speech laws?

I don't voluntarily give up any little bits of free speech and I certainly care. Why do you think I am spending my time arguing with someone from Belgium about something that happened in the UK? I am unlikely to ever try to buy an advertisement in either country. I care about free speech as much as you care about gay rights.

I have no problem with you doing whatever you want as long as you are not suppressing free speech. Activism, speeches, rallies, protests, voting etc. are all fair game and in the past have been effective at pushing back against bigots. 

For now. Will such laws have a negative impact in the long run? Yes. Controlling speech has been a favorite tactic of many oppressive regimes throughout history. 

It is a lot more effective to use a screwdriver as a hammer in a pinch than it is to try to use a hammer on a screw (especially if you have a good heavy duty screwdriver, those plastic handled ones are worthless). Given time and effort the nail will go in and be just as secure as if you used a hammer. You try to pound in a screw with a hammer and it will go in, but will be loose and fall out easily. A rather apt comparison I think, because my issue really is that controlling speech is often the easiest and fastest way to achieve a political goal, but long term it is counterproductive when the screw fails to hold.    

Sorry for the late reply. Got married and stuff

Wait, so you are saying that it's all just belief ?

And again, I'm still not clear how any idiot who might get into power in the future, might somehow be less of a problem if this hadn't been banned.

If activism didn't lead to laws being changed or added, then why would anyone bother ? As for the UK, they're experiencing a strong resurgence of religious extremism. What happens next is worth watching.

And the gays in the US had to fight and keep on fighting for what little acceptance they have. 

? 

I said, "not always". I mean, come on, does an innocent get convicted every single time a law gets applied ? 

There's still the problem of this not even being a "therapy" in the first place. And you know just as well as I do why they want to call it that. 

Religion has power over others, and they can do things to you.

Homophobes I can deal with. In fact, I have no choice. I start having problems when they try to legitimize their irrational hatred by linking it to science. 

And if I wanted people to "like me", then I'd never stand up for myself at all. 

Also, if supporting a law that makes it illegal to advertise for a "therapy" that is no such thing, will make people "like me", well shit, then I just want to do it even more. 

Okay, speech came first, creating pressure to change the laws, or create one. Like a law that says you can't advertise a "therapy" when you can't even prove that what you're doing has any effect at all ? Again, who's freedom does this limit, except that of people trying to run a scam ?

And am I worried other countries might go the way of Uganda ? Of course, I am. 

With exactly the same views/propaganda, and selling the same scam. And considering what they're doing, I think it's pretty damn significant, and should be taken into consideration, yeah. 

Remind me how many people they got to lynch before people decided it was a bit much. 

And if it ever gets so bad that an actual pro-lynching law makes it all the way to congress, then you will either end up with hate speech laws yourself, or another civil war. 

Yeah, I'm still hearing that. 

I'm not sure where the similarities lie between addictions and sexual orientation. 

Me neither. But I see a difference between offering "therapy" for one or the other. 

Again, I am infringing on the freedom of people who want to run a scam.  

It doesn't matter what I believe is unlikely. What matters is that it's a fact that there's no way to tell if there even is such a thing as "ex-gay". 

"Focus on the family" ? Those people who sold their ex-gay clinics to Exodus International ? 

I think you can relax. None of that "save marriage" stuff seems aimed at single people. At least not right now. Still, it's a relief to hear they're annoying you too. 

Ah, I see you've fallen for that one. Let me show you how that works :

"If we allow gay marriage, we'll end up marrying people to multiple partners, their own siblings, their dogs, their lawn furniture !"

"Dude, don't be stupid ! That's not the same th..."

"Ha ! Throwing polygamy under the bus, are we ?"

"Wait, what ?? But I never..."

"Hypocrite !"

Clever, isn't it ? 

I think we can agree that there's a significant difference between hate speech and "offending" someone.

Also, you'll be happy to know that "ex-gay therapy" or advertising it isn't really covered by hate speech laws. So lucky for me that it's a scam, so there are alternative ways to get them in trouble with the law. 

And yeah, if you ever catch me running a scam like that, feel free to shut me down as well. 

Most of the time. Not always, unfortunately. 

I am banning a scam. Some dude sitting next to me on a bus, going on-and-on about how he's an ex-gay, is always going to be free to do so.  

Can't say for sure, but I would hope activism has something to do with it.

And again, even the strictest hate speech laws wouldn't be able to stop that ad, or so I've been informed. 

You never limited your own free speech because you didn't want to hurt someone's feelings , or didn't want to get your ass kicked  ? 

Hey, it's appreciated. Don't even think we've done much real arguing. Just talking. 

Man, I hate that term : "gay rights". Fuck labels. 

Which makes me wonder, how do you feel about international political pressure on countries run by bigots ?  

People keep saying that. Nothing keeps happening. I think those laws will gradually become obsolete by themselves. Like those ancient, silly laws you sometimes hear about. ("No buggering geese after 12 o'clock !" &nbsp

Because when all is said and done, hatred is pretty silly. 

Try talking a nail in. How long before you ask someone with a hammer to do it for you ?

Look, I get where you're coming from, and for the most part, I'm there as well. But I think these hate speech laws deserve a chance. Keep watching them.

Meanwhile, I'll be doing anything I can to stop people abusing their free speech to run a scam.

Doing quite well, so far.  

Congrats! 

I'm saying that politics is not peer reviewed science and the people making determinations of what is factual and what isn't are not scientists, experts or even particularly smart people. Politicians believe a great number of things that are factually false. So in this situation, what is factual and what isn't doesn't matter. All that matters is what the politicians in power believe is factual, regardless of whether or not they are right. I spent too much time in politics getting to know the dullards who go into it to trust them to accurately determine facts from fiction. It is kind of like asking a kindergarten class to grade algebra tests and expecting close to accurate results.  

Because then the idiot has to go through the effort to create the board that decides what speech is banned, which hopefully will make people mad. People never pay attention when an idiot appoints another idiot to an existing board. When you create a new board with new powers, it at least gets a little attention in the newspapers.  

Take the board in Canada for example. Right now they are fining and tossing a couple people in jail for hate speech and it appears the only hate speech that occurs in Canada is of the white supremecist variety. They are slimeballs, no one likes them , so no one pays attention let alone defends their right to say whatever they want on the internet. Suppose someone new takes over and appoints members who have hard ons against atheists instead? Anyone going to notice as they scroll through RRS and decide Vastet engaged in hate speech against theists? Sure, we will notice here, but for the majority of the Canadian population it is business as usual. This committee has existed for over a decade and protects us all from the dreaded hate speech; old news, move along, nothing to see here. 

With any government bureaucracy, it is easier to prevent it from coming into existence than it is to eliminate it once it is in place. 

No, but that wasn't my point. My point was that for every law, some innocent people are convicted. Which is a good reason not to have a law at all unless it is very important.

Only by using the government, which I will oppose every step of the way. Including the step where people on my side try to make government stronger. Yes, I do know it is a losing battle because throughout history governments inevitably become more powerful and eventually tyrannical. I just hope to slow that down enough that I am dead before it happens.  

Lynching was never legal, but the law was often unenforced in areas where the majority of people didn't like the people targeted by lynchings. In fact, the law was applied very much like I fear hate speech laws might be in the future. Hate speech will be allowed without barrier as long as it is hate speech that the majority likes, while speech against the majority will be construed as hate speech regardless of whether it is actually hateful. 

Suppose for example that there were hate speech laws in the 1950's in the US. Do you think for a minute they would have been applied against white supremacists? Of course not, at that point the majority in our government was still sympathetic to them. None of our other laws were applied equally to blacks, so I don't see why hate speech laws would have been different. The law would have been used to punish people like Malcolm X. Now imo, Malcolm X had a really good reason to hate white people. White supremacists murdered his father, his uncle and abused his entire race while he was unable to get any legal protection and the majority of people just ignored these abuses. If I was in his shoes, I probably would be using a bit of hate speech myself.

It is difficult to do "what ifs" in history with any degree of certainty and modern history books tend to give all the credit for civil rights to Martin Luther King Jr. But I have always seen the two as a form of "good cop, bad cop" on popular opinion. Malcolm X did build a large following and I think if he had been shut up that the civil rights movement would have suffered for it. One case where I think the argument can be made that hate speech assisted in achieving what I'm sure we can agree is a positive end.

Many people drink without being addicted. Many people gamble without being addicted. Some people have sex addictions. All three are forms of pleasure that people decide to engage in. I don't see a difference whether you get your pleasure from a bottle of whisky, a deck of cards or sex with someone of the same gender.

And there are those who think that you should get the death penalty for all three and a much larger group of people who want to make all three illegal. There has been a constitutional amendment banning alcohol sales in the US. No one has passed a national law outlawing homosexual sex- those were all state and local laws. There is a national law against gambling on the internet that was passed in 2006.  

And you also can't prove that the people who say they are ex-gay are lying. The only thing that can be proven about gay conversion therapy is that it is dangerous. With enough effort you can show that success rates are low, but so are success rates at any therapy and in measuring the effect of any therapy you have the same problems of having to trust people to be honest. Psychiatrist organizations encourage their members not to do the therapy on ethical grounds. There is very little data available on whether or not the therapy achieves any success. The position statements I have seen from American psychiatry organizations describe the therapy as "questionable" because there really has been no long term study done.

As far as I know, the only serious attempt was Dr. Spitzer who has now retracted the study because it was totally reliant on interviews so we have no idea how honest people were, but he didn't conduct a more fundamentally sound study to answer the initial question. Are you aware of any comprehensive study that has been conducted that reliably demonstrates the therapy doesn't work?

From my perspective, it seems to me that the psychiatric community doesn't care if there is a such a thing as ex-gay. They have decided that it is unethical and pointless to attempt to convert and leave it at that. Same reason there aren't a plethora of studies on the success of various BDSM techniques. As far as I'm concerned, if all the participants are consenting adults, I don't care if it is ethical, safe or even if it is effective. If one of these ex-gay groups promises their customers they have an X% success rate and it can be proven that they are deliberately misleading that opens up a civil lawsuit for the person effected. I don't see it as an excuse to prevent them from advertising.

I was speaking more about the legal arguments used in front of the Supreme Court the other week where the lawyers went out of their way to argue that it would not be legal for a state to define marriage as more than two people. I don't care what someone says on the news, everything said there is quickly forgotten. The justices often draw on what is said during the arguments while drafting their opinions and if the justices decide to specifically draw a line where the lawyers argued it should be, those words will be around for a long time. That could hurt in a future Supreme Court case arguing for states to be allowed to define a polygamous marriage as marriage. 

Which makes it even more disturbing that it was banned at the whim of a government bureaucrat rather than intentionally banned by a law. At least with a law you have some legal recourse if your ad is improperly banned. As far as I can tell, this group has no one to appeal to. The dictocrat decided it was offensive, so the dictocrat gets his way. Short of some massive protests that might cause him to step down, there is no way he is held accountable for his decision. Since there isn't massive protests, he is secure to ban whatever ads he doesn't like. 

I control what I say in a variety of situations. Never out of fear of getting my ass kicked, I have a tendency to get mouthy when people physically threaten me; it probably isn't the best response, but people who make physical threats piss me off. But there is a huge difference between self restraint and a government threatening to punish me. If I decide it isn't appropriate to tell someone that their kids are the ugliest things I have ever seen, it doesn't mean I am giving up my freedom to say it. I could say it, I just don't want to. Just because you have a freedom doesn't mean you have to exercise it. Just because you decide not to exercise a freedom doesn't mean you don't have it. Who knows? Next time I am subjected to looking at a picture of those ugly little goons I might decide to point out how ugly they are. It is nice to know I have the freedom to make that choice. 

I am generally opposed to government actions like sanctions and troops. Sanctions simply don't work and have never worked anywhere they are tried. I don't support military involvement because I don't see a need for the US to be the world's police force and for the most part we have botched the job and caused more harm than good when we have tried.

As far as international activist organizations, I say more power to them and am involved with a few myself.

I hope you are right. 

Asking requires talking and telling someone else to do it is my favorite way of getting any work done.