Is it wrong to be unwilling to tolerate hate?

[maerdi]

How about lies and propaganda? Refusing to believe our best scientific knowledge? Using religion to force your own agenda even when many members of your religion disagree with said agenda?

I'm not generally one for shutting down speech, but I'm up for speaking out against http://silencingchristians.com/. You can take a non-scientific,

Comments

[avani]

As much as I oppose their message, I feel they have a right to say it. However, I do believe that they should be held accountable for outright falsehoods, such as claiming that there is no evidence that shows that kids are fine being raised by LGBT parents. Maybe a disclaimer before and after that reads "We are talking out of our ass" would suffice :)

[maerdi]

Of course they have a right to say it! But they have it up on their website. Do they also have a right to broadcast it on public airwaves? Who decides that?

How do you propose holding them accountable for outright falsehoods?

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about these issues, but I guess right now I'm leaning toward "holding them accountable by refusing to present their lies while welcoming them to participate in a debate or discussion so they can present their views in an environment where someone can point out falsehoods."

[avani]

I suppose by say it I mean "say it on any public forum that their competitors use". I would be pissed if anti-8 ads were barred from the airwaves.

As for holding them accountable, I don't know the solution. I wish there was a law that said you had to disclose if you are lying over public airwaves (similar to advertisers having to disclose "item is not as pictured" or put terms and exclusions on offers), but there is not.

[maerdi]

Would you pissed if public outcry prevented the showing of a one-hour long anti-8 ad that presented itself as a news special and was full of lies instead of facts?

I guess I feel like your parallel isn't really a parallel, but I admit that my logic & decision-making is fueled by my emotional dislike for the both the means and the ends.

[avani]

Yes, because I, as an anti-8 supporter, might believe said 'lies' (and who is to say that the 'public' outcry wouldn't just be a bunch of Focus on the Family hacks who collect fake signatures to say that people are really mad and the truths in the anti-8 ads are lies).

There isn't an impartial observer. The closest we get is a judge, which is why I feel like if anything is done it needs to be done with some sort of disclosure law, and I am the first to admit that that's shaky territory and I don't know how to make it work.

[maerdi]

Thanks, avani. These are really good points.

I still hope the broadcasters choose to consider what's being said and make a decision based on what they think is reasonable and true, but I have a feeling this method would mostly perpetuate local beliefs/opinions rather than the truth.