re: #941 Charles

Pat Condell is an atheist, and makes no bones about it, and yes, he is deliberately offensive sometimes. You don’t like Condell’s anti-religious opinions; that’s your right. But to compare what Condell does to the white supremacists at the CCC is simply stupid.

Offensive speech is not the same thing as hate speech, and when you try to make it so, you’re acting exactly like the Islamists at CAIR.

If I were to say, “Black people are insults to humanity,” everyone would agree that that was hate speech. If I said a person’s race is not deserving of respect, people would agree that that is hate speech. If I released a video this month titled “Happy Black History Month” and spent the whole video demeaning the achievements of black people, I’m sure most would would find that hateful.

But Condell says and does these things in regards to religion and religious people, and suddenly it’s no longer hate speech…it’s just offensive. No big deal. Call a person stupid because of their race, it’s hate speech. Call a person stupid because of their religion, it’s just offensive speech. Huh? I just don’t get how a person who is so demeaning towards religious people is acceptable for your site if you have such a strong opposition to hate speech.

Also, what I’m saying is nothing like CAIR. I’ve said nothing about silencing him, nothing about punishing him for his comments. I’ve acknowledged his right to free speech that allows him to say the things he does. My point all along has revolved around the fact that you feature him on your site. And I didn’t say you don’t have a right to do that, either. So thanks, but I’m nothing like a radical Muslim-rights organization that funds terrorism.

re: #942 gman

It’s obvious you’ve got an axe to grind with your “grand total of 57 comments and already attacking the host” troll behavior, but I’m curious as to why you would want to compare what a white supremacist organization is doing to what Pat Condell is doing? I’m sure the EU would agree with your definition of “hate” speech, but I don’t.

Sorry, I didn’t realize that voicing disagreement was taboo…or at least it is until I have reached a certain number of comments and have earned my right to do so? If I had an axe to grind, I wouldn’t have made it a point to give Charles the benefit of the doubt in the matter. My point is that hate speech doesn’t just apply to race. If the things that Pat Condell said were said about race instead, I have a strong feeling that they would be labeled as hate speech. Why does he get a free pass here when he says these things about religion? That’s what doesn’t make sense to me, and that is the issue I’m raising.

Once again, allow me to clarify. People have free speech, and they can say what they want to say. The same applies to Charles. He can post whatever he wants to on this site. And because it’s his site, if he doesn’t like what other people are saying, he can delete their comments or kick them off the site. That’s his right. So let’s not let this devolve into a debate about free speech, because all of that has been acknowledged.