London transport chiefs ban 'gay cure' bus advert

[John Hancock]

Well, you might have a point if Boris had said that what they believe is wrong. However since he said he didn't want London to be associated with that message. He also said it was offensive to gay people which given the responses I've seen about the adverts it clearly is.

End telling Christians to stop worrying about God because he doesn't exist is offensive to Christians, but no one had anything to say about that.

Hang on a minute all those car ad's never show anyone filling up with petrol so clearly neither should I!! It's a an advert for a GAY TREATMENT CENTRE therefore what ever wording of the advert is it is an advert for a centre for curing people of "gay".

So you should ban hair dye adverts because they're offensive to people with great hair? There are some gay people, gay people I personally know, who WISH they weren't gay. It's your own personal interpretation that they're referring to it as a disease, and that's fine, that's you, but it's not actually saying that, or even undoubtedly implying it.

We're not talking about another poster though. We're talking about whether this poster is offensive, which it clearly is, and whether that means Boris or the bus company has a point about not wanting to be associated with that message, which they do.

Yes I am talking about another poster! It's the only thing I've been talking about this entire conversation. I said I don't think public transport should express ANY political message that targets any specific group, but they let atheists offend Christians, so it's hypocritical that they then ban Christians from offending gay people. You seem to think I think this post is great and should be everywhere, I don't, I think it's ridiculous, and stupid, a misses the point of what homosexuality is, all I was saying was that Boris Johnson is a hypocrite, because he lets his personal opinion of which groups deserve or don't deserve to be protected of offence cloud his political judgement.

Probably the biggest BS of all. So Neo-Nazis should be able to put up adverts pointing to websites saying Jews should be exterminated and that Black people are monkeys and have those wander around London? No, of course it isn't. Why not use a little common sense. Some messages are simply not appropriate to be published over a government run transport system. Had no one complained, especially if the people being told they need to be cured, then clearly there's no issue.

Yeah, I already talked about this, and about what a ridiculous exaggeration the whole, "OH BUT WHAT ABOUT NAZIS!?" defence is to everything. The advert doesn't call for anyone to be killed, and it doesn't call anyone any derogatory names, so stop with the over-dramatisation, it's silly.

And you talk about complaining, well, people complain about lots of things, so now you're saying ban stuff people complain about? I know you aren't "that" guy, so what do complaints have to do with anything?

no it isn't an exageration, the advert is FOR A GAY TREATMENT CENTRE. Which part of that isn't really clear here? Is it just advertising that some people stopped being gay? No, it's not. It would help your point if it did but actually it advertises aexactly what you a re bout to say it doesn't. the wording in itself may not be the most offensive thing ever but what it is actually proting is.

A gat treatment centre is a concentration camp. It's a therapy session for gay people who don't want to be gay. The constant nazi comparisons are the most singularly offensive thing in this entire thread. Gay therapists aren't murdering people, they aren't forcing people, they aren't even guilt tripping people, or insulting people into attending. Do I like it? No, I think they're idiots, but your insistence on comparing it to neo-Nazis is just mental.

Is it saying gay people should be cured? yes, it is as it goes and so really that where everything about your point falls down. Not only is it saying Gay people should be cured it's advertising that they in fact can cure them.

No it isn't though! It's saying gay people CAN be cured! What part of that, outside of your imagination, is saying gay people SHOULD be cured? You've interpreted it a certain way, and are now acting that your personal interpretation is imperial fact.

[John Hancock]

You seem to be totally missing my point of what I'm saying, like I think the poster is great, I don't, I think it's ridiculous, but I don't think it's any worse than some of the things Boris Johnson hasn't stopped, and the fact that he stops this and not other things, rightly or wrongly, and we can argue about that all day, because it's nothing more than personal opinion about what is or isn't offensive, but, what I'm saying that I really think is a fact, is political censorship.

Now you can say that political censorship is fine, and I think by saying that neo-Nazi stuff in public is so bad, that you agree with political censorship to a degree (I'm actually a supporter of neo-Nazi rallies and the Westboro Baptist Church's street corner shit, because I'm a freedom of speech nut), but you can't deny it isn't there, because it very clearly is, Boris made the tactical, political decision, so protect the people of London from the potentially offensive opinions of one group, whilst exposing them to the potentially offensive opinions of another group based on what he thinks Londoners will find most morally acceptable.

Rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, that's not freedom of speech.

And that's all I ever said on the matter.

[Omega]

You seem to be totally missing my point of what I'm saying, like I think the poster is great, I don't, I think it's ridiculous, but I don't think it's any worse than some of the things Boris Johnson hasn't stopped, and the fact that he stops this and not other things, rightly or wrongly, and we can argue about that all day, because it's nothing more than personal opinion about what is or isn't offensive, but, what I'm saying that I really think is a fact, is political censorship.

Now you can say that political censorship is fine, and I think by saying that neo-Nazi stuff in public is so bad, that you agree with political censorship to a degree (I'm actually a supporter of neo-Nazi rallies and the Westboro Baptist Church's street corner shit, because I'm a freedom of speech nut), but you can't deny it isn't there, because it very clearly is, Boris made the tactical, political decision, so protect the people of London from the potentially offensive opinions of one group, whilst exposing them to the potentially offensive opinions of another group based on what he thinks Londoners will find most morally acceptable.

Rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, that's not freedom of speech.

And that's all I ever said on the matter.

You didn't mention freedom of speech in your original quote though.

I'm not comfortable at all with a mayor being able to decide that one side of an argument gets a platform, but the other side doesn't.

You argued that Boris Johnson as mayor should not decide which messages can or can't be put on the side of buses. That isn't a freedom of speech issue. Had Boris Johnson said that this group couldn't advertise anywhere in London or banned them from practicing in London then you have a point.

My argument has always been that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a publicly run company such as Tfl which is effectively run by the government should not carry a message which VERY CLEARLY is offensive to lots of gay people.

I never once mentioned another poster, I don't want to debate the rights and wrongs of other messages because a) I haven't seen them and b) they actually have no real bearing as to why this particular poster should not be carried.

The only way you can see this as political censorship is by the fact it's a politician making the decision but had it been a privatized bus company would it still be censorship or would it in fact be a company making a sensible decision not to alienate a portion of the customers? Yes, I'm sure Boris is happy that collaterally he comes off as pro-gay since as a Tory it's not exactly a group they historically can count on for votes but at the end of the day the decision is clearly the sensible commercial decision for Tfl.

Now, if you want to say that this Humanist poster is just as offensive then fine and if you say it's double standards then that is also fine. I don't disagree that would be the case. What I highly disagree with is the notion that the best way to sort this is to simply allow everything and anything to be said. However that whole feedom of speech thing has been done to death already so no point in going over it here.

One quick point on the whole Should/Could cure thing. I someone tells you they can "Cure" you of something that does, automatically, suggest that what ever they are curing is something bad that you don't want to have. Yes, the word disease here is used in the context of curing something and I'm not saying this Christian group ever explicitly used the word but the whole thing is implied by what they're trying to 'achieve'. I also never mentioned or said that there aren't gay people who don't want to be gay so that argument is totally invalid. The argument is that actually most gay people are happy with being gay and that greater majority find it offensive that a group is out to "cure" them and is being advertised on public transport. You may not personally be offended, I'm not personally offended because I think they're fundamentalist idiots, but whether we think it's offensive or not isn't the issue. It's also far beyond one or two lone voices who are happy to complain about anything so again your point about things being banned because one person complains is both trite and ridiculous

On a purely personal note I'm highly f*cked off with you daring to suggest I'm comparing that the gay treatment centre and a nazi concentration camp are the same thing. I've in no way suggested they are even close so basically f*ck you for posting this:

The constant nazi comparisons are the most singularly offensive thing in this entire thread.

[Jimmy Redman]

For what its worth, as a gay I dont think the Gay Cure poster is really appropriate for display on government property.

As someone who believes in God, I dont think that the Anti-God poster is really appropriate for display on government property either.

[etz]

Has there even been an anti-God advert on TFL or other government property? I've seen humanist billboards, but I assume they're privately owned. I find it doubtful, given the head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church.

Besides, "God is a delusion, prove otherwise" isn't hate speech. "Stop being gay" (or you'll burn in hell.. which is ALWAYS implied with the Christians) is.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah, without getting into any sort of comparison, I'm quite baffled that Rocky, of all people, is really suggesting that curing gay people isnt offensive to gay people.

[etz]

Oh, I fully support their right to free speech which can and does allow them to spread their vitriolic, stupid hatred... it's just not an issue of free speech, as far as I can see.

It's a case of what TfL and the London Council find acceptable advertising on their public transport and, last time I checked, judges only decide on that kind of issue when TfL get sued because someone was offended, not because TfL refuse to place an advert.

Besides, like it or not, the Government and the Judiciary have a stance on the entire "gay issue" (or non-issue, which is what it should be in 2012 for ****sake... some people), which is essentially that they're entitled to be equal to everyone else.

Point blank, if you hold fundamental Christian views, on this issue your word is as valid and deserves as much hearing as a skinhead Nazis word on the civil rights movement... ie ****ing none. We already know you're a narrow minded, short sighted microphallused bigot.... and the majority of sensible, decent society has chosen to ignore your idiocy. Be glad you're just being ignored... it could be worse, we could take a page from your history and start building pyres.

[ScottyB]

Has there even been an anti-God advert on TFL or other government property? I've seen humanist billboards, but I assume they're privately owned. I find it doubtful, given the head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church.

Yeah, there was a humanist campaign of "there's probably no god anyway" a couple of years back that was run on Buses/The Underground.

And the curing gay advert is weird. Stupid and really weird.

[etz]

To be fair, that's hardly the same thing as saying "You're delusional because you believe in God".

The ad the anti-gay lobby are ripping off goes

Some people are gay. Get over it!

This isn't even really pro-gay, it's just ****ing common sense.

The ad the boy-buggering brigade wanted to run goes

Not Gay!Ex-gay,post-gay and proud. Get over it!

which implies that being an "ex-gay" (and there is no such thing, simply an abstinent gay or someone who was bi-sexual anyway) is something to be proud of, which would make being gay something to be ashamed of.

The equivalent anti-Christian ad would go

Not Christian! Ex-moron, post-retard and proud! I got over it, you can too!

Now, as a Christian (although not the kind any church would recognise), I do find that to be offensive, and there is no way that should run.

[Da Showstoppa]

deleted -