London

Brickbat: Get off the Bus

|

A British court has ruled that London Mayor Boris Johnson acted within his authority when he banned an advertisement from city buses that suggested gays could be cured of their sexual orientation. A judge held that Johnson's action was "procedurally unfair" and that he "demonstrated a failure to consider the relevant issues." But the judge said those factors were outweighed by the fact the ad could "cause grave offense" to gays and could increase the "risk of prejudice and homophobic attacks."

NEXT: Philly Officer Who Punched Woman at Parade Given Job Back

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Guardian quotes a left-wing gay man who doesn’t want to squash these ads. I haz confused:

    Long standing gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell said he did not believe the advert should have been banned from London buses… “In a free society there is no right to not be offended. Almost anything that anyone says can potentially be deemed offensive by someone. The law should not cater to the sensitivities of any section of the public. If it did, many adverts, plays, books and films would be banned.”

    It’s OK, normality is restored in the comments

    1. I’m pretty sure that gay rights activists would have good reason to fear a society where loud minorities could squash speech they claim is offensive.

      1. they would, but whether they actually recognise it is another matter. Here and in the UK speech is curtailed by the left, usually invoking the need to “protect” minorities including the LGBT community, and there are plenty of LGBT people who happily go along with it.

        1. I guess it doesn’t occur to them that the same power could be turned against them someday. Stupid.

          1. Some people are waking up to that fact. For example, radical feminists have just discovered that laws against freedom of association can be enforced against their freedom of association. A few of them have uttered the obscene U and C words (unintended consequences). Sadly, however, their answer is to engage in special pleading.

        2. people have a habit of going along with bad ideas when they believe them to work in their favor, never bothering to realize that the opposite can also be true.

          1. Me today. You tomorrow.

            RCD

            Thus endeth the lesson.

          2. Good intentions wipe out bad ideas, doncha’ know?

  2. Little do they know that “London double-decker” is slang for a certain gay sex act. So I’m told.

    1. eeeewwwww

      1. Not the “London upper decker” you sicko. The double-decker can be a quite beautiful physical expression of love between three or maybe four people. So I’m told.

        1. My kids just called this “planking”. It was all the rage amongst the yougsters a couple years ago.

          /blithely ignorant

    2. Just don’t mention the chunnel

      1. double eeeewwww

  3. That makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.AnonTactics.tk

  4. Just so I’m clear, in England the law says fairness is very important, but feelings trump fairness, and that is how the laws are decided. Yes?

    1. Yes, it appears that it can be unfair and lack consideration of relevant issues, but if it might save the hurting someone’s feelings, it’s good to go.

      1. What’s a little due process when his intentions are good?

  5. Offending people is illegal in Britain. Once again proving that progressives are a breed of fascists.

    1. or a breed of douche bags…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.