The BBC Was Stupid To Let Stephen Green Talk About Elton John’s Baby. But Don’t Get The Gov’t Involved

Ofcom, Britain’s government office that plays media watchdog, says it won’t waste resources looking into the BBC choosing Christian Voice’s Stephen Green, who’s advocated the extermination of HIV-positive gays, to come on the air to discuss Elton John and David Furnish’s new baby boy. How come? Because Ofcom, which resembles the FCC in the U.S., doesn’t interfere in matters of “editorial freedom.” See, when Green said things like “a baby needs a mother and it seems an act of pure selfishness to deprive a baby of a mother,” he was just expressing his own opinion, and he didn’t use any mean words like “faggot” or “fudgepacker,” so there’s nothing they can do. And ya know what? Good for them.

A media network like the BBC shouldn’t be investigated, let alone punished by a government entity (even if taxpayers do fund it) for what types of guests it brings on, for the same reason I’d be furious if the FCC ever tried getting on CNN’s case over welcoming Richard Cohen or Maggie Gallagher.

It is not the government’s job to tell a media outlet who can come on the air. It is responsible managers and producers and executives. And if not them, then the public. So far outraged Brits have had little luck in that department, but that just means we get louder and bolder. It doesn’t mean we ask the government to start dallying in censorship.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #bbc #bigots #christianvoice stories and more


  • Obama DID say DADT would happen on his watch... (John From England)

    It’s not the same thing. We fund the BBC. Do you fund CNN?

  • j

    @Obama DID say DADT would happen on his watch… (John From England): He’s right, you’re off the mark on this queerty. This man was brought on to air his views when the news about elton’s kid broke. Would you bring on a neo nazi because michelle obama got pregnant? This attack on gay rights by a fringe extremist on national television was in no way related to the news other than he attacks gay people and elton is gay. He does not express the views of experts or of license payers and was brought on to bring “balance” not to a matter of opinion but a fact, which doesnt even make sense. Stick to america, queerty.

  • Kev C

    TV licensing fees are the stupidest, most feudal way of running a company. And for the low quality of programming, it’s hardly worth owning a TV. Can they get their TV and news from the internet for free?

  • Franky

    John makes a bit of a point. Anything funded by the government can be subject to government scrutiny. The government could very well control what the BBC does and be completely within it’s power to do so.

  • tallskin2

    No one over here in the UK is asking for govt control or interference in the running of the BBC.

    What we’re asking for is a change in the culture inside the BBC so that anti gay attitudes are stopped, in the same way that racist attitudes are not allowed.

    that comes from the BBC, not by outside shells lobbed in.

  • Daez

    I do wonder, if you want to go down this line of argument that since you pay for it you get to regulate it, when the equivalent of the Christian Right in England starts bitching about gay related programming on BBC do they get to bitch that since they pay for it they get to regulate it? Once that happens, how do you decide who is right…a croquet match, tea and crumpets, a mission of global domination?

    There is a reason that the USA put freedom of speech into their constitution and took away the rights of the government to regulate speech in most cases. Its because it never ends when you start down this chain of argumentation.

  • Lucas

    I believe Daez is Andreww on yet another account.

    Ban this terribly confused being.

  • PatrickB

    Freedom of speech is not absolute. You can’t scream fire in a theater, and, in most Western countries, you can incite acts of violence, and, in Germany, you can’t make hate speech. None of these has led to China-style authoritarianism.

    Not only has Green’s point been empirically refuted, but the BCC is complicit, by framing his points as legitimate, in anti-gay propaganda. We’ve already established that denigrating gays is dangerous to young people.

    Anyway, the UK gov’t would be all over this shit if Green has been like, “Interracial babies shouldn’t exist b/c having parents of different races makes them crazy!”

  • Buzz

    Also, while the BBC is supposed to be free of government influence, during the recent Papal visit the BBC covered little else. They didn’t feel the need to ask someone like Richard Dawkins to comment to promote “balanced debate” then, did they?

    In my opinion, this is just another example of media outlets getting away with homophobia to boost ratings as it’s probably the only type of bigotry they feel they can get away with.

  • rrr

    @Daez: America has de-regulated everything and is a mess as a result.

    Public corporations operated at arm’s length from government (but with a mandate and basic regulations set out) produce better quality news over all and employees with better motives than private for profit news corporations do. They are also don’t sway in the same way private corporations do according to market demands, ratings, and advertiser interests.

  • Daez

    @rrr: Its always funny how you guys always bitch about free enterprise. What you fail to realize is that even if our economy is going through a crisis, our companies still have enough money to buy your countries. By allowing for free enterprise and not tying everything to the government, you make it so that the government isn’t hindered by rather a company succeeds or fails. Meanwhile, almost every country in your EU is sucking off China for a bail out because your system works so incredibly well.

  • tallskin2

    @Daez – I assume you are playing at being an idiot, just stating silly things as a debating point rather than actually BEING stupid?


    You say this, which must, if you haven’t got your tongue firmly in your cheek, be one of the most stupid and ignorant things I’ve ever read on queerty (and that, believe me, is saying something) -“Meanwhile, almost every country in your EU is sucking off China for a bail out because your system works so incredibly well.”

    The EU is only just borrowing from China. The USA has been kept afloat by chinese credit going back to the time when bill clinton was president. The USA is OWNED by China. If the chinese turned off the credit tap, the US would be totally f*cked.

    But I really hope you were joking and pretending not to be aware of that.

  • tallskin2

    But then you are a republican christian loon, so utter mule like stupidity is to be expected.

  • tarxien

    @Daez: US and freedom of speech – umm – Wikileaks?

  • PatrickB

    Socialism works pretty well in Germany and Scandinavia, actually. The UK & Mediterranean are suffering from a housing bubble and credit crunch, just like we are.

    More importantly, who cares if we’re taking loans from China?! It’s not like the Chinese have anything better to do with their money. They’d be just as screwed as we would be if they turned off the credit, since they rely on exports to us.

  • malcanoid

    @Daez: Who do you think is funding your debt Daez?

  • missbaby4love

    Dearest One,
    Can i get to know you? my name is miss. Mimunna pls if you are interested on making real friendship contact me here;([email protected]) for more details.

Comments are closed.