• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Actually they were arrested and convinced over posting grossly offensive material in a public space. (The public space being the interenet).

Sadly like all BBC articles they gloss over the detail of the content for fear of reproducing the offence.
But that is kind of my point, while offensive, do they really rise to the level of a crime? Especially the girl who reposted a song lyric. By that logic, the musician that performed the song should be charged since they sang it at a concert which is an equally public place. How would you say that the 74-year-old did something grossly offensive for holding a sign about talking with her? No mention of abortion at all.

Again, this is why I personally say that the UK does not enjoy the same level of freedom of speech as the US does.
 
But that is kind of my point, while offensive, do they really rise to the level of a crime? Especially the girl who reposted a song lyric. By that logic, the musician that performed the song should be charged since they sang it at a concert which is an equally public place. How would you say that the 74-year-old did something grossly offensive for holding a sign about talking with her? No mention of abortion at all.

Again, this is why I personally say that the UK does not enjoy the same level of freedom of speech as the US does.
Freedom to be racist and offensive?

The girl with the rap lyrics conviction was over turned as it was clearly wrong.
 
Freedom to be racist and offensive?
Yes, exactly. A Supreme Court judge, Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr said "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

A society that suppresses speech that is not violent but "just" racist and offensive is not really a free society. In none of those examples was anyone forced to listen to anything offensive, they could have changed the channel, turned it off or walked by it.

Also, again if the language is so offensive why was the rapper not charged and arrested for the concert?
 
Yes, exactly. A Supreme Court judge, Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr said "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

A society that suppresses speech that is not violent but "just" racist and offensive is not really a free society. In none of those examples was anyone forced to listen to anything offensive, they could have changed the channel, turned it off or walked by it.
So why are you prosecuting 8th graders for comments on snap chat?

The conviction of the UK girl was overturned. The district judge was wrong.

 
Freedom to be racist and offensive?

The girl with the rap lyrics conviction was over turned as it was clearly wrong.
Was just about to say, surely context matters in this too. No, she shouldn't have posted it, but when it's lyrics from a widely available song she was quoting, it seems the police were being a bit daft there. That could have been one huge legal battle on who's to blame etc.
 
Last edited:
Was just about to say, surely context matters in this too. No, she shouldn't have posted it, but when it's lyrics from a widely available song she was quoting, it seems the police were being a bit daft there. That could have been one huge legak battle on who's to blame etc.
I'm sure the USA can give us good lessons in overzealous police though...
 
That is some weapons grade bullshit right there, so lets take it apart.

No Trump did no declassify the documents. Some of the documents in his possession were at a security level so high they weren't supposed to ever be taken out of dedicated secure facilities. He just had them lying around at Mar-A-Lago. But let's just go further into the detail of why what you said is such bullshit. Let's compare the evidence in favour of Trump's claim he declassified them and the evidence against:
For:
- Trump said he did

Against:
- Trump said he did just by thinking it. That's never been a thing.
- Trump was recorded saying they were classified
- Trump didn't claim that as his very first defence in court, it came much later after his other lies were dispelled
- There are no records anywhere of the files in question going through the declassification procedure.
- There are no records or witnesses to support Trump's claim of even wanting to put them through the procedure, even if they didn't
- The documents all still had the varying degrees of classification markings on them. These are removed when files are declassified
- FBI agents weren't allowed to see the contents of the files, that would not have been an issue if they had been declassified
- Judge Cannon wasted weeks during the trial procedures appointing a special master to oversee the documents and determine what was an wasn't classified. This was legal malpractice anyway but the special master confirmed the files were still classified
- During the trial procedure, the US government was required to set up a SCIF facility, these are only required when dealing with classified information
- At no point during the trial process was the claim that the documents were declassified ever accepted by the court
- Early on Trump argued he was allowed to keep classified files, only later did he claim they weren't classified
- When the trial was thrown out on completely illegal grounds, the classification of the files was NOT disputed, they were still recognised as classified.
- The recovered files have gone straight back into secure facilities suitable for their classification and have not been made public as declassified documents can.

In addition Trump engaged in the following:
- Trump lied about possession of the documents, something he wouldn't do if he didn't want to hide them
- Trump had his team intentionally obstruct attempts to regain the files and hide them, again why do that if they've done nothing wrong?
- Trump claimed the documents were his PERSONAL possessions and not the possessions of the government. He kept citing the presidential records act, even though the act says the exact opposite of what Trump claimed. Presidential records are the property of the government, NOT the president as an individual. The only thing that a president has ownership of are the personal effects (eg if they kept a diary).
- He destroyed government documents that then had to be pieced back together after he ripped them up and even tried to flush them down the toilet. This has been testified to under oath.

Trump's organisations have been found guilty of fraud before he became president. Look up Trump university and the Trump foundation. In both cases in court they were found to have engaged in fraud. So now you find it surprising that a person with a proven history of fraud continued to engage in fraud...? You want to go on about nothing adding up and yet display zero critical thinking when it comes to Trumps lies.

To believe Trump declassified the files you have to either be a troll or a Trump cultist with zero critical thinking.
Trump's organization was not found guilty of fraud for the Trump university, they were sued civilly and settled the case big difference.

Most of these things you have mentioned are administrative records act issues. Not federal criminal issues.
When it comes to American law we operate on "innocent until proven guilty" and things like there were no witnesses to support his claim are irrelevant. He does not have to prove there were any witnesses or records. As far as the FBI agents not being given access to them or needing the SCIF, the government claimed that they were classified, if that was true as they alleged then the agents would need the proper clearances, they can't have it both ways.

The reality was that the whole case was a witch hunt to go after a political opponent just like the other ones were. Biden did the same thing except he wasn't president and wasn't charged, he should have been. He wasn't president when he took them so he can't even claim the whole declassification argument. His was just a straight up crime.

For you, as I have seen, when it comes to anything related to Trump you have your mind made up far before any explanations. The same with your position on the J6 hearings, so many issues there but Orange Man Bad!!
 
So why are you prosecuting 8th graders for comments on snap chat?

The conviction of the UK girl was overturned. The district judge was wrong.

I saw that the girl's conviction was overturned but it she should not have even been arrested to begin with. There were threats involved which can make a difference especially when those threats are directed at someone and could be acted upon reasonably. That being said I do not think that this should have been handled this way. School and parent intervention would have been a much more appropriate measure in this example I believe.
 
Was just about to say, surely context matters in this too. No, she shouldn't have posted it, but when it's lyrics from a widely available song she was quoting, it seems the police were being a bit daft there. That could have been one huge legak battle on who's to blame etc.
Why shouldn't she have posted it? If the singer is willing to go up on a stage and sing the lyric or put it in a song then it is open for people to repeat.
 
Trump's organization was not found guilty of fraud for the Trump university, they were sued civilly and settled the case big difference.

Most of these things you have mentioned are administrative records act issues. Not federal criminal issues.
When it comes to American law we operate on "innocent until proven guilty" and things like there were no witnesses to support his claim are irrelevant. He does not have to prove there were any witnesses or records. As far as the FBI agents not being given access to them or needing the SCIF, the government claimed that they were classified, if that was true as they alleged then the agents would need the proper clearances, they can't have it both ways.

The reality was that the whole case was a witch hunt to go after a political opponent just like the other ones were. Biden did the same thing except he wasn't president and wasn't charged, he should have been. He wasn't president when he took them so he can't even claim the whole declassification argument. His was just a straight up crime.

For you, as I have seen, when it comes to anything related to Trump you have your mind made up far before any explanations. The same with your position on the J6 hearings, so many issues there but Orange Man Bad!!
So Trump committed fraud. Dancing around whether it was a civil or criminal case is immaterial, he has a track record of engaging in fruad.

They are very very much federal criminal issues. If the documents haven't been declassified (they haven't), as soon as he is no longer president and remaining in possession of them, he is committing a crime. Yes he does have to prove it, there is a process for declassifying documents. If there is no evidence that has happened then the documents have not been declassified and he is committing a crime by possessing them when no longer president. He doesn't get to claim after the fact that he declassified them when there is no supporting evidence he did.

The agents had clearance to collect the documents under supervision, NOT to read through them. Trump had no clearance to keep them after he was no longer president.

The fact you are defending this shows what a cultist hack you are. Tell me, what evidence do you have that Trump declassified anything other than his claim? Put up you ****. You are defending a criminal and a traitor.
 
Why shouldn't she have posted it? If the singer is willing to go up on a stage and sing the lyric or put it in a song then it is open for people to repeat.
Depends on where I guess. I don't bother with Instagram, but if they say no offensive words etc, then that's the rules. The legal side is a bit more complex as I alluded to in my last post.
 
I saw that the girl's conviction was overturned but it she should not have even been arrested to begin with. There were threats involved which can make a difference especially when those threats are directed at someone and could be acted upon reasonably. That being said I do not think that this should have been handled this way. School and parent intervention would have been a much more appropriate measure in this example I believe.
Now a legal resident studying in the USA is being deported for protesting on campus. So you care so much about freedom of speech, you are trying to thrown people out the country for their expression.
 
It is a material difference. Level of proof is very different between criminal and civil cases in the US.

Again, it is up to the prosecutors to prove what he did was criminal, not up to him to prove that he did not do it. That is not how our legal system works.

Curious, you keep avoiding the Biden question about his having classified documents in his garage.
 
I saw that the girl's conviction was overturned but it she should not have even been arrested to begin with. There were threats involved which can make a difference especially when those threats are directed at someone and could be acted upon reasonably. That being said I do not think that this should have been handled this way. School and parent intervention would have been a much more appropriate measure in this example I believe.
So your freedom of speech laws aren't much different to the UK.
 
Wrongly convicted person get conviction overturned. Sounds like a working justice system to me.

CPS will always bring stuff to court that they perhaps shouldn't have.
 
How doesn't the UK have free speech?
The UK government criminalises speach...

I meanbits not rocket science. Post rap lyrics, get a criminal record lol.

In 2024 nearly 100 people were criminalised under the online safety act for fake news. They spread a non government approved message!

There are literally hundreds of cases of UK of authoritarianism.
You can literally be criminalised under the public order act for saying a swear word in the vicinity of a police officer.
Scottish residents were just told not to pray near their front windows because they lived within a certain radius of an abortion clinic.
The words 'fat people are lazy'was investigated as a hate crime, and let's not forget, if a police officer looks like your 'lesbian nanna' off you go to the nick.

And none of this refers to the disgusting speach, the speach I disagree with but I agree should be said. If all speach isn't free, no speach is free, that's the standard.
 



I would say that the examples here would suggest that the UK does not have free speech or that the free speech is strictly limited. In none of these examples was anyone threatened in any way yet people were arrested and fined over something that someone didn't like and was offended by.
The count dankula case is an absolute disgrace to our society, the police found the video, and took it to a Jewish temple to ask if they found it offensive.

The judge stated the phrase over and over, before ironically stating 'context doesn't matter' and somehow didn't call for his own arrest.
 
Wrongly convicted person get conviction overturned. Sounds like a working justice system to me.

CPS will always bring stuff to court that they perhaps shouldn't have.
Easy for us to say when we weren't the ones arrested and had to deal with the legal issues. I agree with you that in the end it did work out but what about the idiot with the nazi saluting dog? They wouldn't throw his case out and as offensive as his case is, there are no threats or incitements to be violent towards anyone
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Latest posts

    Top