A Political Thread pt. 2

[dirty harry]

So should I be allowed to stand outside the local mosque and shout abuse about Allah. Or shout at women going into the abortion clinic? Or say what I want about female rugby players?

Your understanding of a protected characteristic is wrong. They are protected characteristics under the discrimination / equality acts.

Which are civil and not part of criminal law. Unless you think we shouldn't have discrimination and equality laws as well.

Your not following, and your intentionally blurring the line between threatening behaviour, denying someone the freedom to practice religion is against the UNs human rights, and screaming abuse at abortion clinic attendees lol.

Stop trying to win an argument and listen to rationale lol

 

[dirty harry]

Or Adam gets a cricket bat into the head and rolled into a canal. Is that a social consequence?

So how has suppression of speech impinged on your life?

So you read all that and your only response was to mockingly talk murder.

I see your not here in good faith

 

[ChicagoKid]

So should I be allowed to stand outside the local mosque and shout abuse about Allah. Or shout at women going into the abortion clinic? Or say what I want about female rugby players?

If all three are in public places.

Yes. Yes. And yes.

 

[ChicagoKid]

What part of my eTA and visa free agreement with the IK put restrictions on my rights in the USA other than restrictions of length and stay and whether I am working or not impingines 1st amendments rights?

A lot. Go read our case law on the subject.

And you have me on ignore.

 

[Flankers' paradise]

Trump makes unsupported claim Biden pardons are ‘void’ as he used autopen

President claims without evidence that January 6 panel members’ pre-emptive clemency was not signed personally

www.theguardian.com

meanwhile...

 

[TommiG88]

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 "hate speech" is protected by the first amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio if you want to dig into the brief and per curiam opinion.

Let me repeat that to the people still saying America and the UK are the same: From the most conservative to the most liberal judges in highest court in America they UNANIMOUSLY ruled hate speech is fully PROTECTED by the first amendment.

Oh, I don't care about the USA.

I'm talking about the UK, and I've never had my speech censored, but I'm not a hate filled tosser who feels I should be allowed to walk round offending and upsetting people.

 

[TommiG88]

So you read all that and your only response was to mockingly talk murder.

I see your not here in good faith

Is it murder? Maybe it's manslaughter if he's openly racist to my face…. I would say that would be a social consequence for being a bigot.

Anyways, it's clear it hasn't impinged on your life, just want to moan about something that has no affect on you.

 

[ncurd]

A lot. Go read our case law on the subject.

And you have me on ignore.

Name me one 1st amendment right that a legal visitor to your country is not granted that you are.

 

[Saintjay]

Your not following, and your intentionally blurring the line between threatening behaviour, denying someone the freedom to practice religion is against the UNs human rights, and screaming abuse at abortion clinic attendees lol.

Stop trying to win an argument and listen to rationale lol

It's not the UN, it was European law under the ECHR then it was taken on by the UK once it gained royal assent

You are not answering the questions do you think I should be able to do the thingsI listed or not. If you say no, the why are you stopping my freedom of speech.

Or try this for rationale. How the hell were you allowed any way near a female rugby team. Did you mock them for being protected characteristics? And moan it's unfair that you can't say any thing you like because it's all on the victims perception?

 

[ChicagoKid]

Oh, I don't care about the USA.

I'm talking about the UK, and I've never had my speech censored, but I'm not a hate filled tosser who feels I should be allowed to walk round offending and upsetting people.

@dirty harry is bringing attention to something future president JD Vance spoke about in Munich: You say you are liberal, Western Democracy (or Republic in our case), but your actions are beginning to say otherwise.

Trust me, if you think Trump is hardcore to NATO violations of civil liberties, wait till Vance gets in office.

Name me one 1st amendment right that a legal visitor to your country is not granted that you are.

Alien and sedition acts of 1798. If you or your country is deemed a threat to the United States, we can suspend your 1st Amendment and suspend habeas corpus. We've done it several times throughout our history.

 

[General Melchett]

I imagine when the concept of free speech was first created/defined it was done so on the basis that people would use it responsibly. Fact is too many have not used it responsibly and have abused it to the point where certain groups people have suffered consequences e.g. physical harm, threats and mental health issues, hence the need for exceptions which aren't okay to say in public e.g. shouting at pregnant women walking into an abortion clinic or shouting homophobic abuse at a gay couple picking their child up from school.

It's similar to tax legislation. There will always be a minority who abuse the system and look for loopholes to evade tax. The tax authorities then have to respond with more legislation to close the loopholes....rinse and repeat. You end up with this complex labyrinth of legislation all because a minority didn't play by the rules and follow the spirit of the original legislation.

 

[TommiG88]

@dirty harry is bringing attention to something future president JD Vance spoke about in Munich: You say you are liberal, Western Democracy (or Republic in our case), but your actions are beginning to say otherwise.

Trust me, if you think Trump is hardcore to NATO violations of civil liberties, wait till Vance gets in office.

Alien and sedition acts of 1798. If you or your country is deemed a threat to the United States, we can suspend your 1st Amendment and suspend habeas corpus. We've done it several times throughout our history.

I'm not getting dragged into the USA debate. Couldn't care less about the country.

 

[ChicagoKid]

I imagine when the concept of free speech was first created/defined it was done so on the basis that people would use it responsibly. Fact is too many have not used it responsibly and have abused it to the point where certain groups people have suffered consequences, hence the need for exceptions which aren't okay to say in public e.g. shouting at pregnant women walking into an abortion clinic or shouting at a gay couple picking their child up from school.

And who determines that? The Government? Nah, we are good with our 1st amendment protection including hate speech.

And some other poster, forget who, who said you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. You absolutely CAN shout fire in a crowded theatre. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

For some reason, that myth won't die.

 

[ncurd]

Alien and sedition acts of 1798. If you or your country is deemed a threat to the United States, we can suspend your 1st Amendment and suspend habeas corpus. We've done it several times throughout our history.

Controversially used in the 2nd world war and now by Donald Trump

Never used outside of that.

 

[ChicagoKid]

Controversially used in the 2nd world war and now by Donald Trump

Never used outside of that.

Wrong. A slightly modified version was used in the Civil War, but the four acts were the basis for President Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus. You won't find that in the crappy Wiki article.

 

[dirty harry]

Oh, I don't care about the USA.

I'm talking about the UK, and I've never had my speech censored, but I'm not a hate filled tosser who feels I should be allowed to walk round offending and upsetting people.

Of course you have, you are self censoring on a daily basis...

The alternative is that you agree with every government decision, every societal norm, and have no contrarian positions on any political issue

 

[ncurd]

And who determines that? The Government? Nah, we are good with our 1st amendment protection including hate speech.

And some other poster, forget who, who said you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. You absolutely CAN shout fire in a crowded theatre. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Says pretty clearly whilst you can if you do so to cause harm to others your not protected.

 

[Weldit]

I imagine when the concept of free speech was first created/defined it was done so on the basis that people would use it responsibly. Fact is too many have not used it responsibly and have abused it to the point where certain groups people have suffered consequences e.g. physical harm, threats and mental health issues, hence the need for exceptions which aren't okay to say in public e.g. shouting at pregnant women walking into an abortion clinic or shouting homophobic abuse at a gay couple picking their child up from school.

It's similar to tax legislation. There will always be a minority who abuse the system and look for loopholes to evade tax. The tax authorities then have to respond with more legislation to close the loopholes....rinse and repeat. You end up with this complex labyrinth of legislation all because a minority didn't play by the rules and follow the spirit of the original legislation.

"Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."
― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

 

[TommiG88]

Of course you have, you are self censoring on a daily basis...

The alternative is that you agree with every government decision, every societal norm, and have no contrarian positions on any political issue

Self censoring doesn't affect my life, not one little bit. I think being self aware is a sign of emotional intelligence, and only improves your relationship with friends, colleagues and family.

I don't agree with everything the government does, but I chose long ago not to let anyone affect my life.

 

[dirty harry]

It's not the UN, it was European law under the ECHR then it was taken on by the UK once it gained royal assent

You are not answering the questions do you think I should be able to do the thingsI listed or not. If you say no, the why are you stopping my freedom of speech.

Or try this for rationale. How the hell were you allowed any way near a female rugby team. Did you mock them for being protected characteristics? And moan it's unfair that you can't say any thing you like because it's all on the victims perception?

This is a comment made from someone trying to win and entrap and not discuss an issue honestly lol.

I have stated no religious people should not be abused while trying to pray, that isn't speech, that's incitement. That's akin to shouting fire in a cinema. Because your physically there, making a commotion, abusing people's God, and creating an incident in which people could be hurt. If you wanted to criticsie or even abuse or mock Allah online, or in a conversation that's very different. Shouting fire in a cinema and saying the word fire in a conversation of a cinema goer are very different.

This is a very strange comment, why would I have never been allowed near a womans rugby team? Why would I mock women for being women?

You see the vitriol in your comments? Your trying to harrass and blur lines, and frankly your embarrassing yourself. You fully understand being for free speech is not the same as hating, and I find it totally ignorant that you wouldn't be sceptical of hate speech and hate crime laws based on perception. The 'victim' of the hate crime law doesn't just have to be a protected characteristic, they can be perceived as protected by a 'perpetrator'.

There is a case of 2 straight men being asked if they were gay buy a homosexual man, and he homosexual man was criminalised for a hate crime... let that sink in.