A Political Thread pt. 2

[ChicagoKid]

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.

Stop linking Wiki and start linking the Case Law directly from the Supreme Court.

 

[ChicagoKid]

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.

Any interest in relocating to the US? I can sponsor you.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I would tread very carefully on this case. It's very complex and the facts are still being sorted.

Operative word is resident. The person is not a citizen. They do not have the same rights as citizens.

Any person in the USA is protected under the Constitution, which includes the 1st amendment. This is well established. Even tourists are protected.

 

[dirty harry]

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.

Ok, let's try a thought exercise...

Let's delve into a controversial topic and find one in which you disagree with a societal norm, or a governmental position...

Palestine, Ukraine, Trump, Abortion, trans in sports, climate change, immigration, death penalty

You pick?

 

[dirty harry]

Any interest in relocating to the US? I can sponsor you.

I'll be there layer in the week on hols lol, I've spent enough time there, I like certain things and places, but there are too many negatives that outweigh the positives for me...

Food and healthcare are probably the biggies

 

[TommiG88]

I'm

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.

i generally agree with you here, but I feel there is a blurred line between incitement and free speech here. How far can someone go before over stepping the mark?

But again, I don't ever get myself in these situations.

 

[dirty harry]

I'm

i generally agree with you here, but I feel there is a blurred line between incitement and free speech here. How far can someone go before over stepping the mark?

But again, I don't ever get myself in these situations.

I actually agree with you 100%. It will always be difficult, and I understand there will be times individuals get things wrong, and there will be an argument for and against those difficult cases.

When I say absolutist that might have been misleading, bit I honestly think the only way marginalised people get a voice, and we avoid full on authoritarian os to defend stupid, reprehensible and idiotic speech as much as the rational.

 

[General Melchett]

.

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.

In a libertarian society you trust the public to use free speech responsibly in the same way you trust them to drive their cars and other vehicles responsibly. The reality is that a minority will abuse both e.g. people speeding when driving near a school or drink driving at weekends. As soon as trends like this start to emerge and innocent people are killed or threatened (starting with verbal/online abuse) then the Government has a responsibility to react and safeguard it's citizens.

If it's a trade off between free speech and safeguarding citizens then the latter wins hands down.

 

[TommiG88]

Ok, let's try a thought exercise...

Let's delve into a controversial topic and find one in which you disagree with a societal norm, or a governmental position...

Palestine, Ukraine, Trump, Abortion, trans in sports, climate change, immigration, death penalty

You pick?

What's controversial about anything there?

Palestine - don't care
Ukraine - putin being putin
Trump - a poor man's Alan sugar
Abortion - feel people should have the right to decide, but I'm not a religious / traditional type
Trans in sport - shouldn't play in either sport, which is a shame for them. But safety must come first (contact sports)
Climate Change - can't say I'm a professional in this field. History shows that they have been climate changes throughout life on earth, although is this change being accelerated by us humans, more than likely
Immigration - love it, but would like it to be more controlled. But there's not easy solution
Death penalty - I'm not for or against. It may give a job for a wannabe serial killer though?

 

[Saintjay]

@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.

Just as a history note In 1943 US army commanders demanded we used segregation in the pubs of Bamber Bridge.

In some of your schools you ban books like the adventures of huckleberry finn, to kill a mocking bird etc.

You are not as free or as you think.

 

[McTallshort]

I swear being on this thread is like driving round all the roundabouts in Milton Keynes and never actually getting on the M1

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Also to dive into the free speech thing, just because, we do have limited free speech in the UK. The prime reasoning behind the free speech laws in the USA was precisely to protect controversial and offensive speech, it was not to protect stuff that isn't controversial, as that doesn't require protecting.

Hate speech is deemed the sort of controversial speech it is there to protect. In the UK we simply don't have that same protection. The issue is the USA acting like their free speech laws are absolute and yet have plenty of cases where the government has acted against people for what they said. This can range from smear campaigns, harassment and imprisonment. They have more protections on that front than we do in the UK.

There is a sizeable chunk of the US populace who seem to have no clue that free speech laws don't protect defamation, threats or what you do on a private forum / private property.

There is also a lot of ignoring of things like book banning and other social policies that effectively oppressed free speech. The whole Jim Crow era and McCarthyism were perfect examples where free speech rights were trampled over.

 

[TommiG88]

I swear being on this thread is like driving round all the roundabouts in Milton Keynes and never actually getting on the M1

Thanks for reminding me, I go to Milton Keynes for work in a week. Absolutely hate the place!

Feels like a labyrinth of grey warehouses

 

[ChicagoKid]

Any person in the USA is protected under the Constitution, which includes the 1st amendment. This is well established. Even tourists are protected.

1000000000% wrong.

Come to the USA and join in on certain public protests and see how much freedom you have.

 

[General Melchett]

I swear being on this thread is like driving round all the roundabouts in Milton Keynes and never actually getting on the M1

With the 6N now finished maybe we should create 'match threads' for some of these 'topics'.

 

[Saintjay]

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.

How can you be harassed by comments I made? I'm not harassing you and I'm skeptical of your perception.

What on earth does perceived as protected by the perpetrator mean?

I don't think anyone who shows a clear lack of understanding about protected characteristics, and Equality law should be working with anyone who's a protected characteristic for starters.

 

[Weldit]

I swear being on this thread is like driving round all the roundabouts in Milton Keynes and never actually getting on the M1

Guess what's next...

 

[Saintjay]

I swear being on this thread is like driving round all the roundabouts in Milton Keynes and never actually getting on the M1

Like good whisky, my American friends wouldn't know a good roundabout if it landed on them either.

 

[McTallshort]

1000000000% wrong.

Come to the USA and join in on certain public protests and see how much freedom you have.

Sounds like Russia

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

1000000000% wrong.

Come to the USA and join in on certain public protests and see how much freedom you have.

No, 100% correct. Again amazing how ignorant you are whilst claiming to be well informed.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

"Given this record, it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined. Upon examination, there is far less to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

"Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law."

Whilst you may listen to your echo chamber podcast, the ones I listen to are from actual US lawyers and lawfirms. Glenn Kirschner, Legal Eagle, Marc Elias, Meidas touch network etc, many with histories of fighting and winning civil rights cases.