• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

Nazis demonstrating outside a synagogue, or racists burning the quran outside a mosque are provocations; allow them the freedom to demonstrate, the freedom to speak, by all means, but let them do it elsewhere. Your freedom of speech does not allow you to say what you want wherever you want to say it.
What about pro-choice advocates demonstrating outside of a church that is pro-life?
What about pro-palestine activists chanting on a campus with a high portion of jewish students?
What about a BLM march through a predominantly white neighborhood?

Where do you draw the line on what is acceptably provocative and what is not?
 
Meanwhile, those of us living in the Real World, as opposed to fantasy land understand thing a little better;
But then understanding for one's self is more difficult than unthinking sloganeering.
And here's your reminder that the paradox of tolerance was a literal footnote in an entire body of work extolling the virtue and desirability of tolerance. It should not, under any circumstances, be used to justify or excuse active intolerance.
 
This.

We do not need to allow people promoting their belief that they want to kill their fellow citizens who are Jewish, homosexual, have mental health conditions etc., we know that is what they would do if they gained power as that is part of their ideology. (I think we can assume that in the UK today they would also want to kill all Muslim folk as well.)
How much should we be expected to tolerate activism that openly calls for the punching, knifing, raping, decapitation, or killing of those who disagree with their objectives?
 
Why would we?
Hold on... Please explain this in more detail.

You support banning nazi flags in front of synagogues... but you don't support banning palestinian flags in front of synagogues. Even though one of those murdered jewish people 80 years ago, and the other advocates murdering jewish people today?
 
How much should we be expected to tolerate activism that openly calls for the punching, knifing, raping, decapitation, or killing of those who disagree with their objectives?
My position would be that such actions go well beyond "activism" and should not be tolerated at all/
 
Hold on... Please explain this in more detail.

You support banning nazi flags in front of synagogues... but you don't support banning palestinian flags in front of synagogues. Even though one of those murdered jewish people 80 years ago, and the other advocates murdering jewish people today?
Killing Jews was a major tenet of being a Nazi. Killing Jews is not a major tenet of being a Palestinian.
 
Am I the only one exasperated by how this thread is driven along by Hercules56 assuming the law has to be an inflexible list of absolutes rather than a balanced judgement of competing interests?
Irrespective of your view on Hercules, I'm actually more interested in the inability of people to understand the way in which principles underpin law.
 
How much should we be expected to tolerate activism that openly calls for the punching, knifing, raping, decapitation, or killing of those who disagree with their objectives?
Ooh ooh ooh, I know this one!

Eta: can we seperate the national leadership from the occasional random nut on the street for the answer, though?
 
Last edited:
To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary.
The police have powers to arrest you anywhere and at any time, including on the street, at home or at work.

Police cannot force you to go to the Station with them, unless they arrest you. However, all they have to do is say they suspect you of posting a hurty tweet that they consider breaks the law, then they can handcuff you, place you under arrest and force you to accompany them.
Even if it later turns out to have been a false arrest, and you end up suing them... it's too late. They have put you through the wringer of the arrest and detention process... remember, that process IS the punishment!
Which is not the same as what Emily's Cat said.
 
Killing Jews was a major tenet of being a Nazi. Killing Jews is not a major tenet of being a Palestinian.
Its a major tenant of Hamas, and yet folks here seem to think it should be ok and legal to march around the street with a Hamas flag. But not a Nazi flag.

What gives?

@Darat when are you going to answer my question??
 
Last edited:
Our ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ didn't take it over till much more recently, like the 2000 teens. You could sport the Stars and Stripes and be seen as nothing but loving your country prior to that, from Jimi Hendrix onward.

You wanted to give Def Leppard mad props for making that sleeveless Union Jack shirt clean again? I had one.
No. No, it wasn't that. Don't get me wrong, Sheffield has produced many fantastic bands over the years, and it also produced Def Leppard.
 
Last edited:
Combination of events over the past several years where female citizens of UK have been taken from their homes for "interviews under caution" relating to them having opined that all males are males... and google:


In the UK, you cannot be arrested for a "non-crime incident" because no criminal offense has occurred. However, you can be invited to a voluntary interview under caution to assist police with an investigation.

Voluntary interviews
  • Voluntary, but serious: A voluntary interview is not a casual chat. It is a formal interview conducted under caution, meaning that anything you say can be used in evidence if the investigation leads to criminal charges.
  • Freedom to leave: As you are not under arrest, you are technically free to leave the police station at any point.
  • Risk of arrest: If you refuse to attend a voluntary interview or attempt to leave before it is finished, the police may decide to arrest you instead if they believe it is necessary for their investigation.
 
Ooh ooh ooh, I know this one!

Eta: can we seperate the national leadership from the occasional random nut on the street for the answer, though?
No, we can't. It's actual people on the street doing the protesting, and the advocacy. And it's actual people on the street carrying signs and placards calling for the death of a group of people they dislike, and making speeches calling for people to punch those groups of people on sight.

You can't separate the activists from the activism.
 
Fair enough. I just thought it needed saying.

The ACLU has, IMO, the correct position on this issue. They are in effect, saying what I believe, which is...

"I might hate everything you believe in, and despise the horrible things you say, but I WILL defend your right to believe in, and say those things"
Even when what you say and believe is dehumanising and degrading? Even when what you say and believe is that certain kinds of people are subhuman and do not deserve human rights? Even when what you say and believe is that certain kinds of people can and should be killed indiscriminately?

No. There are reasonable limits to free speech.
 
Its a major tenant of Hamas, and yet folks here seem to think it should be ok and legal to march around the street with a Hamas flag. But not a Nazi flag.

What gives?

@Darat when are you going to answer my question??
Why do you insist in using straw men. Hamas was not mentioned in the post I quoted or in my reply. Perhaps it is your opinion that there is no difference between Hamas and the Palestinian people?
 
Even when what you say and believe is dehumanising and degrading?
If offensive & annoying speech is not protected, no speech is safe from censorship.

Even when what you say and believe is that certain kinds of people are subhuman and do not deserve human rights?
Yes, even moronic and idiotic speech should be protected. However just cuz the government cant censor and punish such speech doesn't mean the private sector has to tolerate it. For example, private employers, stores, restaurants, museums, etc, don't have to tolerate hate speech. They can kick you out or refuse to serve you.

Even when what you say and believe is that certain kinds of people can and should be killed indiscriminately?...

Again, government should not be able to punish such speech unless it includes and immediate and direct threat of violence. However, social media and even email servers are not obligated to allow such speech to operate. They can ban you at will.
 
It's a major tenet of the groups who are in charge of that area. It has been pretty much forever. But don't feel left out - they want to kill you and me as well.
Then perhaps you should have asked about the flags of those groups. The Palestinian flag predates those groups and their symbols by a considerable margin. The Nazi flag, on the other hand, originated with the Nazi party and was a symbol of their genocidal policies.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom