• 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

Thermal said:
There is no important difference between "I'm going to kill you" and "I'm going to kill you when I have the opportunity".
Click to expand...
This is a disingenuous line of argument. Every one of us in this thread recognizes that as an incitement to violence and a call for illegal activity - which is already disallowed.

On the other hand, you should be perfectly allowed to say "I think you're a complete evil piece of ◊◊◊◊ and your death would benefit the world".
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is a disingenuous line of argument. Every one of us in this thread recognizes that as an incitement to violence and a call for illegal activity - which is already disallowed.

On the other hand, you should be perfectly allowed to say "I think you're a complete evil piece of ◊◊◊◊ and your death would benefit the world".
Click to expand...
More accurately: "I hope to pass a constitutional amendment removing the right to life and liberty from X group, so that we can pass a law allowing for your detention and execution based on your membership in X group"

As horrible and as ugly as I consider such a proposition, it should be legal.
 
Darat said:
I asked about campaigning which is not just walking around holding a sign. Should someone be allowed to campaign for a policy to legally put to death mentally ill people?
Click to expand...
Let me get your opinion on this first, so I know if you have a limit or not.

Should someone be allowed to campaign for a policy to legally put to death repeat violent criminals, hired assassins, and mass murderers?
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, I'm going to say this to everybody. Not singling out any particular person:

If your rebuttal to anything I'm saying includes the word "offend", "offending", "offensive" or any other inflection of that word then you are misrepresenting my argument, being dishonest, and arguing fallaciously. Similarly if you use any inflection of the word "feelings", you are misrepresenting me. You should stop doing that.
Click to expand...
Can you provide us with a few examples of things that you consider to be hate speech, but which do NOT include a clear incitement to violence or call for illegal activity?
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, I can tell.


As I have patiently explained on any number of occasions, there are many examples of "free" speech that are not explicitly incitements to violence, and yet are taken so by the audience.

Theo van Gogh did not incite violence when he produced his 2004 film Submission: Part 1. And he was murdered by an Islamist because of it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote that film, also received death threats.

Sanal Edamaruku demonstrated that a local miracle could be explained by a leaky drain, did not incite violence, and yet was forced to flee the country to escape it.

Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Benazir Bhutto, Jo Cox - all people who spoke out against violence and yet violence was done against them because of what they said.

Incitement to violence cannot and must not be the ONLY criteria that defines hate speech. Different groups of people will take different things as incitement. Drawing Mohammed or burning a Quran or an American flag has been taken by some as incitement. I think you would agree that none of those things incite violence, yet they are held by violent people are excuses for violence.

Your binary, black-and-white philosophy fails in the real world.
Click to expand...
In the context of this thread... it seems that you think Theo van Gogh, Sanal Edamaruku, Mahatma Ghandi, MLK Jr., Benazir Bhutto, and Jo Cox were all guilty of hate speech.

Otherwise, your entire post is pointless and irrelevant.
 
catsmate said:
Hmmm

Banned & Challenged Books

ALA compiles data on book challenges from reports filed by library professionals in the field and from news stories published throughout the United States.
www.ala.org www.ala.org
Click to expand...
There seems to be a pretty common theme involved in the Top 10. They're all books that contain sexually explicit passages. Seems a lot of people don't support public institutions providing literary pornography to minors. Weird.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There seems to be a pretty common theme involved in the Top 10. They're all books that contain sexually explicit passages. Seems a lot of people don't support public institutions providing literary pornography to minors. Weird.
Click to expand...
With parental consent, kids can see movies that show sex. Books with porn should not be banned from kids unless their parents agree.
 
What's other UK citizens views on the proscribing of Palestinian Action as a terrorist organisation?
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is a disingenuous line of argument. Every one of us in this thread recognizes that as an incitement to violence and a call for illegal activity - which is already disallowed.

On the other hand, you should be perfectly allowed to say "I think you're a complete evil piece of ◊◊◊◊ and your death would benefit the world".
Click to expand...
Even our beloved FBI acknowledges implied, veiled, and conditional threats. Whether you agree or not, the nuance here is very much whether nazi talking points fall under those types of 'indirect yet direct' threats.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
What's other UK citizens views on the proscribing of Palestinian Action as a terrorist organisation?
Click to expand...
The decision to proscribe Palestine Action has been subject to debate.

The Times opposed the proscription, regarding it as "unwise" to prosecute the group under anti-terrorism laws rather than criminal legislation. By classifying the group alongside the likes of Hamas and al-Qaeda, the government risks promoting the perception that pro-Palestinian speech is suppressed, it said.

The Guardian described the proscription as "an alarmingly illiberal overreaction" which conflates civil disobedience with terrorism, and called it a "disgrace" for non-violent protesters to be facing jail for expressions of support.

The New York Times stated that the declassified intelligence report "undercuts some officials' broad claims" used to justify the proscription

en.wikipedia.org

Palestine Action - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


Seems to be that PA is not an actual organization but a loose network of people with a common agenda and common grievances.

Calling them all "terrorists" and therefore labeling all supporters "criminals", is disgusting.

Britain has a real problem with free speech and free association.

Now, if PA was an organized group with top down leadership and decision making, that would be a different story, as some of the groups have engaged in criminal acts of vandalism and destruction of property.

But again, its NOT an organized group with leadership and followers.

Its like declaring Zionism a terrorist organization
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom