• 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

Ziggurat said:
...he wanted to test the boundaries of the law here.
Click to expand...
If so, success! He found that breaking the law incurs significamt financial penalties.
Ziggurat said:
The important question is, what can the government prohibit?
Click to expand...
A good question, of course. Not on the particular train we are off the rails on, but generally a good one.
Ziggurat said:
And apparently, the government can prohibit certain thoughts.
Click to expand...
All aboard!
 
Darat said:
No it prohibits behaviour, there was no mind reading or thought policing in this case, he told them he was going to behave in such a way as to breach the prohibited zone.
Click to expand...
Yes. By praying.
Darat said:
By all mean object to prohibited zones but at least do it on what they are rather than your silliness of “thought policing”.
Click to expand...
The behavior he was prosecuted for was praying, which is just a thought. So there absolutely was thought policing. You keep trying to dance around this fact with sophistry and irrelevant asides, but none of that changes that he was prosecuted for prayer.
 
Steve said:
Seems that the actual prohibition, and the reason for his arrest, was against his actions and not against what he was thinking.
Click to expand...
"Can't have people doing wrongthink can we? We'll find someting we can charge him with so that we can send a warning out to other people contemplating wrongthink"
 
Steve said:
Seems that the actual prohibition, and the reason for his arrest, was against his actions and not against what he was thinking.
Click to expand...
What actions? His prayer.

Which is, in fact, what he was thinking.
 
The background to the prohibited zones is that residents near the abortion places were being harassed by people who wanted to protest about abortions, along with those attending such clinics. In the UK we don’t have a right to harass people having medical treatments. You can campaign against abortion all you want, you can’t harass people seeking medical treatment.
 
Helen said:
No? Only abortion? Why is it that the people concerned and their doctors should not be able to make that decision, without getting everyone else involved, just as with all other medical procedures?
Click to expand...
I really don't think it's hard to understand why abortion gets viewed differently. For those people who view fetuses as babies from the moment of conception, abortion is quite literally murder. They are opposed to state-sanctioned murder of innocent people. That's why.

Most rational people don't view fetuses as babies from the moment of conception, no more than we view an acorn as an oak tree. It's something that is in the process of becoming an oak tree, but it's not there quite yet.

Let's not pretend that the reason some people are categorically opposed to abortion is some incomprehensible mystery - it's not. It's a perfectly understandable viewpoint. I understand it very well, but I also disagree with it. I can disagree with it, and argue for my perspective, largely because I understand it.
 
Darat said:
The background to the prohibited zones is that residents near the abortion places were being harassed by people who wanted to protest about abortions, along with those attending such clinics.
Click to expand...
Sure. But what they have done is outlaw more than just harassment. They have managed to outlaw certain thoughts. No harassment took place. No harassment is even alleged to have taken place. Harassment wasn't a part of the crime.
 
Darat said:
The background to the prohibited zones is that residents near the abortion places were being harassed by people who wanted to protest about abortions, along with those attending such clinics. In the UK we don’t have a right to harass people having medical treatments. You can campaign against abortion all you want, you can’t harass people seeking medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Seems a lot more than harrassment is being criminalized.

Unless you consider silent prayer to be harassment.
 
Steve said:
???

Face it, the USA is nothing special. And attempting to build it up by denigrating other countries is just as pathetic when you try it as when Trump and his cronies try.

Over a thousand posts here and you have made no case for your OP. Useless thread.
Click to expand...
Kool.
 
plague311 said:
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the man was charged, and convicted, of....praying? I've never heard of that charge.
Click to expand...
He was charged and convicted for an illegal demonstration.

Which consisted of him silently praying on a public sidewalk.

Oh the humanity!!!!! Call the Black & Tans!!!
 
smartcooky said:
I have been called a lot of disgusting things in life (and indeed, some on this very forum) including racist, bigot, tranny-basher, ignorant, liar, conspiracy theorist, heartless, retard, honky, bastard, wanker, ◊◊◊◊ and many more.
Impact on me? None, because I have a thick skin. I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what anyone calls me... to me, they're just hurty words that I ignore.

If you're one of these people who runs off to the cops every time someone calls you a hurty word online, or who pulls out one of your pre-printed "Dear Editor" letterheads when you think you perceive some minor wrongdoing, stop being a wimp. Harden the ◊◊◊◊ up!!

Words are not actions, they're just words They can only harm you if you let them.
Click to expand...
What gets to me is how some people forget if you can get in legal trouble for saying "f--- Islam" you can get in legal trouble for saying "F___ CHritinaity" or any other religion.
I repeat a lot of people here cut Islam slack they do not cut other religions, because ot be Pro Islam is sort of fashionable among the "Anti Impreaisits" at the moment.
 
Thermal said:
Herc, we are not talking about name calling. We are talking about hate speech. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand that no one is suggesting that we criminalize name calling?
Click to expand...
Problem is who decides which is which?
 
dudalb said:
Problem is who decides which is which?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this has already been covered. It's not some big ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mystery to figure out what hate speech is and it can be decided like every other crime, by a jury of your peers. It's called "civilization". You should check it out, everyone is doing it nowadays.
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, this has already been covered. It's not some big ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mystery to figure out what hate speech is and it can be decided like every other crime, by a jury of your peers. It's called "civilization". You should check it out, everyone is doing it nowadays.
Click to expand...

Much of what you call "hate speech" should not be illegal.

Like the kid in school who called me a "dirty Jew". He deserved a kick in the shin, not jail.
 
I wasn't in deepest, darkest Texas, just the other Sunday morning, outside a local church, around opening time and you wouldn't have believed what I didn't see!
There weren't 50 Muslims, on prayer mats, praying to God, pointing east, in the vestibule of some literalist baptist church, In an 'open carry' county.

I did wonder why I didn't see it, I know the good o'l USA is full of confidence that 'free speech' is a 'god-given right'.
So why is that demonstration I didn't see, as likely to happen as Thor wiping his arse on the top of Sisyphus' rock ever going to be
likely?

'Free Speech'?

Not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ likely my friend, in the US, now more than ever, the guys with the bigger lawyers voice, rules.

Threatening broadcasting companies with bankruptcy, because someone repeated some hatemonger's words. Come on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom