Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Hercules56]

Nice to see you personally advocating violent assault over someone exercising their right to free speech. What happened to your tough guy stance about protecting your snowflake feewings?

I was 8 years old at the time.

 

[Darat]

Yes. By praying.

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.

No he was prosecuted for breaching the law by staging a protest within 150m of the medical facility. We know he was staging a protest because he told us he was and he argued for I believe over an hour that he should be able to protest at that location. Understanding and accurately ascertaining intent is often one of the most difficult facts for a court to judge, but when someone tells you "I am going to breach the prohibited area by staging a protest" it really isn't a difficult determination.

You may think that someone protesting as he did should not be a breach but I can understand why the rules are as they are, with one person it isn't going to be an issue but if you allow one, then two, then three and so on you end up with again people going about their lawful lives, jobs and healthcare having to walk past a crowd of people which would be intimidating for many, and inconvenient for others.

Everyone who wishes to protest about abortion being legal in the UK (only recently throughout the UK) can do so, what you can't do is protest within 150m of a place where healthcare is given.

The idea that this is some terrible restriction on people's freedom is ridiculous.

 

[Darat]

I was 8 years old at the time.

But you aren't 8 today and you still think a physical assault was appropriate.

 

[Ziggurat]

No he was prosecuted for breaching the law by staging a protest within 150m of the medical facility.

And what did that protest consist of? Praying silently. Which is just thoughts.

You can use whatever words you want to describe his praying in order to justify criminalizing it, but you have still criminalized thoughts.

You may think that someone protesting as he did should not be a breach but I can understand why the rules are as they are

Understand it however you want to. The fact remains, certain thoughts are criminalized.

The idea that this is some terrible restriction on people's freedom is ridiculous.

Indeed, there's no need for those thoughts in that place. Which means there's no problem with having outlawed thoughts.

 

[Hercules56]

But you aren't 8 today and you still think a physical assault was appropriate.

In 1984? Yes. Would have been fine.

 

[Hercules56]

No he was prosecuted for breaching the law by staging a protest within 150m of the medical facility. We know he was staging a protest because he told us he was and he argued for I believe over an hour that he should be able to protest at that location. Understanding and accurately ascertaining intent is often one of the most difficult facts for a court to judge, but when someone tells you "I am going to breach the prohibited area by staging a protest" it really isn't a difficult determination.

You may think that someone protesting as he did should not be a breach but I can understand why the rules are as they are, with one person it isn't going to be an issue but if you allow one, then two, then three and so on you end up with again people going about their lawful lives, jobs and healthcare having to walk past a crowd of people which would be intimidating for many, and inconvenient for others.

Everyone who wishes to protest about abortion being legal in the UK (only recently throughout the UK) can do so, what you can't do is protest within 150m of a place where healthcare is given.

The idea that this is some terrible restriction on people's freedom is ridiculous.

What is the harm in a peaceful silent protest 500' from a medical facility?

 

[theprestige]

Why was it necessary for him to pray outside an abortion clinic?

Is it necessary for him to pray on every publicly owned and maintained pavement?

As far as I'm concerned, it suffices that he thinks it desirable to pray there for it to be permitted, as a general rule*.

I think it's a very bad idea, for the government to criminalize expression based on whether the government thinks it's strictly necessary.

---

*Obviously there must be some exceptions, but that's exactly what they should be: well-justified exceptions to the rule.

 

[smartcooky]

No he was prosecuted for breaching the law by staging a protest within 150m of the medical facility. We know he was staging a protest because he told us he was and he argued for I believe over an hour that he should be able to protest at that location. Understanding and accurately ascertaining intent is often one of the most difficult facts for a court to judge, but when someone tells you "I am going to breach the prohibited area by staging a protest" it really isn't a difficult determination.

You may think that someone protesting as he did should not be a breach but I can understand why the rules are as they are, with one person it isn't going to be an issue but if you allow one, then two, then three and so on you end up with again people going about their lawful lives, jobs and healthcare having to walk past a crowd of people which would be intimidating for many, and inconvenient for others.

Everyone who wishes to protest about abortion being legal in the UK (only recently throughout the UK) can do so, what you can't do is protest within 150m of a place where healthcare is given.

The idea that this is some terrible restriction on people's freedom is ridiculous.

That is just weasel words to justify the unjustifiable.
He was not disturbing anyone.
He was not kicking up a ruckus.
He was not saying anything to anyone.
He was just silently praying
If you (or anyone else) here cannot see the terrible optics of arresting and charging this guy, then you are part of the problem
Arresting and charging this guy gives conservatives and people like Nigel Farage EXACTLY what they want - publicity and an incident that boosts their cause.

As I posted earlier, from the former president of the ACLU, suppressing speech almost always kicks back on the suppressor - it has the opposite effect to that which the suppressor wants.

Hate speech laws backfire: Part 3 of answers to bad arguments against free speech from Nadine Strossen and Greg Lukianoff

Nadine Strossen, former head of the ACLU from 1991 to 2008, explains why hate speech laws backfire.

www.thefire.org

If they had just left the guy alone until he tired of what he was doing, then instead of becoming front page news, it would have been a few obscure column-inches buried on page 5.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

How about you. Are YOU OK with mobs shouting "Death to Jews"?

 

[Hercules56]

How about you. Are YOU OK with mobs shouting "Death to Jews"?

No, that should be criminal. Its a threat of violence against specific persons.

 

[junkshop]

*Obviously there must be some exceptions, but that's exactly what they should be: well-justified exceptions to the rule.

Which is exactly what this situation is.

A person who has made the very consequential and difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy (and let us not forget, the 'praying' guy has no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue as to why they have made that decision - maybe it was inconvenient, maybe the pregnancy was life threatening, maybe it was the result of rape and/or incest, maybe the foetus was non-viable, maybe, maybe, maybe...point is this self righteous cock has no idea why anyone is visiting this facility) should not have to run a gauntlet of judgmental pricks shaming them for their making the choice that is their absolute right on their way to what is probably one of, if not the worst things they will experience. An experience that is also a private medical procedure, and none of his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ business.

His hurty feewings over the abortion his then partner had two plus decades ago do not give him the right to judge, shame or otherwise harass anyone else.

If he, or anyone sharing his views, believe that abortion should not be allowed then they should petition their MP/senator/whatever to change the law.

 

[Hercules56]

Which is exactly what this situation is.

A person who has made the very consequential and difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy (and let us not forget, the 'praying' guy has no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue as to why they have made that decision - maybe it was inconvenient, maybe the pregnancy was life threatening, maybe it was the result of rape and/or incest, maybe the feotus was non-viable, maybe, maybe, maybe...point is this self righteous cock has no idea why anyone is visiting this facility) should not have to run a gauntlet of judgmental pricks shaming them for their making the choice that is their absolute right on their way to what is probably one of, if not the worst things they will experience.

His hurty feewings over the abortion his then partner had two plus decades ago do not give him the right to judge, shame or otherwise harass anyone else.

Actually, if he is on a public sidewalk, he has every right to say at a reasonable volume "dont abort" to every woman who walks by.

You guys really seem to have no clue what Freedom of Speech means.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

There are far too many negatives involved in your post, I can't figure out what you're trying to say

 

[Emily's Cat]

And what did that protest consist of? Praying silently. Which is just thoughts.

"Office, inside my head I am protesting. Silently. In my own mind. But I assure you, I'm definitely silently protesting in my head."

 

[Ziggurat]

His hurty feewings over the abortion his then partner had two plus decades ago do not give him the right to judge, shame or otherwise harass anyone else.

Judging is a thought, so your inclusion of that in your list seems to endorse thought criminalization. Why can't he judge someone? Why can't we all judge anyone?

But he didn't shame or harass anyone. Some protesters might have, but he didn't. He isn't even alleged to have done so.

 

[theprestige]

Which is exactly what this situation is.

A person who has made the very consequential and difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy (and let us not forget, the 'praying' guy has no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue as to why they have made that decision - maybe it was inconvenient, maybe the pregnancy was life threatening, maybe it was the result of rape and/or incest, maybe the foetus was non-viable, maybe, maybe, maybe...point is this self righteous cock has no idea why anyone is visiting this facility) should not have to run a gauntlet of judgmental pricks shaming them for their making the choice that is their absolute right on their way to what is probably one of, if not the worst things they will experience. An experience that is also a private medical procedure, and none of his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ business.

His hurty feewings over the abortion his then partner had two plus decades ago do not give him the right to judge, shame or otherwise harass anyone else.

If he, or anyone sharing his views, believe that abortion should not be allowed then they should petition their MP/senator/whatever to change the law.

Yes, and this is an argument for an exception to the general rule of a right to free expression, not an argument for prohibiting anything the government deems not strictly necessary.

I am sympathetic to the concerns you've raised. However, I think that in the interest of fairness, you should likewise prohibit the expression of any protest that is even the slightest bit adversarial in perception, directed at anyone exercising their freedoms. Free to go into an abortion clinic without a silent prayer happening nearby? Fine. Also free to go into a restaurant without a disapproving vegan glaring at you from the sidewalk. And so forth. Either people can be freely subjected to public censure when out in public, or they can't. None of this having-it-both-ways nonsense.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are far too many negatives involved in your post, I can't figure out what you're trying to say

'Murica sucks. That's what he was trying to say. No point in overanalyzing.

 

[arthwollipot]

Please point out where is the bigotry in the following statement said on the sidewalk at a reasonable volume:

"Don't abort".

That's not what's happening.

 

[theprestige]

That's not what's happening.

Yeah, what's happening here is even less confrontational than that. But somehow it's a crime to just stand there, thinking it.

 

[junkshop]

...Also free to go into a restaurant without a disapproving vegan glaring at you from the sidewalk...

Is this a thing that happens? I've certainly not come across this. Surely you wouldn't be making up really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb strawman arguments, not a poster of your calibre?

No, it must be that my naivety and innocence have blinded me to the disapproving glares of the vegans.