• 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:
It’s not a red herring if you are troubled by the idea that thought crimes, however limited in scope, can actually be enforced. You keep ignoring this because you like the other aspects of the protest ban. Which, fine, whatever. But the fact that you aren’t troubled by this aspect is itself troubling. They didn’t need to criminalize thoughts in order to stop harassment.
Click to expand...
And yet again - he stated he was going to protest, we don't need to read his mind to know that, indeed he could have been lying and he wasn't silently praying! Do you claim you can read his mind so you know that is what he was doing? I don't and neither did the authorities because they knew what he was doing, because he told them. And what he told them he would be doing was protesting in a place he wasn't allowed to protest. What he claims he was doing silently was and is irrelevant to the fact he said he was protesting.
 
Darat said:
Doesn't matter whether his protest was mime or interpretative dance or doing the 12x timetable in his head. The protest is what he was arrested for, after a long time of him vocally protesting he should be able to protest to a community officer.
Click to expand...
It may not matter under the law, but that's rather the problem. The law allows prosecution for thought crimes.

And that sure as ◊◊◊◊ matters to me. Why doesn't it matter to you that the law allows for prosecuting thought crimes?
 
Darat said:
And yet again - he stated he was going to protest, we don't need to read his mind to know that
Click to expand...
You say that as if it's a defense, but it isn't. So the ◊◊◊◊ what? It's still the prosecution of a thought crime.
 
Ziggurat said:
It may not matter under the law, but that's rather the problem. The law allows prosecution for thought crimes.

And that sure as ◊◊◊◊ matters to me. Why doesn't it matter to you that the law allows for prosecuting thought crimes?
Click to expand...

Because he wasn't arrested nor prosecuted for a "thought crime" and the law regarding these areas doesn't allow for the prosecution of anyone for any kind of "thought crime".
 
Darat said:
Because he wasn't arrested nor prosecuted for a "thought crime"
Click to expand...
Yes, he absolutely was.
Darat said:
and the law regarding these areas doesn't allow for the prosecution of anyone for any kind of "thought crime".
Click to expand...
Except that's what happened. You keep telling me that what happened didn't happen, and that's never going to work, because it did happen. He was having thoughts. You call it protesting, but that protesting consisted of thoughts. You have not once shown how his protest consisted of anything other than thoughts. You have not even alleged that the protest consisted of anything other than thoughts. The fact that you call it a protest doesn't make it not thoughts. It was still thoughts. And he was prosecuted and convicted for those thoughts. The excuse is that those thoughts constituted a protest, which may well be true, but it's still a prosecution for thoughts. Which means it absolutely was a prosecution of a thought crime.
 
Darat said:
No he told the authorities he was going to protest, again the form of that protest makes no difference
Click to expand...
Well it ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ should. And the fact that it doesn't means that you are, in fact, prosecuting thought crimes when the protest consists solely of thoughts.

I'm not sure why you can't figure this out, it's not actually complicated.
Darat said:
He was not arrested for silently praying.
Click to expand...
Yes, he absolutely was, because that's all the protest consisted of. Nothing else.
 
Hercules56 said:
Im sorry, but banning all protest whether it be peaceful or civil or polite within 500 feet of ALL abortion clinics, is just fascism. Or Stalinism. Call it whatever you like but it is a form of authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

They had their chance to play nice, but chose to harass folk, which is why the no protest zones were introduced.

A bit less fascistic than harassing folk for exercising their access to healthcare.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
They had their chance to play nice, but chose to harass folk, which is why the no protest zones were introduced.

A bit less fascistic than harassing folk for exercising their access to healthcare.
Click to expand...
The no protest zone should make it clear that peace, civil protest is still allowed. But thats banned too. And that is wrong for a free society.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, he absolutely was.

Except that's what happened. You keep telling me that what happened didn't happen, and that's never going to work, because it did happen. He was having thoughts. You call it protesting, but that protesting consisted of thoughts. You have not once shown how his protest consisted of anything other than thoughts. You have not even alleged that the protest consisted of anything other than thoughts. The fact that you call it a protest doesn't make it not thoughts. It was still thoughts. And he was prosecuted and convicted for those thoughts. The excuse is that those thoughts constituted a protest, which may well be true, but it's still a prosecution for thoughts. Which means it absolutely was a prosecution of a thought crime.
Click to expand...
You still don't get the idea of what "no protesting" means - it means you can't protest, no matter what form your protest takes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well it ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ should. And the fact that it doesn't means that you are, in fact, prosecuting thought crimes when the protest consists solely of thoughts.

I'm not sure why you can't figure this out, it's not actually complicated.

Yes, he absolutely was, because that's all the protest consisted of. Nothing else.
Click to expand...
That's simply incorrect. His protest also consisted of contacting the authorities to tell them he would be there protesting and then talking with a community officer for at least an hour about how he was protesting and he should be allowed to protest. The prohibited areas prohibit any form of protest including silent protests i.e. simply being there and doing nothing, making no noise at all. The authorities did not know whether he was silently praying or not and it didn't matter. The "silently praying" is not what he was arrested for - it was for initially silently protesting i.e. protesting and then not-so-silently protesting.
 
Darat said:
You still don't get the idea of what "no protesting" means - it means you can't protest, no matter what form your protest takes.
Click to expand...
And that is a violation of the very important concept of Freedom of Speech, especially if even polite & civil protest that harms no one and violates nobody's rights to access services or to travel, is still banned.

Im still shocked you guys dont understand this.
 
Darat said:
You still don't get the idea of what "no protesting" means - it means you can't protest, no matter what form your protest takes.
Click to expand...
You don't get that I'm not disputing the court's interpretation of the law. I am not claiming that their interpretation is wrong. Quite the reverse: I think their interpretation is correct.

Which is precisely the problem. The law has outlawed all forms of protest, INCLUDING thoughts. Which means they have criminalized certain thoughts. And that's what you still don't get. They have criminalized certain thoughts. Nothing you have said actually indicates I'm wrong about that. It's all been either justifications for outlawing thoughts, straw men, or this weird obsession with labels, as if labelling thoughts as a "protest" makes it something other than a thought. A thought which is done in protest is still a thought. And if you have criminalized that thought because it is a protest, you have still criminalized a thought. You have still created a thought crime.

This isn't complicated. Why are you still struggling to grasp that simple fact?
 
Hercules56 said:
Im sorry, but banning all protest whether it be peaceful or civil or polite within 500 feet of ALL abortion clinics, is just fascism. Or Stalinism. Call it whatever you like but it is a form of authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say call it authoritarianism, by doing so you are pretty much saying any country that has laws to tell its citizens what hey can't do is authoritarianism.

I can agree with you that it is an overly broad solution to a problem.
 
Darat said:
That's simply incorrect. His protest also consisted of contacting the authorities to tell them he would be there protesting
Click to expand...
Nope. The notification WAS NOT a protest. There was NOTHING illegal about his notification.
Darat said:
and then talking with a community officer for at least an hour
Click to expand...
The police made contact with him, he didn't make contact with them. If it's a crime because of what the police did, then the police are at fault. Do you not understand why it's perverse for police to be able to create crimes?
Darat said:
The prohibited areas prohibit any form of protest including silent protests i.e. simply being there and doing nothing, making no noise at all.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not disputing that this is the case. But you're excusing a thought crime on the grounds that they made those thoughts criminal. That doesn't dismiss the problem, that IS the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom