Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Ziggurat]

Well one is a protest, one is not a protest..

Some thoughts are OK, some thoughts are criminal.

Walking past a large silent crowd can be very intimidating and frightening

It's one dude, standing 50 meters away. There was no crowd, and nobody had to even walk past him.

Imagine if a protest group decided to space themselves along a street approximately a metre apart for 150 metres and remained absolutely silent and every time you went out to the shops you had to walk past these people, every worker in that area has to walk past them and so on.

If that's what you are worried about, there are other options to prevent it. You could, for example, prohibit gatherings in the area. Which would have the advantage of prohibiting such actions even if they weren't a protest but instead, say, a prank or performance art.

But that wasn't happening. That never happened. Nobody even proposed doing that. Your scenario is not why they chose to prosecute this one guy for praying silently, on his own.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Surprise, surprise, yer man in Bournemouth is/was supported by a right wing Merkinanian fundy organisation...

Odd that one.

Thinks: did they or someone linked to them put him up to it as a pubicity stunt? Or is he remotely genuine?

 

[Steve]

Your defense of criminalizing thoughts is that they're only criminal in certain locations.

Not much of a defense.

I have made no defense of criminalizing thought and I would disagree with any such criminalization. The "certain location" is a crucial aspect of this case. It is a location where acts of protest - ALL acts of protest - are prohibited for the safety of persons using the clinic. And no, an exhaustive list of which protest actions constitute which level of threat to safety is not required. Nor is a consideration of what a protester is thinking while they are within that zone.

 

[Hercules56]

Surprise, surprise, yer man in Bournemouth is/was supported by a right wing Merkinanian fundy organisation..

A right wing WHAT????

 

[Ziggurat]

I have made no defense of criminalizing thought and I would disagree with any such criminalization. The "certain location" is a crucial aspect of this case.

You aren't defending criminalizing thoughts, but those thoughts are only illegal in that location, which makes it different for reasons.

 

[Mojo]

Never said that.

Here's a link to you saying it: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reedom-of-speech.377491/page-31#post-14679529

 

[Hercules56]

Here's a link to you saying it: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reedom-of-speech.377491/page-31#post-14679529

He should be allowed to pray on any public sidewalk he wants, as long as he does not block traffic.

 

[Steve]

You aren't defending criminalizing thoughts, but those thoughts are only illegal in that location, which makes it different for reasons.

No, the act of demonstrating or protesting is illegal in that location. He stated publicly his intention to demonstrate in that location. That is evidence. He then proceeded to enter that location in accordance with his stated intentions. That is evidence. We have only his word about what he was thinking during that demonstration. Praying - who knows? There is no evidence. Can you provide evidence that he was actually praying silently? What there is evidence for are his actions., and that is why he was arrested.

 

[plague311]

His email prior to the event was not a crime, and is not alleged to be a crime.

Especially by me, I'm not saying it's a crime at all. I wouldn't ever make that claim.

Is it your contention that telling police what you're thinking in response to their question can constitute a crime?

Did the police ask him what he was thinking and then when he told them they arrested\charged him? Or did he get charged for telling them he was going to protest by praying, and then showed up and protested by praying, followed by not leaving when asked, and continued to tell them he was praying?

That it wouldn't even be a crime had he simply not said anything at all? Is that really your position?

Since those aren't the circumstances, I'm not going to comment on your random delusions.

Because that's not the position of the prosecution. The prosecution's position is that his response merely proved what he was thinking. It wasn't his response which constituted the crime.

...ok

The doing it was silent. The emails beforehand were not illegal, did not constitute part of the protest, and did not occur within the controlled area.

Drop the emails, we aren't saying they're illegal. We're saying that he blatantly told him he was going to break the law, and then he did.

The crime he was charged with wasn't refusal to obey a lawful order to move. The only relevance of his decision to not move is that this led the police to charge him for his silent protest rather than let the issue drop. Had he moved, that would not have made his silent prayer legal.

It wouldn't have made it legal, but he would have avoided being charged. Had, the first time he was approached and told to move, he just walked off and got on with the rest of his day, he would have been fine. The fact is he wanted to push this as far as he could and he ended up paying the price. Why are you ok with it in this case but when a protestor in the US does the same thing against the US police, you seem to be on the police's side?

He was something like 50 meters away, and he was not charged with loitering. Even assuming a no loitering sign existed, it wouldn't matter, because he wasn't on their property. "No loitering" signs don't extend beyond your property, that's not how it works. So this is completely irrelevant.

It might be, I don't know. I don't think you do either. I don't know the laws in the UK.

 

[Steve]

He should be allowed to pray on any public sidewalk he wants, as long as he does not block traffic.

Agreed. Anyone can pray on any sidewalk. What this chap cannot do, but what he did, was publicly state an intention to demonstrate in a prohibited location - being a "sidewalk" has no relevance - in a certain manner and then enter that zone and demonstrate in that manner.

 

[Darat]

And Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan and other authoritarian regimes that place human freedom as a very low priority.

Do they have juries over there?

(Plus you do know that like the USA the UK has very, very few jury trials?)

 

[plague311]

You aren't defending criminalizing thoughts, but those thoughts are only protesting is illegal in that location, which makes it different for reasons.

It doesn't matter what form of protesting. The only person focusing on "thoughts" is you, and your other right wing friends, theprestige, herc, emily's, you guys are the only ones focused on the thoughts.

The rest of us are trying to explain to you that it doesn't matter what he did to protest. Anything. You can substitute jumping jacks. If this guy said, "I'm going to do jumping jacks in front of the hospital to protest abortions" he would still get in trouble....but not for doing jumping jacks. For protesting.

I know you're not that dense. I know you're being aggressively obtuse here, but you're not even being consistent. As I said, I can find you doing the exact opposite in pretty much all While Black threads. Why is this one such a big deal to you?

 

[GlennB]

It doesn't matter what form of protesting. The only person focusing on "thoughts" is you, and the your other right wing friends, theprestige, herc, emily's, you guys are the only ones focused on the thoughts.

The rest of us are trying to explain to you that it doesn't matter what he did to protest. Anything. You can substitute jumping jacks. If this guy said, "I'm going to do jumping jacks in front of the hospital to protest abortions" he would still get in trouble....but not for doing jumping jacks. For protesting.

I know you're not that dense. I know you're being aggressively obtuse here, but you're not even being consistent. As I said, I can find you doing the exact opposite in pretty much all While Black threads.
Why is this one such a big deal to you?

Because it's an unmissable opportunity to be contrary.

 

[Steve]

Because it's an unmissable opportunity to be contrary.

The word "prayer" (along with other religion connected words) is a bit of a trigger issue for the American right. Once it crops up they cannot let go, logic be damned.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

A right wing WHAT????

It's more mockery: I've been using Merkinania as a mocking term for the USA since the days of Dubya and his weird pronunciations.

I.E. A reference to your fundamentalist right wing christian groups interfering, yet again, in our society and decision-making.

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't matter what form of protesting.

Again, I know that it doesn't. I'm saying it should. Because they have included thoughts in their outlawing of all forms of protests. They have criminalized thoughts.

You have yet to actually address that. You are doing nothing but deflecting.

You can substitute jumping jacks. If this guy said, "I'm going to do jumping jacks in front of the hospital to protest abortions" he would still get in trouble....but not for doing jumping jacks. For protesting.

You think this is some sort of gotcha, but it isn't. Because that would indeed also be criminalizing jumping jacks. Which isn't really a problem, because we don't need categorical protections for jumping jacks. It's not a problem to criminalize jumping jacks under certain conditions.

I think it's a problem to criminalize thoughts, even if you're criminalizing them under limited conditions. You don't. Just admit that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Drop the emails

You brought up the emails, not me.

, we aren't saying they're illegal. We're saying that he blatantly told him he was going to break the law, and then he did.

So what if he told them? Having told them isn't what made it illegal. It would have been just as illegal even absent the emails. So your appeal to the emails (not mine) isn't relevant.

It wouldn't have made it legal, but he would have avoided being charged.

So what? The issue has never been whether or not he could have avoided prosecution in this case. The issue has always been about whether or not what he did by silently praying was criminal.

And if it's criminal, the fact that the authorities might not prosecute this time isn't much protection against what they might do in the future. If it's criminal, they can prosecute whenever they want to. If it shouldn't be criminal, then it's a problem whether or not authorities choose to prosecute in any specific case.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Oh dear, looks like we do have some freedom of speech: yer man who was fined for burning a Quran and shouting anti-Muslim bollocks outside the Turkish embassy has won his appeal and had his conviction quashed.

The judge even said it was OK to say things which might shock or offend.

 

[plague311]

Again, I know that it doesn't. I'm saying it should. Because they have included thoughts in their outlawing of all forms of protests. They have criminalized thoughts.

No, they haven't. They have criminalized gathering in order to harass. As someone else pointed out, if they allow anyone to stand in the "no protesting" zone and "think" then they have to allow everyone to stand in the "no protesting" zone and "think". That's literally protesting. That becomes menacing, and harassing to people who are seeking medical procedures. If there were a few dozen people standing out front of a penis enlargement clinic, all with their eyes closed, praying, and I had to walk by them, I would be creeped the ◊◊◊◊ out. It would make me feel some way and that's not ok. That's the entire premise. The same with any other form of "protest". Silent protests are a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing. Remember you guys getting your undies in a bunch because of Kapernick? Yeah, same ◊◊◊◊ buddy.

You have yet to actually address that. You are doing nothing but deflecting.

No, I'm not deflecting. I'm answering it head on. You just don't like the answers and your only recourse is to tell me I'm wrong, and then imply I'm dodging. You haven't actually made any real point. You've cried about "thought policing" when everyone involved has openly said that it doesn't matter what he was thinking. We actually don't have any verifiable proof of what he was thinking, as has been pointed out to you by another poster. In fact, I'd dare to say he wasn't praying at all. He was mentally thinking, "I hope someone engages me, I get in trouble, and I can make the news". I don't think he was praying at all.

You think this is some sort of gotcha, but it isn't.

No, I think it's a comparison.

Because that would indeed also be criminalizing jumping jacks.

No, it would be criminalizing protests.

Which isn't really a problem, because we don't need categorical protections for jumping jacks. It's not a problem to criminalize jumping jacks under certain conditions.

Neither is it a problem to criminalize protesting. That's why no one is getting arrested for "thoughts". That's why you have this one, single example and you've held on to it to the point your knuckles are white. It doesn't happen, it didn't happen here, and it won't happen any time soon.

I think it's a problem to criminalize thoughts, even if you're criminalizing them under limited conditions. You don't. Just admit that.

Because I don't believe his thoughts were criminalized. In fact, I know they weren't because we don't know what he was thinking. We have no evidence as to what he was thinking. We do know that protesting in areas that are illegal, when you've told them you're going to protest, will get you in trouble....and it did. As we saw.

 

[Steve]

Oh dear, looks like we do have some freedom of speech: yer man who was fined for burning a Quran and shouting anti-Muslim bollocks outside the Turkish embassy has won his appeal and had his conviction quashed.

The judge even said it was OK to say things which might shock or offend.

Hold on! We have been told in no uncertain terms that "the UK has lost freedom of speech"! So in which country did this occur? Was he on a sidewalk? Was praying, or any other thoughts he had, mentioned as a factor? Is the area around this embassy designated as a no protest zone? Were the Turks reasonably concerned about their safety? Or perhaps they viewed this as mere "teasing" and were determined not to let it bother them? So many questions.....