Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[plague311]

You brought up the emails, not me.

Yes, to prove a point.

So what if he told them?

If I tell someone that I'm going to commit a crime, and then I commit the crime, as has been told to you...that's evidence.

Having told them isn't what made it illegal.

Nope, doing what he told them was illegal. His actions made it illegal. Starting to see the difference?

It would have been just as illegal even absent the emails. So your appeal to the emails (not mine) isn't relevant.

Yes, it would have, but the emails confirm that he intended to do something illegal, and then he did something illegal. My "appeal to the emails" was to show that he intended on breaking the law, and then subsequently broke the law.

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 the answer was, yes and no. He can pray at any given time, and he could even pray while moving through the no protest zone, and no one would care. As we've said, no one can read thoughts. What he can't do is protest in a no protest zone. In fact, if he just wanted to pray and not make a big show of it, he could have. He could have just walked through the no protest zone, and mentally prayed, continued to walk through the zone and left. No one would have been the wiser. What he did was notify people he was going to protest by praying, then stopped and made it appoint to attract the police. Then refused to leave.

Is this making it clearer? If all he wanted to do was pray he could have done it without issue. He didn't. He wanted to get attention, he wanted to be noticed doing it, and he hung around an hour after being asked to leave to make sure it got noticed.

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.

Oh Zigg, get the ◊◊◊◊ off it. Cops let people off on infractions in the US all the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ time. It happens every single day. Now you're just bitching for the sake of bitching.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, they haven't. They have criminalized gathering in order to harass.

There was no gathering. He was on his own. And there was no harassment. He didn't interact with anyone except the cops, and they initiated that interaction.

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".

No, actually, they do not. Or more specifically, they do not need to allow multiple people even if they allow one person.

 

[Mojo]

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

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

Apart, of course, from that it’s "a publicly owned and maintained sidewalk"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh Zigg, get the ◊◊◊◊ off it. Cops let people off on infractions in the US all the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ time. It happens every single day. Now you're just bitching for the sake of bitching.

I have no problem with cops letting people off at their discretion. That's not the issue, it was never the issue. The issue is that such discretion doesn't excuse bad laws.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Why is necessity a relevant criteria here? Do your rights only extend to what is necessary for you to do?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that having most medical procedures (including penis enlargement) is a good deal less harrowing than having an abortion. There are very few women for whom having an abortion is non-traumatic; very many women going for an abortion will be feeling scared, vulnerable, marginalised, even dehumanised to some degree. And this is precisely why the law has evolved in such a manner as it pertains to demonstrations outside abortion clinics, as opposed to (eg) penis enlargement clinics.

 

[Steve]

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

Apart, of course, from that it’s "a publicly owned and maintained sidewalk"?

Because if he had announced that he was going to protest abortion by silently praying on a sidewalk outside a pub, and then proceeded to do so, nobody would notice. They would just think he was sad cuz he had no money for beer.

 

[Mojo]

Why is necessity a relevant criteria here? Do your rights only extend to what is necessary for you to do?

I notice a distinct reluctance to answer the question.

 

[plague311]

There was no gathering. He was on his own. And there was no harassment. He didn't interact with anyone except the cops, and they initiated that interaction.

Right...this time.

No, actually, they do not. Or more specifically, they do not need to allow multiple people even if they allow one person.

Now you're advocating that this one guy get rights that no one else gets, and you're ok with that? That's...a different direction than I expected you to go in.

I vehemently disagree. There is nothing special about this individual that should grant him the ability to do something others are banned from doing. The law applies to everyone, equally, not just this guy because he's doing ◊◊◊◊ that Zigg likes. Everyone or no one. As Darat said, if you would like to take on the basis for the law, I'm willing to oblige, for sure but selectively applying it is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

I have no problem with cops letting people off at their discretion. That's not the issue, it was never the issue. The issue is that such discretion doesn't excuse bad laws.

Sure, we can agree there, but whether the law is bad or not it has to be followed...or protested. I'm fine with this guy protesting it, as well. If he decides to do so then he should expect to face the consequences handed down by the relevant authorities. He told them he was going to protest in a no protesting zone, he physically protested in a no protesting zone, he should then accept the consequences for doing so. He shouldn't receive any special accommodations just because reasons.

 

[plague311]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that having most medical procedures (including penis enlargement) is a good deal less harrowing than having an abortion. There are very few women for whom having an abortion is non-traumatic; very many women going for an abortion will be feeling scared, vulnerable, marginalised, even dehumanised to some degree. And this is precisely why the law has evolved in such a manner as it pertains to demonstrations outside abortion clinics, as opposed to (eg) penis enlargement clinics.

Yes, I apologize for being clumsy but what you're saying here was the point I was trying to make, albeit very poorly. I was using an example of something that's a) a choice b) pretty meaningless overall in order to show that even if it's something that doesn't need to be done that it can be extremely menacing to have to face people standing outside of a clinic. Add to that the fact that these women are going through something terrible and the last thing they need is some people out front staring at, and judging them, for no good reason at all.

 

[Mojo]

Because if he had announced that he was going to protest abortion by silently praying on a sidewalk outside a pub, and then proceeded to do so, nobody would notice. They would just think he was sad cuz he had no money for beer.

But I'm sure there are plenty of publicly maintained pavements that are neither outside a pub nor an abortion clinic. Why couldn't he use one of those?

 

[Darat]

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.

Good news. As I mentioned before it is at least a good sign to see the courts narrowing down on the broad language in some of the more recent legislation in favour of our right to freedom of expression. But we still need a full review.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't get to say whether someone is being harassed or not. The person who is being harassed gets to say it.

I don't think this blanket statement is either reasonable or reality. People can feel harassed by all sorts of things, that a reasonable well-adjusted person wouldn't feel harassed by.

 

[Steve]

I don't think this blanket statement is either reasonable or reality. People can feel harassed by all sorts of things, that a reasonable well-adjusted person wouldn't feel harassed by.

Reasonable well-adjusted people can recognize, feel, and indeed be, harassed by all sorts of things that less reasonable and well-adjusted people do not/cannot/choose not to recognize as harassment.

 

[smartcooky]

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?

When someone is all-in on he suppression of speech and expression they don't like, I think they're always going to be resistant to any viewpoint they disagree with as well.

I am pro-women's choice on abortion rights, and I have no truck with anti-abortionists. Nonetheless, I would uphold their right to protest. I find it disturbing that any section of public street can be designated as restricted from protest for the for the benefit of some entity or individual. That is the stuff authoritarian regimes do.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

The fact he was ULTIMATELY exonerated does not compensate or rectify the fact that he was put through a process that he should never have been put through in the first place.

And that is the plan. Even when authorities KNOW the accused will ultimately be exonerated, they still put them through the process to dissuade others and chill free speech. These things happen too often for it to be mere coincidence.

The process IS the punishment!

 

[Mojo]

The fact he was ULTIMATELY exonerated does not compensate or rectify the fact that he was put through a process that he should never have been put through in the first place.

And that is the plan. Even when authorities KNOW the accused will ultimately be exonerated, they still put them through the process to dissuade others and chill free speech. These things happen too often for it to be mere coincidence.

The process IS the punishment!

Oh good, let's just abandon the process then.


May contain traces of irony.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Sigh. No it's not, it's prosecution of a stated intention, i.e. an attempt.

 

[Steve]

When someone is all-in on he suppression of speech and expression they don't like, I think they're always going to be resistant to any viewpoint they disagree with as well.

I am pro-women's choice on abortion rights, and I have no truck with anti-abortionists. Nonetheless, I would uphold their right to protest. I find it disturbing that any section of public street can be designated as restricted from protest for the for the benefit of some entity or individual. That is the stuff authoritarian regimes do.

When someone is all in on the idea that a person is arrested due to a "thought crime" I think they're always going to be resistant to any viewpoint they disagree with as well.

 

[smartcooky]

Is the area around this embassy designated as a no protest zone?Were the Turks reasonably concerned about their safety?

No, they are not. The embassy itself is restricted, not the surrounding area.