• 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

Steve said:
I assumed Hercules56 meant "does not prevent it by those determined to break the law". Which is unfortunately true. It does prevent it by anyone possessing a modicum of civility/
Click to expand...
Indeed, if you feel bound to follow all and any laws, the 500 mile exclusion zone works great. If you dont give a ◊◊◊◊ about the law or feel this particular law is trumped by the need to get your message across, save human life, etc, then the exclusion zone is useless.
 
Yeah, but how will they know they're whores if I'm not allowed to scream it in their face from ~15 feet? They could be completely unawares that they're a baby killer, and I need to provide that information as closely to them as possible. They need this education, they need to know that they're going to hell! I'M TRYING TO ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ HELP! I'M THE GOOD GUY HERE!
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, but how will they know they're whores if I'm not allowed to scream it in their face from ~15 feet? They could be completely unawares that they're a baby killer, and I need to provide that information as closely to them as possible. They need this education, they need to know that they're going to hell! I'M TRYING TO ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ HELP! I'M THE GOOD GUY HERE!
Click to expand...
Cute.
 
Steve said:
I assumed Hercules56 meant "does not prevent it by those determined to break the law". Which is unfortunately true. It does prevent it by anyone possessing a modicum of civility.
Click to expand...
And it allows at least some of those determined to break the law to be prevented from getting up to any harassing. That's what Hercules is upset about.
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, most crimes are like that: You have to actually commit them before you can be charged with them.

Curtailing people's freedoms before they've committed any crimes, on the basis that they might, is not something to be entered into lightly. Not even to protect the sensibilities of people seeking abortions of convenience.
Click to expand...
Why the two weasel words at the end? Should women have to answer a questionnaire and if someone judges their reasons for an abortion as unsatisfactory, it's OK to harass them?
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, most crimes are like that: You have to actually commit them before you can be charged with them.

Curtailing people's freedoms before they've committed any crimes, on the basis that they might, is not something to be entered into lightly. Not even to protect the sensibilities of people seeking abortions of convenience.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but the exclusion zone around clinics was a reaction to the widespread abuses, not a preemptive theoretical quashing of rights. This wasn't a 'They might' measure; it was a 'They won't stop' measure.
 
Darat said:
Women are people?

Well I never.

Just to make that clear, the police administrate such areas but it was the legislative that created them, i.e. our elected MPs, if that legislation is in breach of our freedom of expression the courts would make that decision. I don't know if such challenge cases have been before the courts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I assumed this would be a parallel action to what we see over here, a temporary restriction dropped by police to maintain order. That it was legislated by the people's representatives packs more punch.
 
Hercules56 said:
Yes, and I stand by that 100%.

Just as laws against murder do not prevent murder, they only strongly discourage them. But if you're set on killing someone no law against it will stop you.
Click to expand...
Hm. Seems we've slid over to comparing abortion protesters to murderers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom