• 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

Thermal said:
There is no important difference between "I'm going to kill you" and "I'm going to kill you when I have the opportunity".
Click to expand...
This is a disingenuous line of argument. Every one of us in this thread recognizes that as an incitement to violence and a call for illegal activity - which is already disallowed.

On the other hand, you should be perfectly allowed to say "I think you're a complete evil piece of ◊◊◊◊ and your death would benefit the world".
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is a disingenuous line of argument. Every one of us in this thread recognizes that as an incitement to violence and a call for illegal activity - which is already disallowed.

On the other hand, you should be perfectly allowed to say "I think you're a complete evil piece of ◊◊◊◊ and your death would benefit the world".
Click to expand...
More accurately: "I hope to pass a constitutional amendment removing the right to life and liberty from X group, so that we can pass a law allowing for your detention and execution based on your membership in X group"

As horrible and as ugly as I consider such a proposition, it should be legal.
 
Darat said:
I asked about campaigning which is not just walking around holding a sign. Should someone be allowed to campaign for a policy to legally put to death mentally ill people?
Click to expand...
Let me get your opinion on this first, so I know if you have a limit or not.

Should someone be allowed to campaign for a policy to legally put to death repeat violent criminals, hired assassins, and mass murderers?
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, I'm going to say this to everybody. Not singling out any particular person:

If your rebuttal to anything I'm saying includes the word "offend", "offending", "offensive" or any other inflection of that word then you are misrepresenting my argument, being dishonest, and arguing fallaciously. Similarly if you use any inflection of the word "feelings", you are misrepresenting me. You should stop doing that.
Click to expand...
Can you provide us with a few examples of things that you consider to be hate speech, but which do NOT include a clear incitement to violence or call for illegal activity?
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, I can tell.


As I have patiently explained on any number of occasions, there are many examples of "free" speech that are not explicitly incitements to violence, and yet are taken so by the audience.

Theo van Gogh did not incite violence when he produced his 2004 film Submission: Part 1. And he was murdered by an Islamist because of it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote that film, also received death threats.

Sanal Edamaruku demonstrated that a local miracle could be explained by a leaky drain, did not incite violence, and yet was forced to flee the country to escape it.

Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Benazir Bhutto, Jo Cox - all people who spoke out against violence and yet violence was done against them because of what they said.

Incitement to violence cannot and must not be the ONLY criteria that defines hate speech. Different groups of people will take different things as incitement. Drawing Mohammed or burning a Quran or an American flag has been taken by some as incitement. I think you would agree that none of those things incite violence, yet they are held by violent people are excuses for violence.

Your binary, black-and-white philosophy fails in the real world.
Click to expand...
In the context of this thread... it seems that you think Theo van Gogh, Sanal Edamaruku, Mahatma Ghandi, MLK Jr., Benazir Bhutto, and Jo Cox were all guilty of hate speech.

Otherwise, your entire post is pointless and irrelevant.
 
catsmate said:
Hmmm

Banned & Challenged Books

ALA compiles data on book challenges from reports filed by library professionals in the field and from news stories published throughout the United States.
www.ala.org www.ala.org
Click to expand...
There seems to be a pretty common theme involved in the Top 10. They're all books that contain sexually explicit passages. Seems a lot of people don't support public institutions providing literary pornography to minors. Weird.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There seems to be a pretty common theme involved in the Top 10. They're all books that contain sexually explicit passages. Seems a lot of people don't support public institutions providing literary pornography to minors. Weird.
Click to expand...
With parental consent, kids can see movies that show sex. Books with porn should not be banned from kids unless their parents agree.
 
What's other UK citizens views on the proscribing of Palestinian Action as a terrorist organisation?
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is a disingenuous line of argument. Every one of us in this thread recognizes that as an incitement to violence and a call for illegal activity - which is already disallowed.

On the other hand, you should be perfectly allowed to say "I think you're a complete evil piece of ◊◊◊◊ and your death would benefit the world".
Click to expand...
Even our beloved FBI acknowledges implied, veiled, and conditional threats. Whether you agree or not, the nuance here is very much whether nazi talking points fall under those types of 'indirect yet direct' threats.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
What's other UK citizens views on the proscribing of Palestinian Action as a terrorist organisation?
Click to expand...
The decision to proscribe Palestine Action has been subject to debate.

The Times opposed the proscription, regarding it as "unwise" to prosecute the group under anti-terrorism laws rather than criminal legislation. By classifying the group alongside the likes of Hamas and al-Qaeda, the government risks promoting the perception that pro-Palestinian speech is suppressed, it said.

The Guardian described the proscription as "an alarmingly illiberal overreaction" which conflates civil disobedience with terrorism, and called it a "disgrace" for non-violent protesters to be facing jail for expressions of support.

The New York Times stated that the declassified intelligence report "undercuts some officials' broad claims" used to justify the proscription

en.wikipedia.org

Palestine Action - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


Seems to be that PA is not an actual organization but a loose network of people with a common agenda and common grievances.

Calling them all "terrorists" and therefore labeling all supporters "criminals", is disgusting.

Britain has a real problem with free speech and free association.

Now, if PA was an organized group with top down leadership and decision making, that would be a different story, as some of the groups have engaged in criminal acts of vandalism and destruction of property.

But again, its NOT an organized group with leadership and followers.

Its like declaring Zionism a terrorist organization
 
Emily's Cat said:
There seems to be a pretty common theme involved in the Top 10. They're all books that contain sexually explicit passages. Seems a lot of people don't support public institutions providing literary pornography to minors. Weird.
Click to expand...
"I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it!" :oops:
 
Hercules56 said:
With parental consent, kids can see movies that show sex. Books with porn should not be banned from kids unless their parents agree.
Click to expand...
That's at the heart of the issue though - the parent's aren't consenting. The top 10 books are ones that were made available to kids without their parents knowledge or permission in middle school and high school libraries, or were placed in children and youth sections in public libraries.

Do you genuinely think that pornographic materials should be provided to kids by public schools?
 
Emily's Cat said:
That's at the heart of the issue though - the parent's aren't consenting. The top 10 books are ones that were made available to kids without their parents knowledge or permission in middle school and high school libraries, or were placed in children and youth sections in public libraries.

Do you genuinely think that pornographic materials should be provided to kids by public schools?
Click to expand...
ONLY if their parents think its ok.
 
Emily's Cat said:
How do you know that they're racists in the first place?
Click to expand...
Because they wave English flags, and object to tens of thousands of illegal migrants coming across the channel by the boat load being given free accommodation in hotels as well as free iPhones, iPads and PlayStation consoles. These illigal migrants also get free dental care, free medical care, free prescriptions, eye-tests & glasses or contact lenses, free travel to medical treatment and free sports tickets.

Additionally, they get a £50 weekly allowance and free, taxpayer funded legal aid so that they can fight deportation.

Nice work if you can get it.
 
smartcooky said:
Because they wave English flags, and object to tens of thousands of illegal migrants coming across the channel by the boat load being given free accommodation in hotels as well as free iPhones, iPads and PlayStation consoles. These illigal migrants also get free dental care, free medical care, free prescriptions, eye-tests & glasses or contact lenses, free travel to medical treatment and free sports tickets.

Additionally, they get a £50 weekly allowance and free, taxpayer funded legal aid so that they can fight deportation.

Nice work if you can get it.
Click to expand...
Free sports tickets??

Are these people seeking refugee status and asylum?
 
smartcooky said:
OK Neville Nitpicker, so the Bell is a three star hotel not a four star... Whoopady Doo.

Still doesn't detract from my point. You progressives love to judge people's motives by pre-judging the people.
Click to expand...
It may have been a three star hotel. Converted to a hostel for asylum seekers, with no hotel services, no room service, etc, it can no longer be called a hotel, and has no stars.

Referring to it as a 'three star hotel' plays into the hands of the right wing parties trying to stir up unrest by painting a picture of the residents living a life of luxury.
 
zooterkin said:
It may have been a three star hotel. Converted to a hostel for asylum seekers, with no hotel services, no room service, etc, it can no longer be called a hotel, and has no stars.

Referring to it as a 'three star hotel' plays into the hands of the right wing parties trying to stir up unrest by painting a picture of the residents living a life of luxury.
Click to expand...
Seems to be the way that some posters here would like to play it. Telling porkies to support bigotry.
 
zooterkin said:
It may have been a three star hotel. Converted to a hostel for asylum seekers, with no hotel services, no room service, etc, it can no longer be called a hotel, and has no stars.

Referring to it as a 'three star hotel' plays into the hands of the right wing parties trying to stir up unrest by painting a picture of the residents living a life of luxury.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, multiple occupancy rooms and catering contracted out to the lowest bidder. And before anyone starts crying about 'well at least they get fed' they are barred, by law, from working until their case has been decided. If there isn't catering at the accommodation then the asylum seeker gets £50/week for food and all their other needs, otherwise it's £9.


www.theguardian.com

A day in the life of an asylum hotel: inside the UK’s most controversial accommodation

The media often stigmatises asylum hotels – and they are sometimes physically attacked too. But behind closed doors are people who dream of work, wheels, security and the simple freedom to choose what they eat
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.refugee-action.org.uk

Heartbreak Hotels

These hotels are no longer places where people take a break, they are places where people seeking asylum are being broken.
www.refugee-action.org.uk www.refugee-action.org.uk
 
smartcooky said:
OK Neville Nitpicker, so the Bell is a three star hotel not a four star... Whoopady Doo.

Still doesn't detract from my point. You progressives love to judge people's motives by pre-judging the people.
Click to expand...
What on earth is a progressive?
 
zooterkin said:
It may have been a three star hotel. Converted to a hostel for asylum seekers, with no hotel services, no room service, etc, it can no longer be called a hotel, and has no stars.

Referring to it as a 'three star hotel' plays into the hands of the right wing parties trying to stir up unrest by painting a picture of the residents living a life of luxury.
Click to expand...
Many are 4 to a room - double bunk beds, just like all the 3 star hotels I’ve stayed in over the years.
 
Hercules56 said:
Just because the flag is waved by a racist, doesn't make the flag racist.
Why is that hard for you to understand?

If a Nazi waves a picture of a hamburger, does that make hamburgers racist?
Click to expand...
You do know that is a restatement of of what I posted?
 
smartcooky said:
Because they wave English flags, and object to tens of thousands of illegal migrants coming across the channel by the boat load being given free accommodation in hotels as well as free iPhones, iPads and PlayStation consoles. These illigal migrants also get free dental care, free medical care, free prescriptions, eye-tests & glasses or contact lenses, free travel to medical treatment and free sports tickets.

Additionally, they get a £50 weekly allowance and free, taxpayer funded legal aid so that they can fight deportation.

Nice work if you can get it.
Click to expand...
Most of the above is untrue. The true bits are the healthcare.
 
Hercules56 said:
ONLY if their parents think its ok.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's reasonable to expect that all parents would be in unanimous agreement on this issue?

I tend to think this is a topic where it's far more responsible for public entities to not provide sexually explicit books to kids. If the parents are okay with their kids reading it, the parents can check it out of a library or order the book themselves, and hand it to their kid.
 
Darat said:
Who
Click to expand...
The people you've decided are using your nation's flag for racist reasons.

Darat said:
But apparently having a flag on your door or your car or your backpack is seen as racism.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, it's seen as racism when it is being used by racists to promote their racism.
Click to expand...

If it's only seen as racism when it's being used by racists to promote their racism... how do you know they're racists in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom