• 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

Hercules56 said:
Its overkill to anyone who understands what Freedom of Speech is supposed to be about.
Click to expand...
Wanna get originalist? Kewlsie Wewlsies. The original intent of the first amendment was to keep government from sitting on political speech they didn't like. It was never spelled out as championing public douchebaggery for the sake of being a douchebag.

So I call on all patriots to return to the Era of not being flaming ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. When civility meant something more than rule zero. Speak your mind openly to your brethren on matters of consequence, but shut ya ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ yap if you got nothing but anti freedom rhetoric.

Eta: if your speech is in conflict with the Constitution, it shouldn't be protected by the Constitution. Protect yourself with your own nazi constitution and ◊◊◊◊ off with your pair o' ducks.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
And then he would go to prison after suffering some severe bone fractures.
Click to expand...
Sweetness, I would advise against saying/posting silly macho bollocks like this: it might give people the impression that you are a silly macho pillock.

Obviously you are free to say/post any silly macho bollocks that takes your fancy, but remember that everyone else is free to form their own opinions of you, to judge your character, to speculate on any insecurities that the silly macho bollocks could be construed to be a defence against (not here, we have rules here that limit speech in order to retain at least a semblance of civility) based on what you say/post.

To meander back toward the general area of the original premise of the thread, I have not been imprisoned, fined or otherwise punished for anything I have posted online, published, said in public, or for any protests I have taken part in. I have protested against Conservative, Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition and Labour governments. I have counter-protested and counter-marched various flavours of neo and retro facist groups, I have signed and solicited signatures for petitions to parliament calling for the dissolution of the monarchy, the HoL and the disestablishment of the CoE. I have occasionally been arrested (by overzealous or biased police), but never charged or convicted for doing these things, and I will continue to do so when I feel it is necessary.

The One Simple Trick I used to achieve this lack of legal ramifications can be learned from my reasonably priced course was not indulging in hate speech, arguing against policies not people; i.e: arguing facts not fictions.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
In the USA you can be sacked for anything, with or without cause.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

Hercules56 said:
Depends on your job.
Click to expand...
It depends on a few things.

Primarily, it depends on state or federal law. Currently, all states except Montana are "at will employment" states. This means almost exactly what Arth says. Unless you have a contract with the employer*, either party can end the relationship any time, for any legal reason, or no reason at all.

If you do have a contract, then both parties are bound by the contract, even in an at-will state.

Likewise, if you are in a union, and the union has a Collective Bargaining Agreement with your employer, then both parties are bound by the CBA, which is essentially a kind of contract.

If you live in Montana, then there are state laws that dictate when you can be fired.

If you work for the federal government, then there are federal laws, and in some cases CBAs with unions, that dictate when you can be fired, even if you reside in an at-will state.

And finally, there are a few specific "protected" categories, established by federal law, that cannot be used as a basis for firing someone. These include things like sex, race, and religion, and restrict employers from firing you even in an at-will state.

*An offer letter is not considered a contract.
 
theprestige said:
Not necessarily.


It depends on a few things.

Primarily, it depends on state or federal law. Currently, all states except Montana are "at will employment" states. This means almost exactly what Arth says. Unless you have a contract with the employer*, either party can end the relationship any time, for any legal reason, or no reason at all.

If you do have a contract, then both parties are bound by the contract, even in an at-will state.

Likewise, if you are in a union, and the union has a Collective Bargaining Agreement with your employer, then both parties are bound by the CBA, which is essentially a kind of contract.

If you live in Montana, then there are state laws that dictate when you can be fired.

If you work for the federal government, then there are federal laws, and in some cases CBAs with unions, that dictate when you can be fired, even if you reside in an at-will state.

And finally, there are a few specific "protected" categories, established by federal law, that cannot be used as a basis for firing someone. These include things like sex, race, and religion, and restrict employers from firing you even in an at-will state.

*An offer letter is not considered a contract.
Click to expand...
Given up on the crazy idea that Trump can create the designation of "banned domestic terrorist group" out of thin air and on his own?

Good.
 
Thermal said:
'Terrorist' has an understood definition. So does 'domestic', and so does 'organization'.

This isn't complex legalese. It's pretty much straightforward English.
Click to expand...
Kool.

Meanwhile, in our world, on this continent, in this country, President cannot on his own create a new criminal entity known as a "domestic terrorist group". And unilaterally declare that membership in and providing material and financial support for, is illegal.

We have rules over here.
 
Hercules56 said:
Kool.

Meanwhile, in our world, on this continent, in this country, President cannot on his own create a new criminal entity known as a "domestic terrorist group". And unilaterally declare that membership in and providing material and financial support for, is illegal.

We have rules over here.
Click to expand...
"...but still, they come..."

Ooo laaa!
 
junkshop said:
Obviously you are free to say/post any silly macho bollocks that takes your fancy, but remember that everyone else is free to form their own opinions of you, to judge your character, to speculate on any insecurities that the silly macho bollocks could be construed to be a defence against (not here, we have rules here that limit speech in order to retain at least a semblance of civility) based on what you say/post.
Click to expand...

You do get it then, because you are making the EXACT same argument that I make as regards freedom of speech. People should be free to say whatever they like short of actual incitement to violence. If someone is offended by your hurty words, that is their problem - and it should be they, not the government, who has to deal with it. Offensive language and giving offense ought to be a civil matter, the purview of lawyers and civil court - NOT the Police or the government.
 
I suspect that the interpretation of the first and second amendments has changed from the original intent. The first amendment only allows freedom of speech etc. in as far as it applies to petitioning the government for grievances, just as the right to bear arms only applied to well ordered militias. the freedom of speech etc. was only in relation to an individuals relationship with government it did not allow freedom in relation to relationships between individuals. Even civil law e.g. libel is still a law on speech. Espionage acts etc. clearly restrict an individuals right to communicate.

It has always, in England, been the case that if your speech is likely to cause a breach of the peace by provoking a violent reaction then that is a common law offence.
 
Hercules56 said:
Kool.

Meanwhile, in our world, on this continent, in this country, President cannot on his own create a new criminal entity known as a "domestic terrorist group". And unilaterally declare that membership in and providing material and financial support for, is illegal.

We have rules over here.
Click to expand...
What's the rule that prohibits the executive branch from doing this?
 
Hercules56 said:
Its overkill to anyone who understands what Freedom of Speech is supposed to be about.
Click to expand...
Here's a comment from an English judge, in Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733:
Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.
Click to expand...

It's the hilighted bit that those who want to stir up hatred, and their useful idiots "who understand what Freedom of Speech is supposed to be about", fail to understand.
 
Planigale said:
It has always, in England, been the case that if your speech is likely to cause a breach of the peace by provoking a violent reaction then that is a common law offence.
Click to expand...
Mojo said:
Here's a comment from an English judge, in Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733:

Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Exactly as it should be! Unfortunately, that isn't the only speech or free expression you can be, accosted, detained or arrested.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom