UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

[Montegriffo]

My right of free speech doesn't come with a right to a venue.

Sounds like a restriction on free speech to me.

No. The right to speak is not the same as having the right to speak wherever you want. Someone can't just come in my home uninvited and spew. You can't go into a courtroom and spew. There are numerous venues where free speech rights cannot be practiced.

Likewise with Dankula. If he had just shown his video to his girlfriend there would have been no prosecution but it was illegal on a public website.
Both your example and mine are limits to free speech.

[Speaker to Animals]

"If Giordano Bruno had only said that shit about alien worlds to his girlfriend, none of those punishments would have happened. He simply had to go and publish his heresy and spread it around in the public square so he got what he deserved."

[Kath]

Likewise with Dankula. If he had just shown his video to his girlfriend there would have been no prosecution but it was illegal on a public website.
Both your example and mine are limits to free speech.

So he posted content that the website owner doesn't allow? That shouldn't be a criminal offense. The owner of the website has a right to remove the content and kick him off, though.

[PartyOf5]

Islamic preachers have certainly faced prosecution for preaching hatred against America and the West.

Examples?

[Montegriffo]

Islamic preachers have certainly faced prosecution for preaching hatred against America and the West.

Examples?

Faisal, who has three children, was found guilty last month of three charges of soliciting murder and three counts of inciting racial hatred. He was ordered to serve seven years for soliciting murder and two years for other offences consecutively.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 21854.html

[StCapps]

The law specifically states that hate speech is speech intended to incite hatred towards a particular race, religion or sexual preference.

The door is open. It will not stay being just race/religion/sexual orientation. Other groups will grab onto this and run until every perceived offense is illegal. AKA: "Why is it illegal to incite violence towards gay people, but not soldiers? That dude out there is telling people that soldiers are the reason we have gay people."

Why is "gay people suck," more hateful then "chefs suck?"

In this country, it is okay for batshit crazy Christians to scream atrocities at the families of dead soldiers. They do have to do it from a certain distance, though. They can't do it graveside. I think they are vile humans. All but 40 people in this country think they are vile humans. We don't want them in prison.

Basically mind reading, some lame arbiter of what is an isn't considered hateful can read your mind and tell what you really meant, and then charge people if their mind reading skills suck and they think they were being hateful on purpose, like if they don't like the apology for instance.

Great law there, no way they can fuck that vague shit up, no way. Trust the governments ability to read the mind of the accused, and render legal penalties based on that mind reading.

Montegriffo and the British legal system didn't like the apology, so that makes it "hate speech", what a fucked up country.

[Montegriffo]

What apology?
Dankula certainly never apologised for grossly offending the Jewish community.
You make no sense.
Some nonsense about mind reading and not liking a non-existant apology.
Stick to ice soccer you're out of your depth.

[clubgop]

Ps. Those sound like restrictions on their freedom of speech, something I was told means you have no freedom of speech.

My right of free speech doesn't come with a right to a venue.

Sounds like a restriction on free speech to me.

Because you are an idiot with no idea about a right you hate.

[StCapps]

What apology?
Dankula certainly never apologised for grossly offending the Jewish community.
You make no sense.
Some nonsense about mind reading and not liking a non-existant apology.
Stick to ice soccer you're out of your depth.

He apologized, you just didn't like his apology, and thought it wasn't a real apology. How is whether or not you apologize even matter? You act like his lack of caving to an outrage mob is evidence of his hatred of jews, and therefore it's hate speech, but that is silly mind reading where you give no benefit of the doubt to people whose politics you don't like and don't give adequate apologies in your mind.

Basically you believe Free speech should be restricted if someone offends people and doesn't apologize the way you like, especially if they hold political views you disagree with. Yet you can't see how the vague wording of UK hate speech laws will cause more problems than it will solve?

You are so blind. The authorities you put far too much faith are just as prone, if not prone to interpreting the ridiculous law, in ridiculous ways, as you just did.

[Montegriffo]

Show me Dankula's apology. I never saw one.