Brexit

[Ex-California]

In a western democracy, those who feel the law is unjust can use their newfound notoriety (cool grand for the havin') to agitate for better free speech protection in the UK... civilized liberalism marches ever forward, for the betterment of mankind, to the chagrin of reactionaries round the world.

True. And yet, as he does so he is continually referred to as a "criminal" and accused of being "far right" (never mind his hammer & sycle tattoo) and of "promoting hate speech", and has the media (and probably police) following and analyzing his every utterance.

Thus why it's silly to apologize for such things. All that does is get taken as an admission of guilt, you are guilty of the "original sin" of saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way, only in the "new religion" of social justice there is no redemption. The "victims" of your "gross offense" must be allowed to continually stay victims.

Not ''saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way''.
Saying something the legal system has judged to be grossly offensive (a crime in UK law).
If you wish to contest the decision you have the right to appeal all the way up to the highest court (the European court of human rights).
This is how the legal system works in a functioning Western democracy.

So you are against free speech.

[Montegriffo]

True. And yet, as he does so he is continually referred to as a "criminal" and accused of being "far right" (never mind his hammer & sycle tattoo) and of "promoting hate speech", and has the media (and probably police) following and analyzing his every utterance.

Thus why it's silly to apologize for such things. All that does is get taken as an admission of guilt, you are guilty of the "original sin" of saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way, only in the "new religion" of social justice there is no redemption. The "victims" of your "gross offense" must be allowed to continually stay victims.

Not ''saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way''.
Saying something the legal system has judged to be grossly offensive (a crime in UK law).
If you wish to contest the decision you have the right to appeal all the way up to the highest court (the European court of human rights).
This is how the legal system works in a functioning Western democracy.

So you are against free speech.

I'm against unrestricted free speech, especially hate speech.
Free speech should not be used to intimidate or denigrate groups of people based on their sex, religion, race or sexual preferences. I believe hate speech can lead to hate crimes.

[Ex-California]

Restricted free speech is not free speech

At least you’re honest about it

[clubgop]

So mislabeling Christian's as Easter worshipers is hate speech, prove otherwise.

[clubgop]

Not ''saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way''.
Saying something the legal system has judged to be grossly offensive (a crime in UK law).
If you wish to contest the decision you have the right to appeal all the way up to the highest court (the European court of human rights).
This is how the legal system works in a functioning Western democracy.

So you are against free speech.

I'm against unrestricted free speech, especially hate speech.
Free speech should not be used to intimidate or denigrate groups of people based on their sex, religion, race or sexual preferences. I believe hate speech can lead to hate crimes.

But speech he agrees with cannot possibly be hate speech, until it does, then he'll whine like a bitch.

[Montegriffo]

Restricted free speech is not free speech

At least you’re honest about it

There is no such thing as unrestricted free speech.
Every civilised country on earth places restrictions on free speech.
Try slandering someone or shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

[clubgop]

Restricted free speech is not free speech

At least you’re honest about it

There is no such thing as unrestricted free speech.
Every civilised country on earth places restrictions on free speech.
Try slandering someone or shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

You're an idiot. That's a specific call to action in a certain circumstance. Are you saying REM cant perform The One I Love in concert? Also if there is a fire I can yell fire all I want. Slander is not a criminal offense it is civil, huge difference. Try again dumbass.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/thre ... re-enough/

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... te/264449/

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago

The dirty dick school of arguing should give you a refund.

[clubgop]

Saying something the legal system has judged to be grossly offensive (a crime in UK law).

If only we had someone who could tell us what is morally acceptable and what is degenerate...

Same person, no principles, no standards just leftist power grab.

[clubgop]

Disregard the specifics is the first step to becoming an ideologue.

Don't fall for it Monte!

*requisite Admiral Ackbar meme*

Yes, dont have principles or standards it might lead to a rational consistent way of thinking and we cant have that. More dishonest undercover hack bitch shit.

[Ph64]

Restricted free speech is not free speech

At least you’re honest about it

There is no such thing as unrestricted free speech.
Every civilised country on earth places restrictions on free speech.
Try slandering someone or shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

And yet context matters.

What if I'm in the theater watching Aliens-12, the humans have a ship full of Aliens in their sights but the Android on their crew from Weyland-Yutani Corp argues they shouldn't destroy it with their nukes. Several people in the audience yell "fire, danmnit!!! FIRE!!!!"

Should they be prosecuted for yelling "fire!" in that crowded theater? Does *intent* and context not matter?

Outside Dankula's trial, on video, a reporter said the phrase "gas the Jews" when interrogating him. His response was, of course, "you just said it yourself, so does context matter or should you be prosecuted?" I just typed the phrase here, talking about it, should I be prosecuted too? Or does the context in which it is used matter?

George Carlin just be rolling over in his grave. An avowed "left wing liberal", and yet were he alive today the UK apparently would want to jail him for his "offensive words"....