Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

a reply to: paraphi

This comment and your comment before it are the most depressing and saddening thing I've read on the internet in a long time...

Seriously, have you lost the plot that far that you believe it's actually ok to treat someone as a criminal for offending someone? So that's as big of a deal as theft rape fraud and murder in your book...

That's just indescribably sad and pathetic in every way

originally posted by: roguetechie
This comment and your comment before it are the most depressing and saddening thing I've read on the internet in a long time...

Oh, poor you. You have clearly misunderstood what I was saying and don't understand the topic in hand. The hate laws are designed to stop the perpetuation of hate, so that's a bit more than simply criminalising "offending someone".

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So your next thread will be defending the freedom of speech of pedos to talk to kids online because we have laws against that also.
You better check Canadian laws also.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

...

A prime indicator of creeping authoritarianism is when the status quo prefers to be fickle about imaginary offences rather than real ones. And cases such as this is a reminder that the shells of formerly great empires often find themselves replete with humourless and namby-pamby pantywaists as soon as the voices of freedom have retreated into reticence, or decadence, one or the other.

...

This is spot on - excellent observation. In a world where every single pat on a woman's bum has become a punishable offense, while gang-rapes by immigrants somehow is glossed over, it's no surprise that stuff like this would lead to severe punishment.

Like when that guy got... was it 15 or 25 years of jail time in the USA for hanging bacon on the door knobs of a mosque. Stupid act? Respectless? Yes - but give the man a hefty ticket, not jailtime that exceeds what Norway gave Anders Behring Breivik.

Seriously, world - what's wrong with you?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

...

The only victim of this supposed “hate crime” is it’s alleged perpetrator. But the greater crime is the indifference and reticence of the British masses, the proverbial frogs in boiling water, who get to sit and watch as authoritarianism boils around them, and their freedoms evaporate.

In general, there has been so much talk about how awful people are on the interenet, how it's filled with trolls, that people are brainwashed to a point where they'll gladly except COMPLETE surveillance of everything, all the time.

Because "I've got nothing to hide, and people are evil".

All of us have EVERYTHING to hide - very little of our lives are ANYBODY's business.

We are indeed being boiled like lobsters, to a point where we're basically living in 1984...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

You asked me to prove it, I did with the links, you've chosen to ignore it, and maintain your mindset, or are you just trolling for attention?

You proved nothing. You posted a link. Is that how you prove everything in your life?

I proved you were wrong.
Links are magic or something now, and no it's not how I prove everything in my life??
I gave you a link rather than type a out few paragraphs, as you seem to pick and choose what you read and reply too. Why should I spend the time typing when you have no interest in reading it, as you've proven that with the links you didn't read.

a reply to: Uberdoubter

In a world where every single pat on a woman's bum has become a punishable offense, while gang-rapes by immigrants somehow is glossed over, it's no surprise that stuff like this would lead to severe punishment.

Your sexism and racism is a single paragraph is gob smacking. A "pat" on a womans bum IS sexist and should be punishable, does that mean going to jail? No, but if she turns round and slaps your face, that's a well deserved punishment, is it not? Where as gang-rape is a criminal offence, and here in the UK it's punishable with a jail sentence and has nothing to do with colour, and that's how it should be.

People seem to not be able to tell the difference between a punishable offence and a criminal offence, and its never right to "pat" a womans bum.

Freedom of speech, get out of it...

There are only selective freedoms of speech which are normally enforced for all the wrong reasons. If a man stands on a corner saying that Radical Muslims are dangerous people he WILL get arrested for hate crime, if a group of Radical Muslims stand around calling for the death of non believers then then the Police will form a cordon and protect them.

Take the case of Professor Robert Winston, one of our great scientific doctors, he posted a couple of pictures showing a woman with a child who had been on the same train talking very loudly in to a mobile phone, his pictures which did not include the child simply said 40 minutes of banal loud conversation and the other now 60mins of loud banal conversation and not one word to the child. The internet had a heart attack and he was initially called a shaming bully with the snowflake brigade attacking from behind their net curtains. Thankfully more sensible people joined in the the twitter feed and stuck up for the Proff, all pointing out that very loud phone conversations on a train are annoying and rude but the lefties actually stood up for the woman's ability to talk as loud as she wanted to.

The logic just does not work, call me old fashioned, I was brought up to be polite, considerate and have manners, all of which this lady was breaking and if you are in public gaze and doing them then pictures are not bad, there's also the point that by doing all this she has shamed herself already.

So there you have it, selective freedom of speech, I personally think you should be able to say what you like but at least obey the base morals OR expect and agree to take the punishment.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So your next thread will be defending the freedom of speech of pedos to talk to kids online because we have laws against that also.
You better check Canadian laws also.

And you’ll be there implying I am a pedo defender. It’s a sure sign you have run out of argument.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

You asked me to prove it, I did with the links, you've chosen to ignore it, and maintain your mindset, or are you just trolling for attention?

You proved nothing. You posted a link. Is that how you prove everything in your life?

I proved you were wrong.
Links are magic or something now, and no it's not how I prove everything in my life??
I gave you a link rather than type a out few paragraphs, as you seem to pick and choose what you read and reply too. Why should I spend the time typing when you have no interest in reading it, as you've proven that with the links you didn't read.

You proved nothing. I am not interested in following links. You can quote the relevant quotes, make an argument, or don’t bother.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: roguetechie
This comment and your comment before it are the most depressing and saddening thing I've read on the internet in a long time...

Oh, poor you. You have clearly misunderstood what I was saying and don't understand the topic in hand. The hate laws are designed to stop the perpetuation of hate, so that's a bit more than simply criminalising "offending someone".

That’s the exact opposite of what it does. When hatred gets pushed under ground, it festers, becomes an echo-chamber, and grows. Among their followers, persecution gives them legitimacy, and a platform for their cause.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No, it was the government's anti-free speech laws that landed him in trouble. Elsewhere, where they have free speech (hardly anywhere), and where they do not have the police monitoring social media, that would not have been the case

Depends from what angle you happen to be preaching "free speech" from.

When I first joined ATS it was still considered crazy talk to think that authorities can and will use invasive monitoring techniques... Today it's common knowledge, with that in mind one should always consider what is admissible in court as evidence.

I think that information gathered from a public source is most definitely free game, I know that trolls think so and journalists too.

I mean I could debate law with you and why some things are not acceptable, I suspect you know pretty much everything I could throw at you. So I'm guessing we'll have to just disagree.

Well I hope people in the UK still have a sense of justice, and step up and speak when injustice comes knocking.

People seldom see things in perspective these days, we suffer the most freedoms man has ever known, your average person (in the western world) has more power than any emperor of the past. I'll keep my sense of justice, I hope others can come to their own sense of justice too... Because as I've learnt, it isn't something you just teach nor is it something you just learn.

Or maybe I've caught a bit of that "-isms" bug, defeatism. I mean it's basically 1984 outside and I'm preaching how law and order has never been fairer or freedom so easily attained.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

You asked me to prove it, I did with the links, you've chosen to ignore it, and maintain your mindset, or are you just trolling for attention?

You proved nothing. You posted a link. Is that how you prove everything in your life?

I proved you were wrong.
Links are magic or something now, and no it's not how I prove everything in my life??
I gave you a link rather than type a out few paragraphs, as you seem to pick and choose what you read and reply too. Why should I spend the time typing when you have no interest in reading it, as you've proven that with the links you didn't read.

You proved nothing. I am not interested in following links.......

As you stated to a previous poster - It’s a sure sign you have run out of argument.

a reply to: Uberdoubter

For starters you'd have to take up Breivik's jail sentencing up with Norway and the bacon loitering racist up with the US.

If you have evidence of racial preference (still discrimination) within the workings of law I implore you to make it known. Honestly, blow that whistle.

But as for unwanted physical attention?

Those laws are the same throughout the western world, as a general rule don't grope people. As for rape, yes. The punishment should be harsh but within the confines of human decency. Just think for a second, an eye for an eye will leave people s### scared of criminals.

Seriously, world - what's wrong with you?

Exactly, groping is fine ladies... Just not if it's a foreigner because they're the only ones who could ever assault you.

a reply to: RAY1990

I don’t know too much about UK laws, to be honest. And it cannot be denied that the UK is one of the freeset countries on the planet, at least according to various indexes of freedom.

I’m just surprised that, even with the greatest literary history of free speech advocacy put forth by some of the greatest mind a country has given to the world, the Brits have given up on free speech for reasons that seems less and less important every day. The arguments in favour of free speech by Brits such as John Milton, JS Mill, George Orwell, even Christopher Hitchensshould be studied, and honoured in the history of the UK. That’s a tradition to be proud of.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

You asked me to prove it, I did with the links, you've chosen to ignore it, and maintain your mindset, or are you just trolling for attention?

You proved nothing. You posted a link. Is that how you prove everything in your life?

I proved you were wrong.
Links are magic or something now, and no it's not how I prove everything in my life??
I gave you a link rather than type a out few paragraphs, as you seem to pick and choose what you read and reply too. Why should I spend the time typing when you have no interest in reading it, as you've proven that with the links you didn't read.

You proved nothing. I am not interested in following links.......

As you stated to a previous poster - It’s a sure sign you have run out of argument.

Try making an argument. Just give it a try.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why not attempt to blame the victims and parents of child abuse again?. Shown your true colours you have defending pedos right to talk to kids.
Pfft.
Disgusting.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: testingtesting

Surely it is best to limit the speach of pedos to children before abuse can happen can you not see that?.

Or you could teach children and parents to be wary of the signs of pedos.

Yup looks like blaming the victims to me.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why not attempt to blame the victims and parents of child abuse again?. Shown your true colours you have defending pedos right to talk to kids.
Pfft.
Disgusting.

It’s all you got. You have to rile up your own feelings (and attempt to do it to others) to disguise the fact you have no argument.

originally posted by: testingtesting

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: testingtesting

Surely it is best to limit the speach of pedos to children before abuse can happen can you not see that?.

Or you could teach children and parents to be wary of the signs of pedos.

Yup looks like blaming the victims to me.

Look at you go.