Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course I have an argument..Here in the UK we attempt to stop pedos talking to kids online we have laws against it. You say it is bad because it limits freedom of speech I say it us vital to help protect kids.
Kids whom you are willing to sacrifice for your free speech fantasy.
Also If you don't like it don't come over maybe move out of Canada seeing they have similar laws.
Same goes with nazis we don't like them and they lost the freedom of speech when they invaded Poland gassed the Jews and bombed my grandfathers chippy.
Don't like it? tough.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think our freeness is most certainly a gift, we've had many a great mind stand for it and die for it. Some dedicated a life to literary works in order for others to understand it.

But what is freedom?

Brits have given up on free speech for reasons that seems less and less important every day. 

I'd argue that the "lack" of free speech is becoming weaker every day. You touched on it earlier that the greatest fear is the masses. Well, I'm not a fan of mob rule. I've always said that the human is brilliant and intelligent but humans are scum and dumb.

But you've certainly strung a note I'm familiar with, freeborn rights. As I said though nobody stopped this kid posting, he was stopped after the act.

The will of mankind is beastly, ain't nothing stopped it yet... Personally I believe that the will is the greatest strength we have and if someone's will is to do "evil" then I (or you) shall have the moral fortitude and will to stop them.

I mean a lot of what I've just said is lost when defending nazi-pug videos, but I understand you defend unpopular causes.

I can't defend the kid, I doubt he'll have the fortitude to defend himself either... It's not like he's gonna survive the tower in defence of nazi-pug videos. Is he?

Moreover, I have never met nor heard of anybody I would trust with the job of deciding in advance what it might be permissible for me or anyone else to say or read. 

Aye.

a reply to: testingtesting

Shame about Dresden though eh?

Neo-Nazis are just misguided fools, as long as they are not wanted for crimes they deserve freedom of speech.

I mean the rest I agree with wholeheartedly but silencing people because of dubious links with a once enemy of the state?

Yeah, censorship matey.

Let them out themselves. Catch them in their crime as it were.

Not many people exist who can claim they've gassed a Jew or blew up a chippy. Not the same people know what I mean?

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course I have an argument..Here in the UK we attempt to stop pedos talking to kids online we have laws against it. You say it is bad because it limits freedom of speech I say it us vital to help protect kids.
Kids whom you are willing to sacrifice for your free speech fantasy.
Also If you don't like it don't come over maybe move out of Canada seeing they have similar laws.
Same goes with nazis we don't like them and they lost the freedom of speech when they invaded Poland gassed the Jews and bombed my grandfathers chippy.
Don't like it? tough.

No, you are sacrificing entire generations, not to mention your own children because of your solipsistic fears.

Sorry, but I want to know who the Nazis and pedos are, and the only way we will know is if they incriminate themselves. You’d rather be kept in the dark, putting everyone and your children at risk. Tough.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.

I did, you chose to ignore it as it proved your argument invalid and simply wrong.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.

I did, you chose to ignore it as it proved your argument invalid and simply wrong.

How? You posted a link and called it proof. That’s not a valid refutation.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You refused to read the evidence I provided that disproves your argument, in doing so it shows how narrow minded you are in your belief that words have no effect on humans, which they clearly do.

OP = Closed mind tosser!

If I need to explain I will.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You refused to read the evidence I provided that disproves your argument, in doing so it shows how narrow minded you are in your belief that words have no effect on humans, which they clearly do.

you provided a link. Go ahead and make a case. How do words start wars?

a reply to: Revolution9

Do we not have eyelids to close our eyes with? Fingers to plug our ears with? Legs to carry us away with?

I agree...antisemitism is a repulsive trait for one to possess. There are many equally repulsive traits. But words are words. We can choose to not hear them by simply walking away and not listening.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Please do.
I would say worse tbh after this thread.

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

It's interesting how in spite of people supposedly being able to tell the difference between punishable and criminal offences, even looking at a women seems to be enough to get both fired and sued and called a rapist, these days.

I suggest from now on, no man should even enter the same room as a woman without written consent.

Let's see how that works out. If we men take it one step further and stop wasting our resources on getting ourselves new ex-wives to finance, I think a lot of women will have a very bad payday.

originally posted by: Uberdoubter

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

It's interesting how in spite of people supposedly being able to tell the difference between punishable and criminal offences, even looking at a women seems to be enough to get both fired and sued and called a rapist, these days.

I suggest from now on, no man should even enter the same room as a woman without written consent.

Let's see how that works out. If we men take it one step further and stop wasting our resources on getting ourselves new ex-wives to finance, I think a lot of women will have a very bad payday.

Why don't you go join an MRA web site and talk about men 'going their own way' with the other 'alphas'.

You might feel more at home.

a reply to: Uberdoubter

Hey we have all been there dude broken by ladies I have 3 ex wives and many a broken heart but heck dude I have one word that will snap you right out of it.
Boobies!.

All hail the magical boobies!.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course I have an argument..Here in the UK we attempt to stop pedos talking to kids online we have laws against it. You say it is bad because it limits freedom of speech I say it us vital to help protect kids.
Kids whom you are willing to sacrifice for your free speech fantasy.
Also If you don't like it don't come over maybe move out of Canada seeing they have similar laws.
Same goes with nazis we don't like them and they lost the freedom of speech when they invaded Poland gassed the Jews and bombed my grandfathers chippy.
Don't like it? tough.

With regards to Nazis losing the right to free speech, they are neo-Nazis now though aren't they and aren't directly affiliated with the Nazi party of Germany from the 1930s/40s.

What about the off-shoots of those, the less radical and more political groups that advocate for some race based agenda? For example, the groups in the states saying they want an ethno-state? There are both white and black groups who are in favour of dividing up land and saying "only white/black people are allowed to live here". What about any proponents for eugenics which the Nazis were big fans of? These groups wouldn't refer to themselves as Nazis but essentially propose many of the same ideas. The Nazis didn't initially call for jews to be killed they wanted them removed.

Also, what about if these groups refer to actual research papers as justification for their opinions? For example, the research that says Asians and certain jewish groups are, on average, much more likely to have a higher IQ as a group than other races? There's no call for violence and it's backed up by studies so would you also prevent these groups from speaking? (no idea of the merit of such studies, I'm just using it as an example).

You're pedophile argument I don't understand either. Nobody is saying that you should take your kids down to prison or the local offenders hangout and force the kids to listen to pedophiles talk. You are free to ignore them. You'd only find their speech online if you looked for it, otherwise you can click away and be on a totally different site having not heard them. If it's out in public in a park for example, then walk in the opposite direction until you can no longer hear them.

Free speech doesn't mean that anybody has to listen to what someone says, they just need to not actively suppress the person from being able to say what they want.

This doesn't include threats or calls to violence against an individual or group though. That is a crime and not related to free speech at all. Who gets to decide what is hate speech? If someone went back to the UK 100 years ago and said "I think all gay people should be allowed to marry in church", do you not think this would've been considered as "hate speech"? It's promoting "sinful" behaviour in a place of worship in a society that is predominantly christian and appears to contradict the Bible? Same argument could be made for women getting the vote. What about Darwin proposing evolution? That would be hate speech at certain points in history.

Placing restrictions on the speech of people you despise might seem like a good idea, but eventually it leads to you not having that right when you need it the most. Every great Enlightenment thinker realised that if you restrict speech then you restrict freedom.

Mark Meechan was found guilty of hate crime for filming his pug doing a Nazi salute. The UK is a humorless censor, and denies people their fundamental human rights for reasons of blasphemy.

Man guilty of hate crime for filming pug's 'Nazi salutes'


You all are lost.

There is no such thing as free speech if we can't express ALL of our opinions... Although training a dog to do those things is just stupid... IMO.