Free Speech Be Damned!

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: SprocketUK

Sadly, in your country, you all can broadcast Hitler's hate speeches far and wide and it won't be considered a crime. I'd like to see anyone doing this arrested for disturbing my peace, however.

If you aren't being forced to listen, so what? Just treat it like I treat all political speeches and don't tune in.

Well, tuning out seems to be political skill I have not mastered yet because I still listen to both sides. Maybe you can give some tips how to block out the other side even it is is reasonable?

But this is all in your head, you admitted you cant understand a word of it, so you really have no clue what he is talking about. Yes chances are high its something horrible about Jews or Brits or Yanks but thats only a guess based on other stuff, he could equally be ranting about architecture or the state of German Art.

Highly improbable about architecture or art. Point I am making is that broadcasting Hitler speeches would be disturbing my peace, therefore breaking the law.

www.law.cornell.edu...#:~:text=Disturbance%20(or%20breach)%20of%20the,common%20law%20and%20various%20statutes.[/quot e]

considering two of his favourite things (just behind genocide and war) were art and architecture,. you are wrong.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: SprocketUK

Free speech is about supporting the right of the person to say something you don't agree with. This does not abrogate the speaker's ability to suffer consequences of their comments such as ostracization or counter commentary.

Ostracization or counter commentary is to be expected, jail is not.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: SprocketUK

Sadly, in your country, you all can broadcast Hitler's hate speeches far and wide and it won't be considered a crime. I'd like to see anyone doing this arrested for disturbing my peace, however.

If you aren't being forced to listen, so what? Just treat it like I treat all political speeches and don't tune in.

Well, tuning out seems to be political skill I have not mastered yet because I still listen to both sides. Maybe you can give some tips how to block out the other side even it is is reasonable?

But this is all in your head, you admitted you cant understand a word of it, so you really have no clue what he is talking about. Yes chances are high its something horrible about Jews or Brits or Yanks but thats only a guess based on other stuff, he could equally be ranting about architecture or the state of German Art.

Highly improbable about architecture or art. Point I am making is that broadcasting Hitler speeches would be disturbing my peace, therefore breaking the law.

www.law.cornell.edu...#:~:text=Disturbance%20(or%20breach)%20of%20the,common%20law%20and%20various%20statutes.[/quot e]

considering two of his favourite things (just behind genocide and war) were art and architecture,. you are wrong.

Find me a public speech Hitler made on art and/or architecture.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: SprocketUK

Sadly, in your country, you all can broadcast Hitler's hate speeches far and wide and it won't be considered a crime. I'd like to see anyone doing this arrested for disturbing my peace, however.

If you aren't being forced to listen, so what? Just treat it like I treat all political speeches and don't tune in.

Well, tuning out seems to be political skill I have not mastered yet because I still listen to both sides. Maybe you can give some tips how to block out the other side even it is is reasonable?

But this is all in your head, you admitted you cant understand a word of it, so you really have no clue what he is talking about. Yes chances are high its something horrible about Jews or Brits or Yanks but thats only a guess based on other stuff, he could equally be ranting about architecture or the state of German Art.

Highly improbable about architecture or art. Point I am making is that broadcasting Hitler speeches would be disturbing my peace, therefore breaking the law.

www.law.cornell.edu...#:~:text=Disturbance%20(or%20breach)%20of%20the,common%20law%20and%20various%20statutes.[/quot e]

considering two of his favourite things (just behind genocide and war) were art and architecture,. you are wrong.

Find me a public speech Hitler made on art and/or architecture.

You find one, I aint your slave. its up to you to educate yourself its not my job.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: SprocketUK

Sadly, in your country, you all can broadcast Hitler's hate speeches far and wide and it won't be considered a crime. I'd like to see anyone doing this arrested for disturbing my peace, however.

If you aren't being forced to listen, so what? Just treat it like I treat all political speeches and don't tune in.

Well, tuning out seems to be political skill I have not mastered yet because I still listen to both sides. Maybe you can give some tips how to block out the other side even it is is reasonable?

But this is all in your head, you admitted you cant understand a word of it, so you really have no clue what he is talking about. Yes chances are high its something horrible about Jews or Brits or Yanks but thats only a guess based on other stuff, he could equally be ranting about architecture or the state of German Art.

Highly improbable about architecture or art. Point I am making is that broadcasting Hitler speeches would be disturbing my peace, therefore breaking the law.

www.law.cornell.edu...#:~:text=Disturbance%20(or%20breach)%20of%20the,common%20law%20and%20various%20statutes.[/quot e]

considering two of his favourite things (just behind genocide and war) were art and architecture,. you are wrong.

Find me a public speech Hitler made on art and/or architecture.

You find one, I aint your slave. its up to you to educate yourself its not my job.

None exist that's why I didn't waste my time looking.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: quintessentone

Well if you cant understand how to use google there is no hope for you and its no wonder you are such an authoritarian nutter.

Sure, go with that and feel better.

I have and I do, its even better knowing you will never realise how wrong you were and how you have plaid out your ignorance for anyone who came across this argument.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: quintessentone

Well if you cant understand how to use google there is no hope for you and its no wonder you are such an authoritarian nutter.

Sure, go with that and feel better.

I have and I do, its even better knowing you will never realise how wrong you were and how you have plaid out your ignorance for anyone who came across this argument.

Sure go with that too and feel twice as better.

a reply to: quintessentone

Oh, your bias is showing.

You assume I listen to some. I don't listen to any.

If I want to know, I look for transcripts.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: SprocketUK

Free speech is about supporting the right of the person to say something you don't agree with. This does not abrogate the speaker's ability to suffer consequences of their comments such as ostracization or counter commentary.

Ostracization or counter commentary is to be expected, jail is not.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: SprocketUK

" Free speech is about supporting the right of the person to say something you don't agree with. This does not abrogate the speaker's ability to suffer consequences of their comments such as ostracization or counter commentary. "


A Supreme Creator Created Man . He gave him Free Will to Choose his Own Fate . No Man on this Earth Can Take that Away , No Man..........

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Oh, your bias is showing.

You assume I listen to some. I don't listen to any.

If I want to know, I look for transcripts.

I see that now, sorry, I didn't read your post correctly and I would not say biased, I'd say reading too fast. Sure looking at transcripts is a good idea.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
So , over here in the UK we dont have a constitution and thus no protection on free speech.

A white-supremacist podcast host is to be sentenced after stirring up racial hatred on his “vile” show Radio Aryan.

James Allchurch, 51, from Pembrokeshire, Wales, was convicted by a jury in March following a trial at Swansea Civic Centre.


Now I am not purposefully striding out to bat for the Nazis here, its just that this case caught my eye.

Essentially a disabled bloke, running a podcast for right wing loons from his bedroom... Is it really in the national interest to shut him up?
And is it really about saying nasty things about ethnics that he is being gaoled? Or is it because TPTB dont like him shining a light on where their policies have made life worse for people? Think of the Muslim grooming gangs in big cities up north.

Sauce

If a jury of his peers thought his speech was so vile as to have him jailed, then why are you questioning the findings?

Do you actually have any idea of what he was saying or promoting or are you in reality purposefully striding out to bat for the Nazi's here?

Was it Nazi hate propaganda he was broadcasting and is that why you had your back up with our Hitler speech argument?

a reply to: quintessentone

These days, speech a person hates hearing is too vile to be allowed, but that doesn't mean it's hate speech, just speech you hate hearing.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Oh, your bias is showing.

You assume I listen to some. I don't listen to any.

If I want to know, I look for transcripts.

I see that now, sorry, I didn't read your post correctly and I would not say biased, I'd say reading too fast. Sure looking at transcripts is a good idea.

Here’s a transcript from a 30 second google search of one of his speeches on art.

mariabuszek.com...

It’s a pdf.

Peace.

The best defense against negative accusations is by living a positive example. You can shut people up and throw them in jail but that will never reform their thoughts or opinions. It will in fact make most people feel someone has something to hide.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: quintessentone

No, you are a bigot against the people playing his speeches.

You freely admit you cant understand them but you want these people shut down anyway...
That to me is a proper brown shirt level of oppression.

An observation that I have made over time is that the same people that shout loudest about simply quoting anything from Hitler, no matter the context, are the ones most likely to think it cool and intellectual to have a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book.

Out of the two evil bastards Mao outdid Hitler to the power of ten.

a reply to: NorthOfStuffx2

And honestly, neither one should be off limits. We need to learn about evil, from its own words, in order to best understand it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly! Anyone who actually knows what either of those two guys said in the past has the tools to identify tyranny in the present.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK
So , over here in the UK we dont have a constitution and thus no protection on free speech.

A white-supremacist podcast host is to be sentenced after stirring up racial hatred on his “vile” show Radio Aryan.

James Allchurch, 51, from Pembrokeshire, Wales, was convicted by a jury in March following a trial at Swansea Civic Centre.


Now I am not purposefully striding out to bat for the Nazis here, its just that this case caught my eye.

Essentially a disabled bloke, running a podcast for right wing loons from his bedroom... Is it really in the national interest to shut him up?
And is it really about saying nasty things about ethnics that he is being gaoled? Or is it because TPTB dont like him shining a light on where their policies have made life worse for people? Think of the Muslim grooming gangs in big cities up north.

Sauce

If a jury of his peers thought his speech was so vile as to have him jailed, then why are you questioning the findings?

Do you actually have any idea of what he was saying or promoting or are you in reality purposefully striding out to bat for the Nazi's here?

Was it Nazi hate propaganda he was broadcasting and is that why you had your back up with our Hitler speech argument?

Over here a jury just decides guilt or innocence. It is up to the judge to impose a sentence.

You really think saying some words on a podcast deserves more jail time than the average rapist? Cos I dont.