Arrested for posting pictures

Tefal said:
Do you think it should be an offense to incite violence?

yes or no?
Click to expand...

directly or indirectly?

i.e.

organising a riot on facebook

or

posting something offensive on facebook that results in an angry reaction/protests/disorder

if you're directly inciting violence then yes, if people are violent in reaction to your otherwise lawful actions/views then no
 
Tefal said:
Do you think it should be an offense to incite violence?

Or an offense to threaten someone?

To phone them up, email the or just yell at them that you will beat them, kill them, hurt their family, rape their wives and their children?

yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes to all of those.

Burning a poppy is none of those - not in the situation described in the linked article.

For example, if I were to say Tefal you're an ugly fat retard, that's just me being a ****

If I were to phone you at your house, and your work, ten times a day, and say Tefal you're an ugly fat retard, that would be different, don't you agree?

This guy mentioned in the OP is just being a stupid trolling cretin, you can't arrest someone for being an ********, otherwise where do you stop?

Tefal said:
Words can affect people very powerfully.
Click to expand...

Of course, but spouting off your opinion to the internet at large is not the same as targeting a person and harassing and bullying them specifically.

I don't want anyone to think I'm defending the imbecile that this article's about. He's a scumbag, it's clear. But the same laws that have got him arrested, could get you or I arrested for something pretty trivial, and the line needs to be drawn MUCH further away.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
then a lot of people are more than just upset....
Click to expand...

yeah, more than just upset, their will be people who'd want to kill him, or at-least beat him up for his lack of respect. their will be people who are very upset about what he has done, so he's inciting violence..

which is illegal and shouldn't be seen as freedom of speech
 
PardonTheWait said:
Yes to all of those.

Burning a poppy is none of those - not in the situation described in the linked article.

For example, if I were to say Tefal you're an ugly fat retard, that's just me being a ****


This guy mentioned in the OP is just being a stupid trolling cretin, you can't arrest someone for being an ********, otherwise where do you stop?
Click to expand...

you just said a few posts ago that freedom of speech meant you could say anything and be free from consequence.

that you cannot punish people for saying things.

yet now you say the words

"i'll kill you" should be banned?


You cannot have it both ways.



If I were to phone you at your house, and your work, ten times a day, and say Tefal you're an ugly fat retard, that would be different, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

that would be harassment not simply threatening, or are you saying that threatening someone once is fine just so long as you do not do it repeatedly?

but even if it wasn't again you are now saying you cannot be free of the consequences of your speech.

it seems you made a very stupid blanket statement and were called out on, but even you admit there are circumstances that your statement that all speech should be free of consequence is not how you would like the world to be.
 
dowie said:
directly or indirectly?

i.e.

organising a riot on facebook

or

posting something offensive on facebook that results in an angry reaction/protests/disorder

if you're directly inciting violence then yes, if people are violent in reaction to your otherwise lawful actions/views then no
Click to expand...

i was thinking of the good old fashioned standing in front of a mob yelling something like "smash the windows and kill the <insert group here>"

to prove that again freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence
 
Tefal said:
you just said a few posts ago that freedom of speech meant you could say anything and be free from consequence.

that you cannot punish people for saying things.

yet now you say the words

"i'll kill you" should be banned?


You cannot have it both ways.





that would be harassment not simply threatening, or are you saying that threatening someone once is fine just so long as you do not do it repeatedly?

but even if it wasn't again you are now saying you cannot be free of the consequences of your speech.

it seems you made a very stupid blanket statement and were called out on but even you admit there are circumstances that you're utterly retarded statement that all speech should be free of consequence is not how you would like the world to be.
Click to expand...

You can talk me round in circles all you like but what you're doing here is arguing against free speech, which is exactly what millions of people died for and those people who died are the reason we wear poppies.

I think you know as well as I do that these two things are different, as random examples:

Me standing in the street burning a koran

Me standing outside your house and shouting up at your windows that I'm going to burn your house down while you and your family are in it

Right?

One is free speech. If I'm doing that then yes, I'm a cretin and terrible person, and I'll probably get what's coming to me sooner or later.

The second one, well, I'm threatening to kill you. That's not an opinion, it's a threat.

The first is saying something - the second, really, is doing something.

Offending someone is not the same as threatening someone.
 
Mickie said:
yeah, more than just upset, their will be people who'd want to kill him, or at-least beat him up for his lack of respect. their will be people who are very upset about what he has done, so he's inciting violence..

which is illegal and shouldn't be seen as freedom of speech
Click to expand...

That's a reaction to his actions and not something he's necessarily intended, incited or particularly wants... while I'm sure he wants to wind people up I doubt he wants to be beaten up.

The fact that some people might react violently towards something shouldn't be a barrier to freedom of speech. I'm sure some Muslims would react angrily if someone were to insult their prophet, for example, while it is rude and unconstructive to do so it shouldn't be something that is illegal to do.
 
PardonTheWait said:
You can talk me round in circles all you like but what you're doing here is arguing against free speech, which is exactly what millions of people died for and those people who died are the reason we wear poppies.

I think you know as well as I do that these two things are different, as random examples:

Me standing in the street burning a koran

Me standing outside your house and shouting up at your windows that I'm going to burn your house down while you and your family are in it

Right?

One is free speech. If I'm doing that then yes, I'm a cretin and terrible person, and I'll probably get what's coming to me sooner or later.

The second one, well, I'm threatening to kill you. That's not an opinion, it's a threat.

The first is saying something - the second, really, is doing something.

Offending someone is not the same as threatening someone.
Click to expand...



both are speech, technically i'd argue that speaking the words "i'm going to kill you" is a little bit more "free speechy" than burning something but we'll ignore that.


how can one be protected by freedom of speech but not the other?

You said words, can't hurt.

That you can say anything you like and not be punished for it.

yet now you're saying "oh well you can say anything you like but not certain things".

doesn't have to be out side my house, if you walk up to a random person in the street and threaten them it's illegal.

Btw burning anything in the street would also probably be illegal under arson laws, or some form of safety violation.



The first is saying something - the second, really, is doing something.
Click to expand...

really?

lets just get this right here


"burning a book" = saying something.


"saying threatening words" = doing something?
 
dowie said:
That's a reaction to his actions and not something he's necessarily intended, incited or particularly wants... while I'm sure he wants to wind people up I doubt he wants to be beaten up.

The fact that some people might react violently towards something shouldn't be a barrier to freedom of speech. I'm sure some Muslims would react angrily if someone were to insult their prophet, for example, while it is rude and unconstructive to do so it shouldn't be something that is illegal to do.
Click to expand...

Wow, i dont know what to say in reply but that makes me pretty angry..

that you think its fine, should be legal to go upto a Muslim and insult them..
 
Mickie said:
that you think its fine, should be legal to go upto a Muslim and insult them..
Click to expand...

No less so than to do the same to an Irish man, or a Scotsman, or a christian.

And he's right it's not inciting violence to do something so stupid people wish to hurt you for it or half of the only way is Essex would be in jail.

inciting violence is directing others to inflict it upon a 3rd party.
 
Tefal said:
both are speech, technically i'd argue that speaking the words "i'm going to kill you" is a little bit more "free speechy" than burning something but we'll ignore that.


how can one be protected by freedom of speech but not the other?

You said words, can't hurt.

That you can say anything you like and not be punished for it.

yet now you're saying "oh well you can say anything you like but not certain things".

doesn't have to be out side my house, if you walk up to a random person in the street and threaten them it's illegal.

Btw burning anything in the street would also probably be illegal under arson laws, or some form of safety violation.
Click to expand...

Are you really going to be so focused on semantics about this?

Do you really think that they're the same thing?

That voicing an opinion in an obnoxious way is the same as a direct threat to kill a particular person or group of people?

It really seems to me that what you're trying to do here is win an argument with me, not actually think what you're saying.

If you want to win the argument, that's fine, because you can talk me round in circles all night and beat me at it, but you're arguing against free speech, which is something that millions of people have fought and died for throughout the ages.

Tell me, do you think it's right that this guy was arrested, for burning a pretend poppy made out of paper and plastic?
 
Mickie said:
Wow, i dont know what to say in reply but that makes me pretty angry..

that you think its fine, should be legal to go upto a Muslim and insult them..
Click to expand...

I think that saying/doing something that offends/insults beliefs held by a group of people shouldn't be illegal. I've not said its fine to go up to a Muslim and insult them.

The film 'the life of Brian' caused controversy in its time amongst Christian groups who called for it to be banned.

If they'd reacted violently to it would you consider the Monty Python group to have incited violence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom