The UK needs to implement Free speech laws like in the US
- Thread starter BusterCusto
- Start date
True. I enjoy an honest discussion of these issues but am old enough to know that's not possible on the internet.
RKBA... Isn't that the reactor they used at Chernobyl?
No, it's all about guns. Specifically, the Right to Keep Bare Arms so you can show off your guns in the summer.
I agree. People who are being harassed by people 'just exercising their right to free speech' should toughen up. Don't like being called a 'tranny' or 'wig wearing bloke'? Man up or stay off the internet!
The hilarious part is that you say, without any hint of irony, that people "used to be better educated," when what you mean is "people didn't face consequences for saying offensive things."
They were told they acted unlawfully so the precedent has been clearly set they can't......
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be a **** to others (not saying the chap in question was or wasn't) and I tend to find those in favour of US style free speech want it so they can spew hate without any comeback upon them. It's a balance between freedom of speech and protection from hate speech but I would rather we were a country trying to find the right balance than leaning to either extreme, both of which are repugnant in their own way.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,620
The problem with the bolded is, simply put, who gets to define what hate speech is? It's a slippery slope and one that will eventually lead to a tryanny of the majority. Something our founding fathers specifically wanted to avoid.
Hence the balance comment, I would rather we continued to strive toward balance than some of the antics I see over the pond (no offence to you)
None taken. And to be clear I don't like some of the crap I see here either. But I'll continue to support their right to say it. To do otherwise would jeopardize the right itself.
Exactly. You can have free speech but have laws for harassment and hate speech at the same time.
Though anything said on social media should just be a non-issue and ignored. If you don't want crap on social media, don't use it, or use a false ID. Back in the day anyone who posted their real identity online was considered an idiot for a reason.
Not quite.
The 2nd part of the ruling is that the Police acted lawfully in recording his tweets as a "non-crime hate incident" on his file - which will show up on an enhanced disclosure and potentially impact his future life (ie by giving a potential employer a reason not to hire him...)
His tweets are now on his permanent record as a "hate incident". Many of us may have our forum posts here recorded as hate incidents, if we dare to disagree that men who declare themselves women are not the real thing.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
@Theophany when did you get all political? Go back to fighting your toads. 
@Theophany when did you get all political? Go back to fighting your toads.
Just finishing off my new battletoad power armour sketches
Fair play, I have a few American buddies and I appreciate it is something really culturally ingrained that is very important to you.
What I meant was that people could actually talk to each other, with very different opinions, without the need to regress to insults or shouting at each other straight away. Also, in contrast, people didn't go to the absolute hyperboles that they do now, to the extreme to get a point across.
I wasn't being ironic at all. People were better educated, and therefor better informed and could hold a good conversation - even 16 year olds out of school. These days it's almost a badge of honour to be as ignorant as possible, which in itself has fueled a rise in 'lad' culture. In my childhood the people I looked up to were scientists, I wanted to grow up and be one(which I did). I asked my niece and her 2 friends around Christmas what they wanted to be and all three said 'youtuber' - great. As a counter, both my nephews wanted to be footballers, but that was a couple of years before youtube was a 'thing'.
I didn't say that or mean it at all! If people were more educated they wouldn't jump straight to offense when they heard something they didn't understand. They could challenge me on my 'issue' rather then calling me names, try to educate ME on the error of my ways in a normal, non threatening, way!
And as I said, offense is taken rather than given. I don't go out of my way to offend people, but I don't back down either if people attack me on the internet as I know for a fact that most would not dare say it to my face! If they are offended by something I have said it's their problem not mine, but I don't intentionally try to offend - what's the point in that? When I reply or talk to someone it's because I want to get a point across that is all, not to wind people up, I'm normally patient with people - eg, you.
Pretty sure this debate has been done here a few times already. Honestly, people do need to grow a thicker skin. There are laws against harassment and abuse, but for anything else just get over it FFS.
That doesn't mean that I go around saying whatever I want all the time, and it doesn't mean that I like what other people say all the time. As others have said though, restricting free speech is short-sighted at best and tyrannical at worst.
That doesn't mean that I go around saying whatever I want all the time, and it doesn't mean that I like what other people say all the time. As others have said though, restricting free speech is short-sighted at best and tyrannical at worst.
There is no such thing as hate speech it's simply a way to shut down the free expression of certain opinions by effectively outlawing them.
Free speech is absolute, there should be no limits on speech but obviously if you target someone specifically on a repeated basis it will fall under harassment. If you're trying to rally hundreds of people to Jihad then it will fall under laws such as insurrection.
As the old saying that has been doing the rounds for hundreds of years in this previously free country goes "sticks and stones will hurt my bones but words will never hurt me".
The ONLY speech that NEEDS protecting is things people would consider offensive, you don't need to protect speech that nobody has a problem with hearing. The whole point of free speech is that there are NO LIMITS on expressing beliefs or opinions.
Free expression/speech was the 1st amendment of the US constitution for a reason.
Hate speech is used to shut down debate and to keep everyone conforming to dogma. It's like in the middle ages when people were punished for heresy for not following the dogma pushed by the church.
"hate speech" should be called heresy because that's what it is, it's heresy against left wing dogma.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,486
They don't have to, no, but clearly they do... and then they get "offended" by it... and then they use that 'offense' to shut you up or shut you down, no matter how much sense you might make.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,245
Always a pleasure my friend. Looking forward to next years NFL thread.
NASCAR sucks