SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Wij]

I can't say those fields are "beautiful". They're cattle-grazed monoculture. It's like praising a car park for being clean. If those fields were left to their own devices, within 20 years they'd be full of trees, bracken and native plant life.

And old mattresses and bags of used nappies. As nature intended.

 

[BloodOmen]

View: https://youtu.be/FigIAAYHoW8

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[old.Osy]

 

[Scouse]

I see the return of blasphemy laws are on the cards in certain european countries.

Wonder if labour will bring 'em back here?

Blasphemy law is no answer to bigotry in the wake of Denmark’s Qur’an burnings | Kenan Malik

A proposed ban on abuse of religious objects only helps to silence critics and dissenters

www.theguardian.com

Having said that. Considering most people don't believe in actual, real, freedom of speech then we can hardly be surprised.

Oh Hitch. Where are you when we need ya mate?


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0

 

[Wij]

Yep, free speech:

https://x.com/soniargallego/status/1698407423805993462?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

What’s the sex of the person in this video? If you guess correctly, you’d get a €10000 fine.
That’s what Germany’s self ID bill is proposing.

 

[Scouse]

Yep, free speech

100% agree with you here @Wij. If I could make it eleventy, and it actually be a thing, then I'd do that.


However I've argued on this forum for free speech many times before and been strongly pushed back against.

Speech is not free unless you're free to offend and free to be a complete fuckhead. And that includes stuff like free to be a horrible antisemite. Or free to argue that you think it's OK to have sex with 8 year olds.

It doesn't mean free to have sex with 8 year olds, or free to burn jews. But it does mean you have to face no criminal sanction if you argue those points.

The only country in the world where you are free to say those things, without fear of criminal censure, is the United States. And the democrats are the biggest danger to those freedoms IMO. The left is the movement of control and censure. (The right is the movement of hypocricy and idiocy). The left is the biggest movement of "stopping people inciting violence through repressing speech" (and actual data backs that up). They're the ones who want make it illegal for other people to say "put your finger in the fire", or "jump" to suicidal people, or shout fire in a crowded theatre (the point Hitch made above at the beginning of his speech).

You must be free to incite violence. You must be free to hate jews or blacks (or whites). You must be free to say biological sex is real. You must be free to think and say anything you like. And, most importantly, YOU must be the sole arbiter of what you can think and what you can say - and there must be no criminal sanction for either of those actions, or you're not free.

If there is any criminal sanction whatsoever then all we are discussing is the degree to which we are thought-crime mind-slaves.

 

[Wij]

100% agree with you here @Wij. If I could make it eleventy, and it actually be a thing, then I'd do that.


However I've argued on this forum for free speech many times before and been strongly pushed back against.

Speech is not free unless you're free to offend and free to be a complete fuckhead. And that includes stuff like free to be a horrible antisemite. Or free to argue that you think it's OK to have sex with 8 year olds.

It doesn't mean free to have sex with 8 year olds, or free to burn jews. But it does mean you have to face no criminal sanction if you argue those points.

The only country in the world where you are free to say those things, without fear of criminal censure, is the United States. And the democrats are the biggest danger to those freedoms IMO. The left is the movement of control and censure. (The right is the movement of hypocricy and idiocy). The left is the biggest movement of "stopping people inciting violence through repressing speech" (and actual data backs that up). They're the ones who want make it illegal for other people to say "put your finger in the fire", or "jump" to suicidal people, or shout fire in a crowded theatre (the point Hitch made above at the beginning of his speech).

You must be free to incite violence. You must be free to hate jews or blacks (or whites). You must be free to say biological sex is real. You must be free to think and say anything you like. And, most importantly, YOU must be the sole arbiter of what you can think and what you can say - and there must be no criminal sanction for either of those actions, or you're not free.

If there is any criminal sanction whatsoever then all we are discussing is the degree to which we are thought-crime mind-slaves.

That's not entirely true though. Criminal conspiracy can be speech but planning to commit crimes is still against the law even in the US and has been for as long as makes any difference.

Same with trying to con people. Misleading people to try to empty their savings should still be a crime even to a fairly hardline free-speech person. Though not to an absolutist.

 

[DaGaffer]

100% agree with you here @Wij. If I could make it eleventy, and it actually be a thing, then I'd do that.


However I've argued on this forum for free speech many times before and been strongly pushed back against.

Speech is not free unless you're free to offend and free to be a complete fuckhead. And that includes stuff like free to be a horrible antisemite. Or free to argue that you think it's OK to have sex with 8 year olds.

It doesn't mean free to have sex with 8 year olds, or free to burn jews. But it does mean you have to face no criminal sanction if you argue those points.

The only country in the world where you are free to say those things, without fear of criminal censure, is the United States. And the democrats are the biggest danger to those freedoms IMO. The left is the movement of control and censure. (The right is the movement of hypocricy and idiocy). The left is the biggest movement of "stopping people inciting violence through repressing speech" (and actual data backs that up). They're the ones who want make it illegal for other people to say "put your finger in the fire", or "jump" to suicidal people, or shout fire in a crowded theatre (the point Hitch made above at the beginning of his speech).

You must be free to incite violence. You must be free to hate jews or blacks (or whites). You must be free to say biological sex is real. You must be free to think and say anything you like. And, most importantly, YOU must be the sole arbiter of what you can think and what you can say - and there must be no criminal sanction for either of those actions, or you're not free.

If there is any criminal sanction whatsoever then all we are discussing is the degree to which we are thought-crime mind-slaves.

Libel and Slander laws. There are always limits to free speech. Necessarily so.

 

[Scouse]

Criminal conspiracy can be speech but planning to commit crimes is still against the law

You're performing an action - planning to commit crimes. But you should still be able to discuss how exactly you'd do those crimes - it's down to the prosecutor to prove that you weren't just talking theoretically - that you have intent to carry out those actions.

Libel and Slander laws. There are always limits to free speech. Necessarily so.

And this is always brought up too. (Although, parliamentary privilege gives this a wave). But you both know where the thrust of my argument is and why libel, slander, harrasment and active planning with intent to carry out a crime differ from freedom of thought and expression.

Neither of you are addressing any of the points I've made in my post - there's some pretty good examples there.

Lets not beat about the bush. Lets leave the kiddy-fiddling aside because you'll both be triggered by that - but do you think that the American Civil Liberties Union was correct to fight for the right of the American Nazi Party to hold an antisemitic rally through a predominantly jewish area?

I mean, it's disgusting - we're all on board with that (well, I'd hope we are). But if we're going to defend free speech that's where we need to go, correct?

 

[Wij]

It depends (obviously).

If the organisation was a proscribed one because it engaged in terrorism (sometimes, though not necessarily in this case) then the rally should be banned.

If there's also a proven risk to life and limb then it should be too.

If not then maybe not.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - @DaGaffer - people in the US are afforded protection from libel laws by the 1st Amendment. A prosecutor has to prove that you are distributing information that you fully know to be completely false in order to maliciously defame a person. And also if your claims are so patently ridiculous as to be absurd, that's protected too.

So alleging that Clinton is a satan-worshipping paedophile is protected speech, and rightly so.

It depends (obviously).

If the organisation was a proscribed one because it engaged in terrorism (sometimes, though not necessarily in this case) then the rally should be banned.

So I assume you're happy to hand over your ability to judge for yourself what you are allowed to hear to someone else? Who do you respect enough to be your nominated censor @Wij?

I want to meet that person. They must be amazeballs.

 

[Scouse]

(I mean, I avoided the obvious there - the ANC was a proscribed organisation and was involved in terrorist acts. But I want to understand who you think should have that power. Given that if you hand that to someone else, then someone else gets to decide what you're allowed to hear - even if it's Mandela himself who wants to get on the blower directly to you to tell you why they're fighting).

 

[Wij]

(I mean, I avoided the obvious there - the ANC was a proscribed organisation and was involved in terrorist acts. But I want to understand who you think should have that power. Given that if you hand that to someone else, then someone else gets to decide what you're allowed to hear - even if it's Mandela himself who wants to get on the blower directly to you to tell you why they're fighting).

Powers we give to governments and agencies can be abused. News at 10.

There are good use cases for proscribing some organisations, notably terrorist ones.

 

[Scouse]

Powers we give to governments and agencies can be abused. News at 10.

Which is why the American Constitution contains 1st Amendment - to protect the public from abuse by government.

That's exactly what we're talking about @Wij. To be absolutely clear - are you saying that you're OK with that?

Because, tacitly, you are, given that statement.

There are good use cases for proscribing some organisations, notably terrorist ones.

And again, the Mandela question. Can you close the loop in a way that marries your desire to censor speech with your desire for people like Mandela to not be censured? (To be clear on my part: I'm making an assumption that you held a desire for Africans to emancipate themselves? Or should everyone who is standing up for what is right against a corrupt government have to jump the additional hurdle that it's criminal to talk about freeing themselves?)

How does your system work, exactly?

 

[Wij]

That is not what the first amendment does at all.

And I wasn’t ‘desiring to censor speech’. I was saying that I’m ok with proscribed organisations not being allowed to gather and organise.

As regards the ANC, the problem with South Africa was not primarily one of lack of free speech. What a weird series of arguments.

 

[Tom]

Opening episode of season 2 of Wij vs Scouse should have its own thread.

 

[Scouse]

That is not what the first amendment does at all.

Yes it does actually.

And I wasn’t ‘desiring to censor speech’. I was saying that I’m ok with proscribed organisations not being allowed to gather and organise.

We proscribe organisations when we don't like their views, not just because of 'terrorist' actions. This is the very definition of censoring speech.

The ANC parallel is obvious and pertinent.

 

[Scouse]

20 years


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMxRFCKIqr0

 

[Wij]

Yes it does actually.

No, it does not. The US can't ban domestic terrorist organisations because it has never passed a statute to do so but it can ban foreign ones and apply those bans to US citizens in the US. It's not a 1st Amendment issue. It's just a conscious choice not to do so (so far).

Now if you'd said that about the proposal to ban misgendering as per Germany then that would absolutely fall foul of 1A. Congress shall pass no law etc...

My argument was just a response to you suggesting a nazi group be allowed to march through a jewish area. My objections would be IF that group was banned or IF there was a proven threat to safety, otherwise I said it would probably be OK. You are arguing about something I did not say using an understanding of the 1st amendment which is not correct.

This is not unusual.

 

[Scouse]

We're talking at crossed purposes @Wij - I'd brought up the 1st Amendment with DaGaffer because of it's libel-laws neutering effects.

But frankly, it's intention was to do exactly that - protect the American revolution. Madison thought that it was all over for the US if majorities voted to restrain the rights of minorities. i.e. the protection of minority interests, beliefs and freedoms was a core reason for the first amendment (along with holding government to account by a free press who could print what they liked).

My argument was just a response to you suggesting a nazi group be allowed to march through a jewish area. My objections would be IF that group was banned or IF there was a proven threat to safety, otherwise I said it would probably be OK. You are arguing about something I did not say using an understanding of the 1st amendment which is not correct.

On this, rather than answering my question in a straightforward way you added conditions. IF a group was banned. IF there was a proven threat to safety.

On your second point - the 1st Amendment prohibits prior restraint, which this would fall under. The US government can't ban a demonstration citing some spurious possibility in the future - it would have to demonstrate conclusively that the organisers intend to commit a crime. Prior restraint is considered possibly the most pernicious form of censorship.

For example - libel can only be punished after the fact - the libel has to be allowed to take place, it cannot be stopped prior to publication. It's the same with prohibition of protest - there's a strong constitutional presumption against the government.

It's this sort of crap we have in England that the US fought for independence over. Ban a march? Licencing? The rolling back of freedom of demonstration, of peaceful protest - which de facto no longer exists in any real and meaningful form in the UK - by both labour and tory governments. That's exactly the sort of government overreach that the 1st Amendment was written to protect us against.


So, excluding the additional (and likely illegal) conditions you added to my question, I'm glad you agree - the march by a nazi group through a jewish area should have been allowed to go ahead as it is clear freedom of speech. And it did. To the shame of the nazi wankers.

 

[BloodOmen]

20 years


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMxRFCKIqr0

seen that before and went "Fucking hell, its been 20 years" to the mrs lol

 

[Lamp]

Bought some bin liners yesterday from a local shop. I was relieved to find instructions on the back
"Please tear bag from roll before lining bin"
How helpful !

 

[Raven]

Bought some bin liners yesterday from a local shop. I was relieved to find instructions on the back
"Please tear bag from roll before lining bin"
How helpful !

Ironically, by doing so, you're "doing it wrong" It's far easier to leave them on the rolls and tear a new one off as you take the full one out.

 

[Scouse]

Water firms illegally spilled sewage on dry days - data suggests

Three major companies released sewage on dry days in breach of their permits - BBC investigation.

www.bbc.co.uk

Theresa Coffey is a disingenuous bitch:

It does seem extraordinary on the hottest day of the year that there may be releases. The EA is the regulator; they are the people who do the detailed investigation of why that has happened

The EA has been decimated (in th real sense of the word) under the tories. I have a friend who's very senior in the org and he says they're so underfunded that they're basically a 'regulator' in name only nowadays - if you want to get away with something you can, because that's effectively what the government policy allows.

 

[Embattle]

Water firms illegally spilled sewage on dry days - data suggests

Three major companies released sewage on dry days in breach of their permits - BBC investigation.

www.bbc.co.uk

Theresa Coffey is a disingenuous bitch:


The EA has been decimated (in th real sense of the word) under the tories. I have a friend who's very senior in the org and he says they're so underfunded that they're basically a 'regulator' in name only nowadays - if you want to get away with something you can, because that's effectively what the government policy allows.

In essence they are so underfunded there is no way they can enforce the laws, it is a quasi red tape removal thus you get endless amounts of slurry and other crap in our rivers and seas....quite literally a shower of shit.

 

[Scouse]

In essence they are so underfunded there is no way they can enforce the laws, it is a quasi red tape removal thus you get endless amounts of slurry and other crap in our rivers and seas....quite literally a shower of shit.

And even when they could enforce the laws the penalties were so weak that they were treated as profit margin.

Personal remuneration of the board and witholding of dividend to shareholders if environmental laws are broken will do the trick.

 

[Tom]

Critical national infrastructure like this should not be run for private gain. It should all be renationalised and frankly, a government with balls needs to step up and raise taxes on high earners (including companies) to pay for the required investment.

 

[Scouse]

Critical national infrastructure like this should not be run for private gain. It should all be renationalised and frankly, a government with balls needs to step up and raise taxes on high earners (including companies) to pay for the required investment.

The answer always seems to be raise taxes on people who already pay more income tax as a proportion of their income than lower wage earners.

The solution for me is to put a total wealth cap on people - say £100m. We shouldn't be countenancing billionaires. And then maybe we should potentially be equalising income taxes - because a day's work is a day's work.

Outrageous wealth is the problem.

 

[Raven]

It doesn't need more tax, because more tax just means we pay more.

What it needs is bringing into public hands, profit goes into infrastructure and investment in cleaner technologies...you would likely cut bills at the same time.