Woman with opinion taken to court

[Tom]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/04/reali...th-downs-syndrome-should-be-put-down-5480117/

Very distasteful; no doubt. Ill advised; of course. Illegal? WTF.

 

[Scouse]

No doubt all the nearsighted twats who said that people who had concerns about freedom of speech under the past two governments were idiots and 'conspiracy theorists' are now going to apologise.

 

[SilverHood]

She's stupid, but not criminal. Surely police and courts have better things to do with their time, and if not, we can return their budgets to the taxpayers.

 

[Scouse]

She's stupid, but not criminal.

No. She's criminal. The law says she is and she may well be jailed for it.

But pfft. If you've got nothing to hide* you've nothing to fear eh?













*depending on what someone else thinks you should be hiding, of course...

 

[Bodhi]

Good to see they've solved all the burglaries, car thefts, stabbings etc and are going after the real criminals.

I assume the fuckwits we've had in charge for the last 20 years don't realise 1984 was a warning, not a template.

It's a brave new world folks, enjoy!

(think I preferred the old one)

 

[Hawkwind]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/04/charg...ty-offer-who-tweeted-killallwhitemen-5479933/

And yet this is allowed to go on:

Mustafa initially prompted the row when she asked white men not to attend a students’ union meeting intended for minority ethnic women and ‘non-binary attendees’.

So guess the lines are drawn and it's not racist hate when you tweet #killallwhitemen. Makes me laugh how one sided the whole racism thing is!

 

[Scouse]

Come on people! There are a number of you on this board who have strongly and passionately argued against unfettered freedom of speech, who think racist language should be banned, who think 'incitement' is a reason to silence and/or jail people.

So where are you now?

Why aren't you in this thread either celebrating your victory or defending the laws that you supported being passed despite being told at the time that they were dangerous to the average man, not just the 'extremists' you felt should be silenced? Despite being told that you were supporting the ushering in of an Orwellian future and giving government the power to crush dissent, to define what was acceptable, to define what 'right thinking' should be, to close down debate and intellectual freedom - all in the name of 'protecting freedom'.

Come on you fucks. Where are you?

 

[Raven]

errr. Aren't you the guy that wants UKIP silenced?

Personally, I couldn't care less what she said, in this case they are trying to make an example of some random Z lister which makes the law even more of an ass if people are supposed to be treated equally.

 

[Scouse]

errr. Aren't you the guy that wants UKIP silenced?

No, you tit. I've repeatedly and clearly stated many times my support for totally unfettered freedom of speech (as there is no other kind of "free" speech - period). - In part because that also gives people the right to call UKIP wankers and freedom from prosecution for airing racist views would embolden those UKIPers enough so they'd expose themselves even more than they have done.

I think you know that I've repeatedly said that too, and you're just being a cunt troll.

 

[Raven]

aaaanyway.

The only way things will change is by violent revolution. Getting angry on the internet about it is utterly pointless.

You seem to have an awfully large problem with a lot of things, what single action have you taken to putting them right? (getting angry on the internet doesn't count)

 

[Scouse]

aaaanyway.

Nice argument there Toht. Good to see you've risen to the challenge and brought your stunning intellect to the debate and contributed in a constructive manner, rather than attempting to shut it down.

Getting angry on the internet about it is utterly pointless

Attempting passionate debate, wherever and whenever, is the exact opposite of pointless. It's using the little freedom of speech we have in an attempt to influence people and challenge people's ideas.

So, far from being pointless, passionately expressing your opinion is exactly the sort of action people should be taking to challenge those who would shut their freedom to express it down. You win arguments in the street first in the hope that, eventually, enough people will argue for change higher up. You challenge those opinons wherever you find them - including on the internet.

It's exactly what freedom of speech is for, and exactly how it works.


What is it about my passionate post above that made you feel so uncomfortable that you had to pull a Toht and derail? You could, of course, attempt to rebuff what I've said, or give an alternative opinion if you have one. But you've chosen not to do that, and to be destructive instead. Why?

 

[Raven]

Why would I bother arguing about something I couldn't give a toss about?

 

[Bodhi]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/04/charg...ty-offer-who-tweeted-killallwhitemen-5479933/

And yet this is allowed to go on:

Mustafa initially prompted the row when she asked white men not to attend a students’ union meeting intended for minority ethnic women and ‘non-binary attendees’.

So guess the lines are drawn and it's not racist hate when you tweet #killallwhitemen. Makes me laugh how one sided the whole racism thing is!

Never ceases to amuse me how those preaching tolerance tend to be the most intolerant of the lot.

 

[Scouse]

Why would I bother arguing about something I couldn't give a toss about?

Why bother posting at all then?

When are you going to pull your hissy fit and leave? I mean, if you're going to be Toht, why not go the whole hog? Being a pale imitation of a FH-poisoning troll, opposed to intellectual discourse only a little bit, on some subjects that you're incapable of grasping the nuance of rather than all of them, must be, deep down, a little embarrassing?

 

[soze]

I think this will end up with a £200 fine and zero jail time. I believe there should be a limit to what someone can say. I do not think someone should be able to stand in my face and say truly vile and racist things about me and my family. That is unfettered free speech and I can't do anything about it because if I slap him I get arrested. So I do think there needs to be limits but how the limits are set and enforced are what is worrying. You can't stand there now and be racist you get arrested for that already so this is an extension into Disabilities so could mean calling my mate a mong in front of the wrong person gets me a visit from the police. That is a waste of police time and this woman should feel very hard done by as that evil cunt Kate Hopkins regularly says worse but gets away with it.

But I still think there needs to be a limit on what people can say in a public forum like Twitter or Facebook. If you are having a meeting of your Nazi clan then say whatever you want as no one else had to attend to be offended*. When people are getting arrested for Tweeting "Vote Labour not the conservatives" then I will eat my words.

*So in this case the messages on her phone should be ignored sharing a joke with your friends is not the same as posting something on Social Media.

 

[Raven]

Why bother posting at all then?

When are you going to pull your hissy fit and leave? I mean, if you're going to be Toht, why not go the whole hog? Being a pale imitation of a FH-poisoning troll, opposed to intellectual discourse only a little bit, on some subjects that you're incapable of grasping the nuance of rather than all of them, must be, deep down, a little embarrassing?

You see you are getting upset again, what's the point in upsetting yourself on the internet at 9 in the morning? Isn't it going to ruin your day?

 

[Scouse]

That is unfettered free speech and I can't do anything about it because if I slap him I get arrested.

You can do something about it - without resorting to the violence that seems to come to your head. You can argue back, or leave and rise above.

If followed, that's being harrassed - and we have laws against harrasment. So what's the big deal?

but how the limits are set and enforced are what is worrying

And this is the thing people who think there can ever be a sensible limit to free speech fail to grasp. They can understand that it's worrying, but seem unable to understand that there can never be a sensible system of what can and cannot be said that doesn't A) end up harming someone unfairly, B) restrict the ability of people to hold important debate on these margins, C) turn into a runaway list which keeps getting longer and longer.

You either accept the principle that people can say what they like (say, not do) or you end up fucking yourself over.

These laws are already shutting down academic debate, they're resulting in every cunt with an interest campaigning for people to be banned for saying whatever it is that is precious to them, that upsets them. And because we've got a single thing on a list of "things you can't say or think" then these campaigners have a valid reason to argue for their inclusion on that list - including people like the muslims and the catholics that want people who ridicule their religion banned from doing so.

Labour have already intimated that they're willing to bring in a law that would outlaw the ridicule of religion. A bit like bringing back the blasphemy law. Because people get upset by it - and as we already ban certain speech, they've got a case.


Freedom of speech is a principle that everyone can hold their opinion, however despicable and retarded other people think that opinion is. If you don't hold to that principle, despite in meaning you occasionally have to hear things that upset you, then arbritary injustice will start to happen everywhere and you set off down a long dark path into totalitarian authoritarianism.

It's why freedom of speech is the First Amendment in the US constitution. The people who put that together knew what restricting free speech results in. The story above has given me renewed admiration for the United States.

So, @soze. Just because you're afraid of getting upset by someone expressing an opinion and are pissed off that you can't resort to physical violence to silence that person you're supporting bringing about a nightmarish world - because support for anything other than free speech is support for all the bad things (and more) talked about above - whether you agree with/like them or not.

Oh. Erm. Fuck you?

 

[Bodhi]

Good Lord, two subjects in one month I agree with Scouse on. I may need a lie down.

Even if you did go a bit Drunken Delia in the middle. Come on let's be having you etc.

What I dislike most about the rise of the Thought Police is it just seems another crude tool to shut down debate. Sadly it seems most prevalent at the moment at our universities, with the cretin Hawkwind referenced earlier, Germaine Greers recent issues at Cardiff and various other stories that keep cropping up on Spiked.

With the amount of professionally offended types at uni these days I can see why they're being referred to as Generation Snowflake....

 

[soze]

You can do something about it - without resorting to the violence that seems to come to your head. You can argue back, or leave and rise above.

If followed, that's being harrassed - and we have laws against harrasment. So what's the big deal?

So, @soze. Just because you're afraid of getting upset by someone expressing an opinion and are pissed off that you can't resort to physical violence to silence that person you're supporting bringing about a nightmarish world - because support for anything other than free speech is support for all the bad things (and more) talked about above - whether you agree with/like them or not.

Oh. Erm. Fuck you?

You make everything so simple you can not always walk away. Look at the all the videos of people on buses and trains who are subjected to torrents of abuse because some has the freedom to say whatever they want with impunity. What about police officers who have to stand there and some smug little student gets to say whatever vile stuff they like. So you will never change my mind in a polite society there should be no need to have rules enforcing a limit but you would enforce that on yourself. You might hate everyone who looks different to you but you do not need to tell them that. But until society polices itself there needs to be someone to enforce it.

 

[Scouse]

You make everything so simple you can not always walk away. Look at the all the videos of people on buses and trains who are subjected to torrents of abuse because some has the freedom to say whatever they want with impunity. What about police officers who have to stand there and some smug little student gets to say whatever vile stuff they like. So you will never change my mind in a polite society there should be no need to have rules enforcing a limit but you would enforce that on yourself. You might hate everyone who looks different to you but you do not need to tell them that.

That is not a freedom of speech issue. That's a harrassment issue - as I dealt with in my second sentence in my post above.

We already have very strong laws against harrasment. People get arrested and jailed for harrasment. Yes - people get away with harrasment too - because, thankfully, we don't have a cop on every street corner or a camera with facial recognition recording everything we say and do ever in readiness for automatic censure of infringing behaviour.


You make the mistake of pointing at bad people and going - "look, bad people, we must do something about them!!11!1". But in your zealous hatred of these people you and people like you end up fucking over everyone.

 

[Scouse]

until society polices itself there needs to be someone to enforce it.

Like children who learn responsibility by being given things to be responsible over, and then failing occaisonally, adult individuals need to be given responsibility for watching what they say - full in the knowledge that a minority will fail to live up to that responsibility.

You advocate punishing everyone because of a minority.

 

[Scouse]

Even if you did go a bit Drunken Delia in the middle. Come on let's be having you etc.

It got @soze out didn't it? Which was kinda the point

At least Soze's man enough to defend his indefensible idiocy. Where's the rest of you cunts?

 

[DaGaffer]

Anyone see South Park a couple of weeks ago? This shit comes from the whole bullshit "safe space" idea that no-one should have to hear bad things ever. Its insane. This woman is a horrible, horrible person, and a fucking idiot to boot, but let the court of public opinion deal with that, not the actual courts.

Britain is going down a very bad path in many many ways. I have to admit for the first time I fear for what's becoming of the place.

 

[Gwadien]

I have a tick list of things from 1984 and reality.

It's funny how many have become reality.

 

[Scouse]

I have to admit for the first time I fear for what's becoming of the place.

Agree (but not just for the first time).

At what point does Blighty become a failed state? Not just talking about the freedom of speech issue - or the lack thereof. At what point does the entrenched inequality, the diminishing influence of democracy, the increasing poverty, the increasingly authoritarian-supporting populace (not just the government, the people too, even if they're utterly unaware that's what they're doing), the fracturing of societal structures and alienation of individuals from any concept of community... at what point does the thing that the politicians say they're 'protecting for us' cease to exist?

You could point at other countries and say "this place is worse" - but that would be to miss the point. You needn't be accepting of your country going to the dogs because it's the "least worst" alternative.

What I find alarming is that freedom of speech, freedom of demonstration, freedom to congregate and loudly complain - these are the things that kept rampant governmental authoritarianism in check in the past. Now the public seem to tacitly support their own nannification and if it continues down this line then I can only see the situation getting worse.

I've often wondered if the natural human state is a bit facist. But I think it's really an educational issue. We seem to be increasingly advocating blind obediance and censorship - when history is replete with examples of how utterly retarded that path is.


To go full tinfoil: I wonder if the 'elite' just keep trying it on and then pulling back in the face of violent action, then trying it on again with a slightly different recipe and will keep trying it on until they have a malleable and compliant worker class that they can manage as they like. It's either that, or another failed revolution, that seems the natural conclusion to the path we're on

 

[Gwadien]

Nah, people on the living wage or above will be the people that are monitored and checked.

People below it will create an underclass which noone really cares about and stamps their feet but are subdued by reliance on the state.

 

[Moriath]

We should have had a freedom of speech in themagna carta like the americans do in their constitution. Yes you get those freaks like that family that picket soldiers burials and such calling everyone who doesnt believe in jesus fags or something. But its much more preferable to the mass offended that demand jail for people speaking their mind here.

 

[Hawkwind]

Anyone know if the House of Parliament and Speakers Corner are exempt from these anti freedom of speech laws? Historically they were just not sure now.

edit: never mind just found a link, not exempt from anything considered unlawful.

 

[Ormorof]

They appear to be exempt from being spied on at least

 

[Scouse]

They appear to be exempt from being spied on at least

How's that going to work if everything is hoovered up? I'd have no idea how you'd implement that.