Woman with opinion taken to court

[caLLous]

When are you going to pull your hissy fit and leave?

He did that already and then quietly came back a few weeks later.

 

[Raven]

Its true, at a time of personal stress, a handful spiteful little nobodies made be leave FH. After a bit of a break I just laugh at them rather than get annoyed. Half of them don't post on FH any more though, their teams must not be winning things or something.

Its funny they still try and get a reaction after all this time (What is it, a year, 2?) Do we need to keep going back to things like that?

Its like having a pointless little sheep following me around and bleating all the time. cute.

 

[Scouse]

Were you supposed to be posting this in the football thread?

 

[old.Osy]

Pointless discussion.

Freedom of speech should not be arbitrary or selective - Anyone can say whatever they want, I firmly believe that.

Being an idiot while exercising your freedom of speech, however, can fall under criminalization of said exercise. For example, if you are obstructing the justice process, or if whatever you say triggers physical harm to other people, you should be fined or arrested, depending on how grave the impact is.

In this particular case though, she's only guilty of extreme stupidity, police should not be involved.

 

[Raven]

...except for throwing her down a flight of stairs.

 

[Scouse]

Being an idiot while exercising your freedom of speech, however, can fall under criminalization of said exercise. For example, if you are obstructing the justice process, or if whatever you say triggers physical harm to other people, you should be fined or arrested, depending on how grave the impact is.

If you can criminalise said speech it's no longer free.

The principle also includes the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. If someone decides to act based on what you said then that's entirely down to them. The incitement laws are there directly as an affront to free speech. They're an attempt to push responsibility for personal action onto people who didn't take that action.

They're about stopping people speaking freely and passionately about injustice.

There is a difference between talking about action and taking action - and again history shows that this is an incredibly important right. And of course, if we're talking about rights they have to be taken and exercised, they cannot be and are not granted by some arbitrary authority - including governments.

 

[Moriath]

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.

House of parliament have parliamentry priviledge so anything said in debat etc cannot be taken to court on. Theres been a few cases recently that mps were asked why they wouldnt make the statements they had outside parliament.

Speakers corner has no special rules afaik

 

[Ctuchik]

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.

Well seeing that it's pretty much a hate speech statement, why shouldn't it be illegal?

Change downs syndrome to black people and there's no difference in the severity of the statement she made...

 

[Gwadien]

Well seeing that it's pretty much a hate speech statement, why shouldn't it be illegal?

Change downs syndrome to black people and there's no difference in the severity of the statement she made...

Because then criticising black people and criticising the people that are sacrificing time to govern your country suddenly becomes very similar.

 

[Scouse]

Well seeing that it's pretty much a hate speech statement, why shouldn't it be illegal?

Have a read of my posts which explain exactly why it shouldn't be illegal.

I'm quite happy to answer and/or defend any of those positions, with examples, if you're up for debate on the subject. But I think I've covered it and would expect you to explain why my position is incorrect, with examples too.

 

[Scouse]

Do we need to keep going back to things like that?

Ah, I get it now. I thought you were talking about Toht. My bad. I'd forgotten you'd had a bad time of it. Don't take it so personally - I was talking about the seel

 

[soze]

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.

I am not advocating punishing anyone and I am advocating that a facility to punish people be there. I do not think this Lady should be punished and I think it should be used very sparingly.

As the internet age has shown people take no responsibility for what they say mainly because until the Police started going after people for being Racist on Twitter there was zero consequence.

And thanks for appreciating me coming out for this (what I knew would be) losing argument. But I still maintain that the only difference between me and you is you are getting angry about this while doing nothing about it and I am accepting it while doing nothing. The saying is (allegedly) All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing!

 

[Talivar]

The problem is there are people trained to understand how the brain works and how to almost manipulate people with words into doing things, there has to be laws to protect against these people but there should also be laws to protect freedom of speech as much as possible

 

[Scouse]

you is you are getting angry about this while doing nothing about it and I am accepting it while doing nothing. The saying is (allegedly) All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing!

I'm not doing nothing, as explained before. What do you expect me to do? Incite people to violence? Lol.

The internet has shown that what people say isn't really that bad in terms of consequences. Racist or not - being offended tends to be the worst outcome. Big deal.

It's what people do - like invade countries under false pretences whilst increasing surveillance on a population and simultaneously eroding their ability to protest freely - through their freedom of speech and ability to congregate and demonstrate.

But hey, as long as you don't get offended, everything else is tickety-boo eh?

 

[Gwadien]

I -really- don't understand the argument of curbing our freedom of speech in order for security, I really do not.

I'm sure our crime prevention bodies love people like Anjem Choudary, simply because he can make videos about how he hates the UK, and then people go flocking to him, like YES ANJEM, TELL ME MORE, then they follow these people, and prevent them from doing acts of terror.

I disagree @Talivar we need education to teach people now not to say stupid things, not preventing stupid people from saying stupid things, because then it goes underground, then things like Nazis happen.

Sure, I don't like the fact that our freedom of speech is used against us by using the authorities to track our movements until we do commit crime, but that's unfortunately the reality that we live in, if we start to curb our freedom of speech, they'll still track us, but start to arrest us for mundane things.

 

[soze]

I -really- don't understand the argument of curbing our freedom of speech in order for security, I really do not.

I'm sure our crime prevention bodies love people like Anjem Choudary, simply because he can make videos about how he hates the UK, and then people go flocking to him, like YES ANJEM, TELL ME MORE, then they follow these people, and prevent them from doing acts of terror.

I disagree @Talivar we need education to teach people now not to say stupid things, not preventing stupid people from saying stupid things, because then it goes underground, then things like Nazis happen.

Sure, I don't like the fact that our freedom of speech is used against us by using the authorities to track our movements until we do commit crime, but that's unfortunately the reality that we live in, if we start to curb our freedom of speech, they'll still track us, but start to arrest us for mundane things.

Again I am not for stopping freedom of speech more just freedom of hate preach.

And @Scouse have you signed any petitions organised any peaceful protests to show the government how unhappy you are with all this. Have you even written a letter to your MP? I know that if I honestly thought this signalled the end to my freedom of speech I would like to think I would do something. But as a gullible optimist I see it as one case of the police pushing their luck let's see what a judge has to say about it.

 

[Talivar]

Its not stupid people saying stupid things i worry about, its very clever people saying very calculated things, they already have more than enough education to enable them to speak this way (I also count Politicians in this!).
I do also agree with freedom of speech so its a complicated matter lol. Reality is tho just like anything there will be people that find ways to abuse it for personal gain. Im sure if we think hard enough we can think of examples of historical figures who managed to sway mass groups of people into doing bad things.

 

[Talivar]

On reflection i think the problem is the people i fear (Leaders, Politicians, Terrorist Recruiters ect) will all be above or beyond the rules anyway, so in reality the only people hit by new measures are the common people like you and me. So looking at it that way then i fully agree it needs to be left alone

 

[Gwadien]

Again I am not for stopping freedom of speech more just freedom of hate preach.

But its the same thing.

You'll be stopped from saying we should bomb the UK then you'll be stopped from saying our government is shit.

Read my post again. Hate preaching is good, its the go-to for extremists to start their training, by the time they go to these people its too late, its never the hate preachers which convert these people, its usually much earlier on, they're just a gateway to further extremism.

If you want evidence for this, go watch the number of documentaries about UK born Jihadis, they usually have a great deal of places and people in common, there's not shit loads and they're usually quite public figures, so surely it makes no sense to make it go under ground and give our authorities a harder job.

In a much less tin foil hat version of saying 'next it'll be we can't be saying anything negative about our government' - think about wars, if you say bombing Syria is stupid - bang, you're pro IS so therefore you're a terrorist sympathiser.

I think I said this recently but Max Weber said something on the lines of - The State loves the plague because it means that they can control by fear not created by theirselves.

 

[soze]

One thing I realised yesterday is that I actually agree with a lot of what @Scouse says but just explain myself poorly. I really do not want a law on things you think or say. But I do think there should be rules to stop people (like on the bus videos) forcing you to listen to whatever they have to say. Buy as he said that is more an harassment law which I am fine with.

I think this free speech should stay and if the KKK want to hold a meeting spouting as much racist stuff as they want It will not bother me at all I would not go. If they hold a march that will not bother me as I would not go. If they have a Twitter or Facebook account it would not bother me as I would not follow it. The stupid thing about this case is that a sudo celebrity Tweeted to about 15 people one of whom decided to report it to the Police. And this has now turned something that should have been ignored into this massive story with the stupid tweet being shared to millions of people.

And as I said the part about her phone is worrying as I got sent a joke about the Holocaust which is on my phone so does that mean I can now be arrested for racism?

I should add that I am not back tracking on being an optimist though. I still see this and think "oh look an idiot getting punished for saying stupid shit" I do not see "Ohh look the start of a police state this means everyone who disagrees with the government will end up sent to prison for life".

 

[Gwadien]

One thing I realised yesterday is that I actually agree with a lot of what @Scouse says but just explain myself poorly. I really do not want a law on things you think or say. But I do think there should be rules to stop people (like on the bus videos) forcing you to listen to whatever they have to say. Buy as he said that is more an harassment law which I am fine with.

I think this free speech should stay and if the KKK want to hold a meeting spouting as much racist stuff as they want It will not bother me at all I would not go. If they hold a march that will not bother me as I would not go. If they have a Twitter or Facebook account it would not bother me as I would not follow it. The stupid thing about this case is that a sudo celebrity Tweeted to about 15 people one of whom decided to report it to the Police. And this has now turned something that should have been ignored into this massive story with the stupid tweet being shared to millions of people.

And as I said the part about her phone is worrying as I got sent a joke about the Holocaust which is on my phone so does that mean I can now be arrested for racism?

I should add that I am not back tracking on being an optimist though. I still see this and think "oh look an idiot getting punished for saying stupid shit" I do not see "Ohh look the start of a police state this means everyone who disagrees with the government will end up sent to prison for life".

What's the difference between the KKK having a march and someone saying racist stuff on a bus? :S

 

[soze]

What's the difference between the KKK having a march and someone saying racist stuff on a bus? :S

The Harassment part. On some of the videos someone who is sat on a moving train / bus gets an idiot come up to them and starts spouting all the racist crap. If you are on a train you can try to walk away but they can follow you which only leaves you with the choice of pulling the emergency break to get away. With a KKK meeting or march you just don't show up.

 

[Raven]

At the end of the day everyone should be free to express their own opinion, regardless of how retarded that opinion is. Even down to the nutjobs that want sharia law, ironic that they should be allowed to spew their hateful crap about wanting to live in a non-democratic, evil society...in a democratic society but there you are.

However, if they are doing so to incite others to commit a crime then they should be punished for it, as an accessory to that crime. Difficult to prove though.

I would quite like to see Theresa May drown in a puddle of her own piss, it doesn't mean I want someone to actually go and do it to her.

 

[Talivar]

I think that,s the key to what i want as well, people can express any opinion they like as long as it does not ask or incite others to commit a crime. As Raven says tho its not always easy to prove.

 

[Bodhi]

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...ficials-censoring-criticism-of-islamic-state/

Meanwhile over in studentland, it just keeps getting sillier.

 

[Gwadien]

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...ficials-censoring-criticism-of-islamic-state/

Meanwhile over in studentland, it just keeps getting sillier.

I wouldn't want him to have a talk either, if my point of view, he left the UK to go fight for another group of people, and was welcomed back as a hero, because he fights on the 'right side'

I wouldn't decline him because of 'we want to avoid taking sides in conflicts' it's because you have no idea what he's being doing out there, he could have been committing war crimes.

There was a documentary about the UK fighters on the side of the Kurds, they witnessed some executions and stuff, like, Geneva Convention breaking stuff.

 

[Raven]

As the piece points out. Its pretty easy to see which side is the "right side"

Students have always been the same, think they know it all until the brutal reality of "the real world" hits them.

 

[Ormorof]

And that article is clearly completely unbiased

The guys fighting for isis probably think its clear who is on the "right" side too

 

[Gwadien]

We should get some people who go fight for Israel to come over and tell us how they've bombed Palestinians.

 

[Scouse]

Again I am not for stopping freedom of speech more just freedom of hate preach.

I think you misunderstand what the the term freedom of speech actually means.

It's a binary term. A black and white term. It's either free, or it is restricted in some fashion. It's that simple.

There's no balance in free speech. It's either free, or it isn't free. Any legal or structural impediment means that you don't have free speech. If your ability to freely express your ideas, no matter what they are, is impaired in any way then it's no longer free.


To address your specific term of "hate speech" and why it should not be banned I'll bring up a random number of points that you lose without freedom of speech. Bear in mind that you're putting at risk all of the following to achieve one thing - to stop people being offended. Not physically harmed in any way - just offended and upset. And you have to judge whether it's worth losing them to make it illegal to offend you.


1) Truth. You cannot get to the bottom of things unless you're exposed to all of the facts, arguments and opinions. Even ones that are wrong, or even outrageous. Being exposed to outrageous or incorrect arguments (like "why not just kill downs syndrome kids") forces us to clarify and test our own positions. This is hugely important - because being forced to examine our own position is one of the primary provocations of intellectual advancement. I.E. The wankers make the good guys' positions stronger - or we find out that the wankers may have a point - but if they can't express it then a hugely unpopular argument cannot gain traction even if it's right (like "black people should have equal rights in south africa")

2) Democracy. You cannot have true democracy without free speech. Everyone's ideas and opinions, no matter how unpopular, have a right to be heard. Policies that are unthinkable now, even hugely offensive to the vast majority of the population, must have the opportunity to be aired. If you shut down the free expression of opinions then you entrench injustice and bad or corrupt and dangerous governments. Without free and unfettered speech you cannot hold your government to account. A government has to win the argument to be legitimate - it is illegitimate if it prevents the argument from happening.

3) Tolerance. Our current ability to live in harmony with other people is due largely to the fact that we tolerate those who are massively different from ourselves. In looks, dress, customs, opinions. It wasn't always this way but because we've had freedom of expression over time we've become more and more tolerant of those differences. It's been a long hard slog with a lot of people taking extreme offence at differing realities. The fact that we haven't cow-towed to those who are intolerant is because there's been protection of freedom of speech and expression. But if you erode free speech then you lessen our exposure to different opinions. We become more easily offended. Over time we become less tolerant of views that are different to our own.

I cba to continue for pages, but an example of what happens down the line would be the blasphemy laws enforced for millenia by the catholic church. Criticism and ridicule of the church was banned because the church fully understood that freedom of expression weakened their grip on power. To protect it they murdered millions - with the consent of a willing and hoodwinked population who hadn't been exposed to "extreme" ideas and informed on the few who expressed them.

Remove freedom of expression and the freedom to criticise idiocy and you hand power and give protection to idiots.

If you suppress incorrect opinions then the result denies people the opportunity to freely and openly argue against them - wherever they occur - i.e. in the street. For example, now it's illegal to call a black man a nigger you not only are more shocked on the rare occasions that you hear it, it's more likely to result in violence and the people who hold those opinions no longer get argued against on a day to day basis because they have to keep that opinion in secret. But they can act in secret with impunity.

And when were the biggest strides in racial tolerance in the UK made? - when people were free to throw their abuse and be called on it in public.

I feel sorry for the muslims - they haven't got the protection of free debate. It makes it much easier for us to demonise them.

There are myriad other reasons and examples, but there's no point in going on.

If you cannot robusly rebuff the above - or provide examples on that scale where shutting down freedom of speech has been more beneficial - then I think you should perhaps look at amending your position on the subject. It's not a common thing for humans to do - admit that they're wrong and change their opinion - but if people can't do it, then what's the point in discussion?

After all - one of us is right and one of us is wrong here. Which one is it?