- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
You are what you eat, of course.
The solution is massive tax on unhealthy shit and subsidy of good shit.
The solution is massive tax on unhealthy shit and subsidy of good shit.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
Elon Musk should face arrest if he incited UK rioters, says ex-Twitter chief
Bruce Daisley calls for ‘beefed-up’ online safety laws and compares tech billionaires to unaccountable oligarchs
Fucking lol.
If I told you to stick your finger in the fire...
TdC
Trem's hunky sex love muffin
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 30,925
This tbh. It blows my mind how magically expensive "good shit" is. We actually had protests at workies as in the on-prem cafeterias you could get deep fried bullshit and a soda pop for next to nothing whereas if you wanted a salad and a juice you somehow had to pay 20 euros. Weird shenanigans tbh
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
BloodOmen
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 18,136
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
UK riots: ‘Bigot’ jailed for Facebook racial hatred posts
A judge says Daniel Kingsley holds "deeply offensive and racist views".
www.bbc.co.uk
So this guy, 21 months for facebook posting.
What's interesting - his posts were private apparently. That means his friends or family have dobbed him in to law enforcement, no?
INFORM!
Embattle
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,507
Ah, it's the angle I'd forgotten. You're FH's favourite facist
And you're just Scouse, no need for further explanation to anyone here.
Racism isn't free speech, a private group doesn't stop someone in it from being offended and reporting it.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
It's the very definition.
Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it's the freedom to think differently.
Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 19,917
Do you think Anjem Choudary should have got 28 years? He didn't do anything to anyone, he just convinced others to blow themselves up.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
I agree.
However, the consequence of saying the most disgusting stuff should be that everyone knows you're a cunt*.
If there are criminal consequences for saying anything then speech, by definition, isn't free. And, before you complain because we've been through this a lot before - if you take a moment to think, the consequences of that are obvious. Someone has to define criminal 'herecy' - and that will largely be defined by the prevailing morality. And that leads to actions that end with people like Alan Turing getting chemically castrated, leading to suicide, or Galileo getting vilified and hounded by the Catholic Church.
These lessons from history don't feel particularly present now - but they were pertinent enough for the creation of the 1st Amendment. Because they understood that without freedom of speech and thought all our other so-called freedoms are illusory.
*And all that goes with that, which isn't inconsiderable.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
I'll happily get into that with you when you've justified why a twat on facebook who posted "we should burn that hotel down" whilst ranting about immigrants yet didn't leave his house got more jail time than someone who tried to set fire to police?
Zarjazz
Identifies as a horologist.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,417
The 1st Amendment was, in part, to allow criticism of the government without retribution. They didn't set out to prevent the enactment of slander or libel laws, or to say you were allowed to verbally harass or abuse anyone you wanted to.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
Everyone always goes here.
Define harassment and abuse.
If you're stood in the town square "saying niggers are subhuman, they've lower IQs and rape our white women" you're undoubtedly a cunt. But you can walk away if you don't care to listen to the cunt.
If said cunt follows someone up the street that's an action - harassment - that's separate from their speech. And arrestable. Quite rightly so.
Be honest with yourself. You want to stop cunts saying things you don't like. That's the bottom line.
I, on the other hand, want to protect my own freedoms - and to do that I have to protect the freedoms of cunts I don't like. We both don't like these cunts, but history proves it's more dangerous to censor speech than protect freedoms.
Last edited:
Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 19,917
Hitler was less responsible for the Holocaust than people who worked at the death camps, he was only telling people to kill Jews, not doing it himself.
Anjem Choudary isn't responsible for Islamist terror attacks he was only telling people to blow themselves up in the name of Allah.
Jefferson Davis wasn't responsible for the Confederacy, he was only telling people to fight against the Union.
So on and so on.
Your concept of we're not allowed to question science/the government because they've put some people inciting attacks on others is the most ridiculous notion I've ever seen.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,727
Gwan then, it's Friday @Gwadien. One at a time
If they had free speech laws in Nazi Germany, like in America, they wouldn't have been able to get away with it.
So Labour have brought in hate-speech laws that have made it very difficult to criticise Islam. As if fatwahs and threats of murder from the Islamic world isn't enough to cow the western world (which it does very well). It's almost akin to bringing back blasphemy laws - and you'll notice that all the other major religions are behind that - because they know free speech is a threat to them.
The way to beat terrorism is NOT by restricting free speech. It's by strengthening it.
So, lets perform a thought experiment. Say the South won, entrenched slavery and enacted laws restricting people's right to free speech because the whole country's economy was based around slaves and ending slavery would be an end to that system.
Think about that for a while.
That's not far-fetched, ridiculous or infantile. It's a pattern of power the world over. You restrict people's ability to challenge you and you entrench atrocity by doing so. The ONLY way to combat this is by protecting free speech - abhorrent speech most of all - because there's no other way for state-mandated atrocity to be challenged.
It's not a call for freedom of action. Terrorists can still be locked up. You kill someone? You stab someone? Yep, you get locked up.
But if you voice an unpopular opinion? You campaign for <insert outrage here>? The answer is to argue against that outrage - and trust that the majority of people are rational and swayed by rational arguments. That means the majority won't fall foul of Islam, or slide back into repressive Christianity, or agree that the government can burn the jews.
Of those - the most easily idenfiable example here is the burning of the jews because that was done by the Nazi state and we all know about it (because it's drummed into us constantly). However - Islamic states are the same - as were the Christian nations. They first repress people's freedom of speech and thought. That is the FIRST thing they do. Because if people are free to dissent, free to challenge "herecy" then there's a chance that idiotic ideology can be stopped and the people can be free.
You think Hitler would have been able to do that if people had freedom of speech and dissent in Germany? Censorship was extreme in Nazi Germany.
If they had free speech laws in Nazi Germany, like in America, they wouldn't have been able to get away with it.
He's a recruiter, sure. A despicable shit. He's using Islam in the way it is designed - to mobilise idiot muslim believers to do violent things. Importantly that doesn't deminish their responsibility - Islam is the problem.
So Labour have brought in hate-speech laws that have made it very difficult to criticise Islam. As if fatwahs and threats of murder from the Islamic world isn't enough to cow the western world (which it does very well). It's almost akin to bringing back blasphemy laws - and you'll notice that all the other major religions are behind that - because they know free speech is a threat to them.
The way to beat terrorism is NOT by restricting free speech. It's by strengthening it.
Interesting choice. Of course, the civil war was dressed up as a war to end slavery, but it wasn't really - it was about economics. It's always the economy, stupid. The slavery issue was a side-issue, but presented as the "moral cause" for war.
So, lets perform a thought experiment. Say the South won, entrenched slavery and enacted laws restricting people's right to free speech because the whole country's economy was based around slaves and ending slavery would be an end to that system.
Think about that for a while.
That's not far-fetched, ridiculous or infantile. It's a pattern of power the world over. You restrict people's ability to challenge you and you entrench atrocity by doing so. The ONLY way to combat this is by protecting free speech - abhorrent speech most of all - because there's no other way for state-mandated atrocity to be challenged.
It's not a call for freedom of action. Terrorists can still be locked up. You kill someone? You stab someone? Yep, you get locked up.
But if you voice an unpopular opinion? You campaign for <insert outrage here>? The answer is to argue against that outrage - and trust that the majority of people are rational and swayed by rational arguments. That means the majority won't fall foul of Islam, or slide back into repressive Christianity, or agree that the government can burn the jews.
Of those - the most easily idenfiable example here is the burning of the jews because that was done by the Nazi state and we all know about it (because it's drummed into us constantly). However - Islamic states are the same - as were the Christian nations. They first repress people's freedom of speech and thought. That is the FIRST thing they do. Because if people are free to dissent, free to challenge "herecy" then there's a chance that idiotic ideology can be stopped and the people can be free.
Lamp
Gold Star Holder!!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 23,132
Lamp
Gold Star Holder!!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 23,132
Reminds me of trying to get into my 32 inch jeans
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,355
You can say pretty much what you like. But this guy was inciting violent disorder and that's not far removed from running into a cinema and shouting "THERE'S A FIRE".
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,355
Which also means that the USA doesn't have free speech, even though it's part of their constitution.
