https://youtu.be/aUOx1B2a44c
Because from now on intent is subjectively assessed by the most easily offended
Because from now on intent is subjectively assessed by the most easily offended
Uk says fuck free speech
- Thread starter todski28
- Start date
If the ideologically posessed get their way it will be all of western culture
Cuckolded_BlK_Male
Green Light Believer
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,073
Canada is much the same.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
In USA, one is not free to yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre, nor to incite riot, nor to libel or slander or verbally assault, nor to misrepresent sales claims, nor to lie to cops or if under oath, nor to violate noise codes. That's legal stuff. One is also generally not free to post against a private site's rules, nor criticize your employer in public, nor chat online during work time, nor use your phone in the dentist's office. Speak carefully.
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
This board is plastered with Brits openly complaining that the US even has a Constitution, and profess their beliefs that it's 'outdated', or that it needs to be 'updated' as a 'living document'. They have not the first clue what a free country even looks like any more, having been overrun by Muslim extremists who can kill anyone of them at will while rendering them mute to the offense (remember the MP who was hacked to death in uniform on an open street)?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Was that the Bowling Green Massacre, by chance?
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Look at it...foaming at the mouth just waiting for the day lefties start summarily executing ANYONE who doesn't toe the progressive line!
What a fucking degenerate shit stain....disgrace of an american.
Someone really should air drop this piece of shit into Venezuela.
On the contrary, Brits hardly use this board because much of what is said here doesn't concern us. We don't give a damn about your constitution. We don't have one because the main purpose of a written constitution is to provide things for lawyers to argue about.
are they somehow worse than White Americans who ride around Texas blowing people up. Physician Heal thyself.
You really must learn to get your facts right. MPs (Members of Parliament ) do not wear uniforms and yes one was shot and stabbed in an open street by a white right-wing extremist yelling Britain First For those who do not remember Britain First is the tiny organisation whose doctored videos your president was happy to retweet.
I suspect that you might be referring to Drummer Lee Rigby. Who was not an MP or even a Military Policeman and was not in uniform at the time of the attack and whose killers are rotting in gaol.
I'm sad for you that your country is now in such a state that you feel it necessary to deflect attention away from your children protesting in the street or the great defender of free speech (the NRA) putting out a video of one of their supporters saying how he tells his kids "You walk out in protest, you walk out of my house" We are loving the freedom of speech there.
In no way do I support the decision of the Scottish Court. I think they are wrong. But we are talking about broadcasting here and America, where foreign nationals are not allowed to even own a TV station let alone broadcast there views, is in no position to lecture us on the freedom to broadcast.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
The topic was freedom of speech, not freedom to broadcast.
You have the gestapo running around policing peoples thoughts, throwing them in jail for stepping out of line from the progressive mainstream. Now I understand how VERY progressive of you this is but unfortunately it does leave us in a position to trash you for being anti free speech.
Don't like it? Don't be such fuckin' Nazis.
ishtat
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Posts
- 5,397
The Parliament passed a very stupid law. This case serves a valuable service in showing how stupid this law is.
I have lived in The UK and the USA and in one respect the UK has far more freedom of speech. Commercial media in the USA self censors everything it broadcasts, there is very little of that in the UK. You only have to read the papers to see the difference.
I have lived in The UK and the USA and in one respect the UK has far more freedom of speech. Commercial media in the USA self censors everything it broadcasts, there is very little of that in the UK. You only have to read the papers to see the difference.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
You mean the commercial media gets to put out what it wants, because freedom of speech.
That's not less freedom of speech and nor is the extra government control over the media that you have in the UK more freedom of speech.
You can argue that it's better to have that government control....but not that it's more free.
The problem I see with it, is the reasoning behind the law. Using compassion and the pretense that people have a right to "not be offended" is what ushers in the start of totalitarian regimes.
Wether it be faacists or communists the freedom to speak and be crticised for that thought is integral to the freedoms we enjoy. Hiding behind compassion is using moral virtue and emotional manipulation as a potent weapon to disarm a collective outcry.
The other problem laws have no half life unless repealed, so what happens if an alt right political firebrand does gain control again, the default should not be on the government to police thought but in the community to ostracize the individual without lawful intervention.
Without the ability to speak and be corrected or to correct someone else we stagnate as a collective blob, ideas grinding against eachother to hone the edge of social and technological advancements is in my mind the biggest reason freedom of speech is one of the mkst fundamental rights we need as free people.
Shouting out emotional attacks as the radical left and radical right have been doing engages the ability to ignore important conversations that need to be had.
Telford grooming gangs in uk
My5slim no go zones popping up in most western countries
Diversity quotas
Pushing of agendas that aim for equality of outcome
Anti male propaganda
anti white racism
The slow decline of meritocracy
Using tax payer funds to fund university education in lesbian dance therapy....... the dumbing down of the population by using education systems as social engineering think tanks
These main talking points need to be out for conversational debate between people willing to have their ideas criticised and listened to.
These hate speech laws are now part of every western country beside america, and they are being pushed hard.
Collectivist ideologies are becoming normalised and they march us toward totalitarianism the 20th century body count should be a giod indicator that these are some very fucking stupid paths to walk.
This is my understanding of the situation at the moment, that the attack on free speech is one of the biggest threats to our freedoms. People's feelings are not a reason to stay silent, unless those feelings are weaponized by law.
The problem we face is every one on both sides is becoming more radicalized and there is not strong debate where people listen to eachother it seems to degenerate into peraonal attacks and insults
Lol, its easy to be dismissive and flippant as if its all just a big joke and we can continue on, nothing to see here folks, but these should be things we as free cotizens monitor very carefully. Im not from america so you wont hear me screamin..... but the constitution,
However
There is difference between being banned from a web site, being fired from a job and facing jail time for a joke, poor taste maybe but not offensive enough to warrant jail time.
The above sanctions are social ostracism that help correct certain viewpoints, and there should be a modicum of common sense embedded into a population reagarding the above mentioned. The above mentioned seem common sense to create laqs to uphold, because mob mentaloty is dangerous, shouting fire is dangerous to peoples physical safety, libel or slander have further reaching effects than mere words, especially on business realms where reputation is critical to getting your foot in the door.
So we find a balance between what and why things should be policed, but weaponizing feelings is a dangerous fire to be playing with.
I believe ishtats main point is that the media self censor more because your universities are pumping out far left ideologues on tax payers dimes, but so is every western country, the american polarization seems to be further advanced than most other places because of the loud voices of miorities that are trained in identity politics screening everything, the "racist snipers" as well as americas litigious culture makes it a hard place for advertising and televising things against certain views. There again I could be totally fucking wrong and spputing shit I dont know enough about.
Carnal_Flower
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Posts
- 6,896
He/she didn't say anything that wasn't true.
Same America with free speech = same America with limits to free speech. Same country, same constitution.
Don't blame the messanger.
Same America with free speech = same America with limits to free speech. Same country, same constitution.
Don't blame the messanger.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
I didn't say it did.
Learn to read.
I didn't you illiterate glue eater.
I called the messenger an anti-free speech leftist....no wonder YOU are defending it, being such an anti-free speech leftist stain yourself.
Last edited:
My I
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Posts
- 1,245
Pretty sure you do have a constitution.
The Constitution of the United Kingdom
You see EVERY country with even a minimal semblance of government has a constitution. Even Somalia has a constitution and it's pretty much run by Pirates.
You have to have a constitution to be a member of the UN.
My I
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Posts
- 1,245
Lansdown12
Virgin
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Posts
- 7
Pretty sure we don't, as in we don't have a single document, what we have is the rule of law determined by parliament. Essentially every time a law is passed or amended the 'constitution' changes. This is why most Brits don't get the concept of gun ownership as an inalienable, god given right. Theoretically if enough people don't like a law and the is a good case for changing it, it gts changed. Its not an easy or a quick process but it mostly works. For example we had a school killing in Dunblane in 1996. 16 children and their teacher were killed by a man with a handgun. Within a year private ownership of handguns became illegal. Now if you have a handgun you are the police, armed forces in uniform or a criminal and our world is a much simpler and generally' although not wholly' safer place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
The document you link to is a discussion document from 1991
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Posts
- 668
As a rule speech restrictions invite fewer patrons and the demise of the site, periodical, or other venue. All speech is entertainment and the first casualty of nice owners.
Lansdown12
Virgin
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Posts
- 7
I guess there must be in respect to its structure but that structure differs from the US in that the head of state (the Queen) is not elected and, in the Queens case works hard to be politically neutral.
We have two houses of parliament, the commons and the Lords. We get to vote for the members of the house of commons. The country is divided into areas and the person with the most votes in each seat represents the area for the 5 years of the parliament.
Each representative (Member of parliament) also represents a political party so the party with the most members forms the government and makes the laws. The house of Lords is unelected and is made up 'nobles' who inherit titles and seats in the house, bishops and non hereditary peers who's titles are given as favours usually by outgoing Prime ministers. The Lords can reject laws passed in the commons and sometimes do, but are just supposed to act as a review body.
I think each country is defined by its history. We're a constitutional monarchy which means we have a monarch who pretty much does, politically, what the parliament says but back in the day the monarch had absolute power and our political journey since about 1265 has been about controlling that power and passing it to the people.
We had Magna Carta in 1265 (?ish) which was perhaps like the constitution/bill of rights - forgive me I don't really understand how the constitution, its amendments and the bill of rights fit together or how they fit with what goes on currently. And not being an historian I couldn't tell you how much of the original Magna Carta still forms part of current legislation but it was a starting point from which our laws have evolved.
What I would say is that by having the Queen who is almost universally respected in the country it is possible to have a figurehead that provides stability (60 years and counting) as they don't have to worry about being re elected and it means people can be proud of the state without being obliged to support the government. When you have a president like Trump representing your country, regardless of the internal politics of the US, internationally he diminishes your country something that Obama, Bush and pretty much every other president since Nixon hasn't done
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Similar threads
