|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 19:45:26 GMT
What if someone's view is ''gas the Jews''? You going to defend his right to express that? No one is ever going to say that's OK because the history is too real. Right, so we are all agreed there are limits to freedom of speech. Where the disagreement starts is what those limitations should be. In certain cases it is clear cut. Incitement to violence for example, even in the USA with it's 1st amendment and right to free speech you cannot incite violence. In the UK we have specific legislation against inciting racial hatred. This is where provocateurs and free speech warriors like Yaxley-Lennon attempt to push the boundaries and why they end up in court and sometimes jail. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 19:51:05 GMT
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with 'Sir' Oswald Mosley. It's conducted by David Frost. It's amazing how times just don't seem to have changed at all. All the way through, this peddler of hate keeps insisting that his inflammatory speeches were nothing but the expression of free speech. That seems to be the far-right's go-to argument. (Not saying Wapentake is on the far right). www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWqIExUfp4Q |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 17, 2024 19:52:58 GMT
No one is ever going to say that's OK because the history is too real. Right, so we are all agreed there are limits to freedom of speech. Where the disagreement starts is what those limitations should be. In certain cases it is clear cut. Incitement to violence for example, even in the USA with it's 1st amendment and right to free speech you cannot incite violence. In the UK we have specific legislation against inciting racial hatred. This is where provocateurs and free speech warriors like Yaxley-Lennon attempt to push the boundaries and why they end up in court and sometimes jail. I think we can all agree on that. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 19:53:27 GMT
What if someone's view is ''gas the Jews''? You going to defend his right to express that? Oppose that view completely,if somebody thinks that and clearly some do as some Jews would see Palestinians as nothing more than sub human. I think that’s a rather simplistic question put,clearly the human race harbours some sick or outrageous views across many different nationalities and cultures. I am interested if following the riots statements made by Starmer even the speaker does anybody here find warnings made alarming ? I know of one long term poster (not on here) a civilised and well rounded human being who has binned all their social media even contemplate leaving all forums. We have been told be careful what you say online you are being watched and could find yourself in court,is anybody worried about that? I can't help noticing that you avoided answering my specific question. Would you defend someone's right to publicly state that we should gas the Jews? Actually stand on a platform in the street and say it? Hopefully you are not so simplistic as to defend that on grounds of free speech. So the conversation should be 'where do the limits to free speech start'. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 17, 2024 19:55:58 GMT
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with 'Sir' Oswald Mosley. It's conducted by David Frost. It's amazing how times just don't seem to have changed at all. All the way through, this peddler of hate keeps insisting that his inflammatory speeches were nothing but the expression of free speech. That seems to be the far-right's go-to argument. (Not saying Wapentake is on the far right). www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWqIExUfp4QOh yes freedom of speech and what that should mean has never gone away. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 19:57:53 GMT
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with 'Sir' Oswald Mosley. It's conducted by David Frost. It's amazing how times just don't seem to have changed at all. All the way through, this peddler of hate keeps insisting that his inflammatory speeches were nothing but the expression of free speech. That seems to be the far-right's go-to argument. (Not saying Wapentake is on the far right). www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWqIExUfp4QOh yes freedom of speech and what that should mean has never gone away. For sure. The same accusations are made and the same defences are offered. The fascist and free speech are good friends. The fascist and truth not so much. When the fascist's ability to peddle hatred is denied him, he quickly paints himself as the victim in the scenario. I highly recommend taking a look at the Mosley interview. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2024 20:00:24 GMT
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with 'Sir' Oswald Mosley. It's conducted by David Frost. It's amazing how times just don't seem to have changed at all. All the way through, this peddler of hate keeps insisting that his inflammatory speeches were nothing but the expression of free speech. That seems to be the far-right's go-to argument. ( Not saying Wapentake is on the far right).www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWqIExUfp4QWell I’m pleased you added that rider because I am in no way inclined to far right. What I find alarming is we seem to be going down the road of thought crime that and the inconsistencies in how the law is applied I find worrying. Should schools be referring a twelve year old boy to prevent extremist officers and being interviewed by police for saying there only two genders? |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 17, 2024 20:03:14 GMT
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with 'Sir' Oswald Mosley. It's conducted by David Frost. It's amazing how times just don't seem to have changed at all. All the way through, this peddler of hate keeps insisting that his inflammatory speeches were nothing but the expression of free speech. That seems to be the far-right's go-to argument. ( Not saying Wapentake is on the far right).www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWqIExUfp4QWell I’m pleased you added that rider because I am in no way inclined to far right. What I find alarming is we seem to be going down the road of thought crime that and the inconsistencies in how the law is applied I find worrying. Should schools be referring a twelve year old boy to prevent extremist officers and being interviewed by police for saying there only two genders? The seesaw is capable of swing too far in both directions. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 20:03:41 GMT
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with 'Sir' Oswald Mosley. It's conducted by David Frost. It's amazing how times just don't seem to have changed at all. All the way through, this peddler of hate keeps insisting that his inflammatory speeches were nothing but the expression of free speech. That seems to be the far-right's go-to argument. ( Not saying Wapentake is on the far right).www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWqIExUfp4QWell I’m pleased you added that rider because I am in no way inclined to far right. What I find alarming is we seem to be going down the road of thought crime that and the inconsistencies in how the law is applied I find worrying. Should schools be referring a twelve year old boy to prevent extremist officers and being interviewed by police for saying there only two genders? We are not in the realm of thought crime. A thought crime in the Orwellian sense applies criminal liability for mere thoughts even when they are not accompanied by actions. In legal terms, a thought crime is one that requires mens rea only, without an actus reus. It is not illegal to merely think racist thoughts. Those thoughts must be accompanied by an actus reus. In the case of hate crimes, the publication or expression of those racist thoughts is the actus reus. There are no thought crimes. Nobody can he held to legal account for merely thinking racist thoughts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2024 20:08:56 GMT
Oppose that view completely,if somebody thinks that and clearly some do as some Jews would see Palestinians as nothing more than sub human. I think that’s a rather simplistic question put,clearly the human race harbours some sick or outrageous views across many different nationalities and cultures. I am interested if following the riots statements made by Starmer even the speaker does anybody here find warnings made alarming ? I know of one long term poster (not on here) a civilised and well rounded human being who has binned all their social media even contemplate leaving all forums. We have been told be careful what you say online you are being watched and could find yourself in court,is anybody worried about that? Would you defend someone's right to publicly state that we should gas the Jews? Actually stand on a platform in the street and say it? Hopefully you are not so simplistic as to defend that on grounds of free speech. So the conversation should be 'where do the limits to free speech start'. And I can’t help noticing how you framed that question and I expected this and for that reason will not reply,if you think I support Jews or anyone else being subjected to genocide then you’ve never read andunderstood any of my posts here or elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 20:10:25 GMT
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with 'Sir' Oswald Mosley. It's conducted by David Frost. It's amazing how times just don't seem to have changed at all. All the way through, this peddler of hate keeps insisting that his inflammatory speeches were nothing but the expression of free speech. That seems to be the far-right's go-to argument. ( Not saying Wapentake is on the far right).www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWqIExUfp4QWell I’m pleased you added that rider because I am in no way inclined to far right. What I find alarming is we seem to be going down the road of thought crime that and the inconsistencies in how the law is applied I find worrying. Should schools be referring a twelve year old boy to prevent extremist officers and being interviewed by police for saying there only two genders? It was more than saying there are only 2 genders though wasn't it? Let's try to avoid half truths. Should there be an organisation to which persons suspected of holding extremist views could be referred to? Bearing in mind Prevent was established to fight Muslim extremism at a time UK citizens were heading to the Middle East to join organisations like ISIS. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 17, 2024 20:10:55 GMT
I can't help noticing that you avoided answering my specific question.Would you defend someone's right to publicly state that we should gas the Jews? Actually stand on a platform in the street and say it? Hopefully you are not so simplistic as to defend that on grounds of free speech. So the conversation should be 'where do the limits to free speech start'. And I can’t help noticing how you framed that question and I expected this and for that reason will not reply,if you think I support Jews or anyone else being subjected to genocide then you’ve never read andunderstood any of my posts here or elsewhere. I know for a fact that Monte doesn't believe that of you. You have missed his point. He was asking if you support the right to propose the extermination of Jews on free speech grounds. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 17, 2024 20:10:56 GMT
Fact is most people need never fear their spoken thoughts will bring them up against the authorities. But there are many who would try to persuade folks to be scared.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2024 20:12:48 GMT
Well I’m pleased you added that rider because I am in no way inclined to far right. What I find alarming is we seem to be going down the road of thought crime that and the inconsistencies in how the law is applied I find worrying. Should schools be referring a twelve year old boy to prevent extremist officers and being interviewed by police for saying there only two genders? We are not in the realm of thought crime. A thought crime in the Orwellian sense applies criminal liability for mere thoughts even when they are not accompanied by actions. In legal terms, a thought crime is one that requires mens rea only, without an actus reus. It is not illegal to merely think racist thoughts. Those thoughts must be accompanied by an actus reus. In the case of hate crimes, the publication or expression of those racist thoughts is the actus reus. There are no thought crimes. Nobody can he held to legal account for merely thinking racist thoughts. A twelve year old thinks there are only two genders and vocalisesthat for various reasons,is that enough cause for his school to refere hi. To prevent for fear he may be a terrorist recruit? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 17, 2024 20:13:49 GMT
I can't help noticing that you avoided answering my specific question.Would you defend someone's right to publicly state that we should gas the Jews? Actually stand on a platform in the street and say it? Hopefully you are not so simplistic as to defend that on grounds of free speech. So the conversation should be 'where do the limits to free speech start'. And I can’t help noticing how you framed that question and I expected this and for that reason will not reply,if you think I support Jews or anyone else being subjected to genocide then you’ve never read andunderstood any of my posts here or elsewhere. Of course I don't. I'm just trying to establish whether or not you agree there should be limits to free speech. Your avoidance of the question leads me to think that you don't think there should be. |
|
