Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zin, Jun 21, 2017.
This country has become a joke. A complete and utter joke.
I remember reading articles about the same thing when it came to Reddit. British police got Reddit to give up IP's and the British Reddit users where fined and ordered to criminal court for speaking out against a certain religion.
What's the backstory to this, what was said? I hope it was not like the hitler dog incident.
The guy was proposing bomb a mosque day and put a Muslim on a bonfire day. Although I think Islam is a **** religion I don't think proposing to kill people is a good way to handle it, the religion carries out enough atrocities that could be pointed to without getting violent to get a point across.
His parents should be sentenced to 20 months for naming him Nigel.
Sounds like he didn't understand the country's laws ...
Of course, it would be nice to see what he actually wrote in those posts. I'll have to assume it was pretty egregious.
Maybe they were honoring Mr. Tufnel.
If he wants to live in this country he should obey our laws.
The laws are stupid and authoritarian.
That's not the point. He must still obey them or move back to his own/or just another random country.
can you elaborate your position? you don't seem to agree with his sentencing, so are you supporting his position? or you are supporting his "rights" to say anything he wishes? forget muslims, can you say "anything" you wish? what do you think might have happened if his hatred was directed towards another minority group such as sikhs, jews, or hindus?
There is no such thing as hate speech. The idea that the government can censor some speech because it is offensive is a slap in the face of freedom of speech (and one of the points of having freedom of speech).
I have not seen the Facebook posts because they haven't been released. If he was threatening individuals in particular then that of course is not freedom of speech. But if he was writing rancid views about Islam as a whole (e.g. 'They should all die'), then as much as it offends you, he should be allowed to say it.
He threatened to plant bombs and burn people....... I'm not sure why you've chosen to use this chap as a martyr for free speech?
To give you an indication of how threatening he'd been, the charges that were brought against him have only ever been brought against 4 people previously. He was literally advocating terrorism on public record.
Ah yeah I'd suggest a title change @zin it's not just "offensive Facebook posts" he was promoting the idea that people should go out and kill people of a certain identity .... exactly the same crap ISIS does.
Good to see we tackle cowards who use a social media platform to stir up hatred and violence. 20 months a a good sentence although he'll be out in 10.
Where are you getting this information? Are the posts he made available somewhere? The police article doesn't state that he threatened anybody. It states that he "used Facebook to express some truly offensive views". If he was threatening to plant bombs then that's a different story.
Inciting violence is one thing, but airing offensive views is free speech, whether or not you think it's hateful.
Freedom of speech only goes so far. You can't just say anything you want and have no consequences. Look at the Islamic hate preachers for example. Do you think they should be able to stand in the street urging people to bomb and kill, cowering under the umbrella of freedom of speech? No, people need to realise hate speech is not freedom, it's threatening and needs to be tackled.
Freedom of speech is not unlimited. You cannot harass people, threaten to bomb an airport, for example, or incite violence. But to be able to express offensive views is the principle of freedom of speech. Provided you are not threatening somebody in particular or harassing them, people should be free to express racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist, or otherwise offensive speech, however much they want.
If you don't like it, don't listen. They should have a right to say it, but they don't have a right to an audience. Anything else is thought policing.
With the PCtards running things most of the Western Europe will have state sanctioned Sharia patrols within a decade. I have a feeling that they won't enjoy being second class dhimmis and paying the jizya, but I would be lying if I said that it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of idiots.
Death threats and bomb threats are not protected speech in the U.S. either.
From your own OP, in the quote:
So he didn't target a specific person or place, but a group. Just like ISIS.
As for the exact posts I will wait for the trial notes and be interested in the interpretation.
I don't agree with that at all. If I witnessed somebody being racist or homophobic in the street I would confront them with the expectation it would perhaps turn physical. I don't think there is any exceptions. Being racist, homophobic, islamophobic is threatening IMO.
Yeah that's a load of tripe mate isn't it to be honest? You just made that up didn't you?
No, mate, just some observations, and weekly terror attacks across Europe.
Nobody said you don't have a right to confront them (excluding battery, which is what you're alluding to). But to say you have the right to censor them because you find their speech offensive is the opposite of freedom of speech.
In Germany, you can be imprisoned for insulting a foreign head of state. In the UK, you can be sent to prison for making a racist remark on Twitter. This is disgustingly unfree. We need a British First Amendment.