6 Men Arrested for mocking Grenfell Tower Fire

[Fletch]

Don't want folks having too much freedom. They might say something not government approved.

What the fuck is freedom of speech actually designed for? To talk about how cute the royal spawn is?

Freedom of speech means freedom to say things without being curtailed by the government of the day. It's primarily about political commentary, it doesn't mean anyone is free to say anything. Laws exist about causing offence, inciting hatred and so on. Common sense and decency also govern what one can say. Americans seem to think it entitles them to abuse anyone or anything. That's not what it was created for.

We knew what it was created for, because we invented it. It's why it's the first fucking amendment in our constitution. We didn't like the watered down version that pussies embraced.

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[4] It is thought that ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[5] The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[6]

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[4] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of 'freedom of speech in Parliament' which is still in effect.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Americans are so insular and so soaked in propaganda, they have no idea how the rest of the world lives.

[Fletch]

Don't want folks having too much freedom. They might say something not government approved.

What the fuck is freedom of speech actually designed for? To talk about how cute the royal spawn is?

Freedom of speech means freedom to say things without being curtailed by the government of the day. It's primarily about political commentary, it doesn't mean anyone is free to say anything. Laws exist about causing offence, inciting hatred and so on. Common sense and decency also govern what one can say. Americans seem to think it entitles them to abuse anyone or anything. That's not what it was created for.

Another ridiculous generalization by you?? whats your problem?


You think we allow people to yell ''fire" in a theater??
The problem is the level where it is decided that the speech is criminal. We dont think that criticizing or making fun of Islam..or catholicism is a crime.
Its where the line is drawn.And Europe's line is not only determined unequally but its set way too low.
who the hell decides what is hate speech?? And what is abusive?? -If that were done fairly then fine. If it is done by people with political agendas--which the founding fathers of the usa
were wise enough to be aware of..Then free speech boundaries become much wider.--Of course its not always WHAT is said but WHERE and in what context or if its said directly to someone in a threatening manner.

I didn't mention 'hate speech'

As most Americans do, you missed this bit.

Common sense and decency also govern what one can say.

Probably because it's sorely lacking in most Americans, even their leader...

[Maddog]

Don't want folks having too much freedom. They might say something not government approved.

What the fuck is freedom of speech actually designed for? To talk about how cute the royal spawn is?

Freedom of speech means freedom to say things without being curtailed by the government of the day. It's primarily about political commentary, it doesn't mean anyone is free to say anything. Laws exist about causing offence, inciting hatred and so on. Common sense and decency also govern what one can say. Americans seem to think it entitles them to abuse anyone or anything. That's not what it was created for.

We knew what it was created for, because we invented it. It's why it's the first fucking amendment in our constitution. We didn't like the watered down version that pussies embraced.

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[4] It is thought that ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[5] The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[6]

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[4] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of 'freedom of speech in Parliament' which is still in effect.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Americans are so insular and so soaked in propaganda, they have no idea how the rest of the world lives.

We invented the real deal in the modern world. It's why this whole thread is silly to me. It would take British laws to arrest someone for doing something stupid like this

You don't have freedom of speech, because your speech comes with too many conditions.

Why do you think this site is hosted in the US?

[McAz]

Don't want folks having too much freedom. They might say something not government approved.

What the fuck is freedom of speech actually designed for? To talk about how cute the royal spawn is?

Freedom of speech means freedom to say things without being curtailed by the government of the day. It's primarily about political commentary, it doesn't mean anyone is free to say anything. Laws exist about causing offence, inciting hatred and so on. Common sense and decency also govern what one can say. Americans seem to think it entitles them to abuse anyone or anything. That's not what it was created for.

We knew what it was created for, because we invented it. It's why it's the first fucking amendment in our constitution. We didn't like the watered down version that pussies embraced.

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[4] It is thought that ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[5] The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[6]

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[4] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of 'freedom of speech in Parliament' which is still in effect.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Americans are so insular and so soaked in propaganda, they have no idea how the rest of the world lives.

We invented the real deal in the modern world. It's why this whole thread is silly to me. It would take British laws to arrest someone for doing something stupid like this

You don't have freedom of speech, because your speech comes with too many conditions.

Why do you think this site is hosted in the US?

Where it's hosted does not ensure freedom of speech. My own website is hosted in the US because it's cheaper.

[Maddog]

Hate speech can only be banned in the U.S. if it is intended to incite imminent violence and is actually likely to do so. This permissive U.S. attitude is highly unusual. Europeans don’t consider hate speech to be valuable public discourse, and reserve the right to ban it. They consider hate speech to degrade from equal citizenship and participation. Racism isn’t an idea; it’s a form of discrimination.

The underlying philosophical difference here is about the right of the individual to self-expression. Americans value that classic liberal right very highly -- so highly that we tolerate speech that might make others less equal.

Europeans value the democratic collective and the capacity of all citizens to participate fully in it -- so much that they are willing to limit individual rights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... cans-think

The difference between free speech and government approved speech.

[McAz]

Hate speech can only be banned in the U.S. if it is intended to incite imminent violence and is actually likely to do so.

Same here.

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

[and/or]

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."

[Maddog]

Hate speech can only be banned in the U.S. if it is intended to incite imminent violence and is actually likely to do so.

Same here.

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

[and/or]

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."

That's a bit different, and you know it. Imminent violence is not a requirement.

[Fletch]

Hate speech can only be banned in the U.S. if it is intended to incite imminent violence and is actually likely to do so. This permissive U.S. attitude is highly unusual. Europeans don’t consider hate speech to be valuable public discourse, and reserve the right to ban it. They consider hate speech to degrade from equal citizenship and participation. Racism isn’t an idea; it’s a form of discrimination.

The underlying philosophical difference here is about the right of the individual to self-expression. Americans value that classic liberal right very highly -- so highly that we tolerate speech that might make others less equal.

Europeans value the democratic collective and the capacity of all citizens to participate fully in it -- so much that they are willing to limit individual rights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... cans-think

The difference between free speech and government approved speech.

A Bloomsberg columnist's opinion?

[McAz]

Hate speech can only be banned in the U.S. if it is intended to incite imminent violence and is actually likely to do so.

Same here.

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

[and/or]

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."

That's a bit different, and you know it. Imminent violence is not a requirement.

It's not about imminence, it's about intention or actuality.

[Maddog]

Free speech laws are different in western countries compared to the US. They are sort of like gun laws. It's a bit silly to not acknowledge the difference.

[Fletch]

Don't want folks having too much freedom. They might say something not government approved.

What the fuck is freedom of speech actually designed for? To talk about how cute the royal spawn is?

Freedom of speech means freedom to say things without being curtailed by the government of the day. It's primarily about political commentary, it doesn't mean anyone is free to say anything. Laws exist about causing offence, inciting hatred and so on. Common sense and decency also govern what one can say. Americans seem to think it entitles them to abuse anyone or anything. That's not what it was created for.

We knew what it was created for, because we invented it. It's why it's the first fucking amendment in our constitution. We didn't like the watered down version that pussies embraced.

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[4] It is thought that ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[5] The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[6]

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[4] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of 'freedom of speech in Parliament' which is still in effect.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Americans are so insular and so soaked in propaganda, they have no idea how the rest of the world lives.

We invented the real deal in the modern world. It's why this whole thread is silly to me. It would take British laws to arrest someone for doing something stupid like this

You don't have freedom of speech, because your speech comes with too many conditions.

Why do you think this site is hosted in the US?

Like I said, so insular and so soaked in propaganda.

[Maddog]

Hate speech can only be banned in the U.S. if it is intended to incite imminent violence and is actually likely to do so. This permissive U.S. attitude is highly unusual. Europeans don’t consider hate speech to be valuable public discourse, and reserve the right to ban it. They consider hate speech to degrade from equal citizenship and participation. Racism isn’t an idea; it’s a form of discrimination.

The underlying philosophical difference here is about the right of the individual to self-expression. Americans value that classic liberal right very highly -- so highly that we tolerate speech that might make others less equal.

Europeans value the democratic collective and the capacity of all citizens to participate fully in it -- so much that they are willing to limit individual rights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... cans-think

The difference between free speech and government approved speech.

A Bloomsberg columnist's opinion?

Then ignore it. Now who's being insular.

[McAz]

Free speech laws are different in western countries compared to the US. They are sort of like gun laws. It's a bit silly to not acknowledge the difference.

Though all or most are subject to interpretation and where appropriate jury consideration - so comparisons between the "letter" of the law are not terribly useful.

[Maddog]

Free speech laws are different in western countries compared to the US. They are sort of like gun laws. It's a bit silly to not acknowledge the difference.

Though all or most are subject to interpretation and where appropriate jury consideration - so comparisons between the "letter" of the law are not terribly useful.

So could any one in the UK interpet the law to say that you could own an AR-15 without a special license?

[McAz]

Free speech laws are different in western countries compared to the US. They are sort of like gun laws. It's a bit silly to not acknowledge the difference.

Though all or most are subject to interpretation and where appropriate jury consideration - so comparisons between the "letter" of the law are not terribly useful.

So could any one in the UK interpet the law to say that you could own an AR-15 without a special license?

Not in that case - but that's not to do with freedom of speech which is what you claiming was fundamentally different. We generally don't eat GM either.