4 ms·

Sure, arresting people for quoting Churchill seems like a potential definition of "working". [1] There's no way that arresting people for a twitter post [2] cou

Sure, arresting people for quoting Churchill seems like a potential definition of "working". [1] There's no way that arresting people for a twitter post [2] could be abused. Nobody needs free speech for reposting rap lyrics. [3] The road to hell is paved with good intentions. [1] https://thenewamerican.com/hate-speech-u-k-political-leader-arrested-for-quoting-winston-churchill/ https://thenewamerican.com/hate-speech-u-k-political-leader-... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-offensive-face... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

arethuza 6y ago
In the first case there about Paul Weston, the local Police Commisioner clarified the reasons for his arrest: "It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weston_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weston_(politician)
8note 6y ago
I was expecting those Churchill quotes to be more long the lines of "I hate indians! They are a beastly people with a beastly religion" Or "the Hindus are a foul race" It's highly believable that quoting Churchill can be considered hate speach. There's a lot of races he did not like