3 ms·

1) The human rights act isn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it makes for an interesting read. I was surprised to see that it it explicitly allows for g

by sambeau 14y ago

1) The human rights act isn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it makes for an interesting read. I was surprised to see that it it explicitly allows for governments to shoot and kill rioters for instance. 2) I never said it was a threat. I said it wasn't a thought crime.

Nursie 14y ago
1) Pretty sure I said it wasn't very clear cut... 2) You used examples of threatening, offensive danger on the street and a very specific behaviour that could cause death in a stampede (and is therefore a threat to life). What the idiot did was post a comment and picture to facebook - speech. Making certain types of speech illegal is pretty much my understanding of 'though crime'
- sambeau 14y ago
  Thought crime is making thought illegal. This is about free speech versus 'hate speech'. Civilised society must protect thoughtful speech but cannot protect all speech. We are not (and should not be free) to: * Make up (and spread) lies with intent to mislead or harm * Defame people * Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain * Wilfully cause panic * Incite others to harmful action for no good reason However you can think anything as long as you keep it to yourself. Free speech is the freedom to express ideas; not the freedom to insult other people for no reason. Linking it to the latter belittles the former. Setting fire to a poppy and calling squaddies cunts was a deliberate insulting act. The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence. What was the great intellectual idea that we should be protecting? The freedom to call soldiers cunts for no reason? There was no humour here either. This was not a misunderstood joke. It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too. Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression. Your ideas need to be backed by facts and have a purpose other than deliberately causing anguish or inciting violence. Civilisation is built on civilised discourse and should seek wherever possible to move away from violent exchange. I, too, believe in protecting free speech and I am also very alarmed and embarrassed by many of the UK Facebook & Twitter court cases of late. The Robin Hood Airport case was a travesty and some of the plights of jokers during the riots of 2011 were certainly Orwelian, e.g.: 4 years for making a bad joke. We must protect free speech but protecting any nasty idiot like this does nothing for freedom nor freedom of ideas. It merely allows the nasty to spread their nastiness. (It is also my opinion that ideas freely expressed should not be free to seek to remove these rights of free expression from others.)
  - Nursie 14y ago
    "We are not (and should not be free) to: Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain" Why not? Your other points have some merit. This does not. "The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence." So what? Really, so what? Some moron in a bedroom in Kent posted an offensive picture. And? Are you not adult enough to ignore it? Who cares? It's not like he punched someone. "It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too." Except it wasn't said in a bar, it was published online. There are a lot of things people say to each other online that they wouldn't say in a bar in case it caused a fight. That is not the standard for free speech. "Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression." Yes, yes it is, because where you draw the line of nasty is entirely subjective. Just look at all the people that think any expression of atheism, or talk of historical record as it applies to religion is insulting. You would have these off limits as well. "I, too, believe in protecting free speech" You really don't, otherwise you wouldn't support this arrest, however abhorrent or useless you thought the opinions expressed in it were.
  - viggity 14y ago
    Go fuck yourself, you're wrong. Offensive speech is the kind that isbin most need of protection :)
    - sambeau 14y ago
      Arf! A proper point properly made.

by sambeau 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

1) Pretty sure I said it wasn't very clear cut... 2) You used examples of threatening, offensive danger on the street and a very specific behaviour that could cause death in a stampede (and is therefore a threat to life). What the idiot did was post a comment and picture to facebook - speech. Making certain types of speech illegal is pretty much my understanding of 'though crime'

sambeau 14y ago
Thought crime is making thought illegal. This is about free speech versus 'hate speech'. Civilised society must protect thoughtful speech but cannot protect all speech. We are not (and should not be free) to: * Make up (and spread) lies with intent to mislead or harm * Defame people * Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain * Wilfully cause panic * Incite others to harmful action for no good reason However you can think anything as long as you keep it to yourself. Free speech is the freedom to express ideas; not the freedom to insult other people for no reason. Linking it to the latter belittles the former. Setting fire to a poppy and calling squaddies cunts was a deliberate insulting act. The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence. What was the great intellectual idea that we should be protecting? The freedom to call soldiers cunts for no reason? There was no humour here either. This was not a misunderstood joke. It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too. Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression. Your ideas need to be backed by facts and have a purpose other than deliberately causing anguish or inciting violence. Civilisation is built on civilised discourse and should seek wherever possible to move away from violent exchange. I, too, believe in protecting free speech and I am also very alarmed and embarrassed by many of the UK Facebook & Twitter court cases of late. The Robin Hood Airport case was a travesty and some of the plights of jokers during the riots of 2011 were certainly Orwelian, e.g.: 4 years for making a bad joke. We must protect free speech but protecting any nasty idiot like this does nothing for freedom nor freedom of ideas. It merely allows the nasty to spread their nastiness. (It is also my opinion that ideas freely expressed should not be free to seek to remove these rights of free expression from others.)
- Nursie 14y ago
  "We are not (and should not be free) to: Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain" Why not? Your other points have some merit. This does not. "The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence." So what? Really, so what? Some moron in a bedroom in Kent posted an offensive picture. And? Are you not adult enough to ignore it? Who cares? It's not like he punched someone. "It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too." Except it wasn't said in a bar, it was published online. There are a lot of things people say to each other online that they wouldn't say in a bar in case it caused a fight. That is not the standard for free speech. "Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression." Yes, yes it is, because where you draw the line of nasty is entirely subjective. Just look at all the people that think any expression of atheism, or talk of historical record as it applies to religion is insulting. You would have these off limits as well. "I, too, believe in protecting free speech" You really don't, otherwise you wouldn't support this arrest, however abhorrent or useless you thought the opinions expressed in it were.
- viggity 14y ago
  Go fuck yourself, you're wrong. Offensive speech is the kind that isbin most need of protection :)
  - sambeau 14y ago
    Arf! A proper point properly made.