6 ms·

"Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals. They are undermining the va

"Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals. They are undermining the values we hold dear, and corrupting the youth with their hateful message! Obviously, we need to place certain limits on free speech" What? Of course you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't misuse it!

smitherfield 11y ago
There is no right to free speech in the UK. You can go to prison for a racist tweet, for example, which is a whole lot less reasonable than putting a great deal of scrutiny on people who go on the TV news and talk about how they want to become terrorists (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis-supporter_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis... http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-walsh-supporters-of-terror.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-wal... ). Which is absolutely ridiculous and would never be tolerated in the US, the only country in which there's anything approaching an absolute right to free speech.
- Coding_Cat 11y ago
  Still, the quote from David Cameron almost suggest an extra-legal approach, and definitely insinuates increased spying on it's own citizens. The whole "terrorists propaganda" issue could be dealt with by introducing new laws, as things should go in a rule-of-law, perhaps one which classifies certain groups as hate-groups and bans the promotion of their ideals, I believe similar laws exist in many places in Europe.
- arethuza 11y ago
  You are correct - but I also vividly remember a message playing as I went through security in a US airport a couple of years ago saying that things like inappropriate jokes etc. could result in arrest.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    Well, an arrest is not the same as being convicted of a crime. There's no way for airport security to know whether you were joking or mentally unstable and dangerous, and it's reasonable that they detain you whilst they find out.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      Anyone could be a psychopath too, and highly dangerous. I guess they should detain everyone just in case, and grill them for hours. Of course, it's not like a psychopath could lie convincingly so that he could proceed with his evil plans, so I guess they can't actually let anyone in, ever.
      - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
        Nice strawman. Limiting your free speech by detaining you if you joke about bombs when talking to airport security is completely reasonable. It's very well defined and limited, and giving up this right causes you no harm physically or mentally. Also, there's no slippery slope involved. I dislike airport security as well, but some of the things they do are reasonable.
        sillygoose 11y ago
        What strawman? You supported the idea of detaining people on any suspicion. I suggested that there's no point in going down that road because anyone could be a threat anywhere. Sure, sometimes someone is suspicious because he's actually up to no good. But that doesn't mean detaining people on various subjective suspicions is a good idea.
        semi-extrinsic 11y ago
        Come now. If someone says "I have a bomb in my luggage" (as a joke), that's hardly "on any suspicion". The person has spoken what amounts to a possibly serious, realistic threat, and the security person has literally no other means of determining whether it was a joke or not.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  > There is no right to free speech in the UK. Yes, and that's.. what? Not acceptable, but not resisted anyway? Do you think "putting scrutiny"[1] on people who support terrorism is fine, but imprisoning people for a tweet is not? [1] Violating the right to free speech What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists? Do you think there are enough people in the UK to find that many people deranged in that particular way, or do you think some of them might be paid to act like it? Free speech is limited in the US too, whenever it gets too inconvenient to the ruling class: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/14-specific-allegations-of-nypd-brutality-during-occupy-wall-street/260295/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/14-speci...
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists? One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. The IRA, for example, was well funded through donations to give one of the most recent examples. The ANC is another one that springs to mind: "'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land" - Margaret Thatcher, 1987 Going back a bit further, many European countries actively tried stopping recruitment to the International Brigades fighting against Franco in the Spanish civil war, up to and including imprisoning people. Irgun is another example: A zionist military organization with several massacres to its name that was considered a terrorist organization by Britain at the time, as well as by some important contemporary Jewish organizations. Irgun is one of the direct predecessors to the Israeli Likud party, that has been part of most Israeli governments since th late 70's. There's a long range of causes that various subsets of Western civil society have given support to that have been considered terrorist by contemporary authorities. Some of them are still seen as terrorists in retrospect, some of them are seen as heroes and freedom fighters. Some are seen as either/both depending on who you ask.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      You're right. But to be more accurate, who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organization that beheads innocent bystanders because they're infidels or something? Usually, a "terrorist" is anyone who poses a threat to the established ruling elites somewhere. But we're told we need to be very afraid of some desert loonies somewhere in Hellholeistan. Naturally then, we need governments to protect us by snooping in on everything we do anywhere. For safety.
- pjc50 11y ago
  There is the ECHR Article 1 right to free speech. It has qualifications on it which are different from the US ones, but in both countries it's not absolute. It's not correct to say there is no right to free speech.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Rights don't work in degrees though. For example, no one has a sort of right to control his own property as he sees fit. It's also worth noting that governments don't give us our rights - they're inherent in our nature as human beings. When a government declares that its citizens have the right to free speech, they mean it with the caveat of "as long as they're not a threat to our continued rule". The fact that's exactly how they operate can be seen throughout history.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Do you have a cite for someone going to prison for "a racist tweet"? Because I can point to US citizens spending time in prison for similar online messages. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/tech/social-media/facebook-jailed-teen http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/tech/social-media/facebook... other arrests: http://www.wired.com/2007/12/xbox-live-trash/ http://www.wired.com/2007/12/xbox-live-trash/ http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/02/16/xbox-live-threats-lead-arrest-stop-potential-school-shooting#.VVj4_HXd-Rt http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/02/16/xbox-live-threats-lea...
rorykoehler 11y ago
Who decides what misuse is?
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Why that would be the people to whose power your speech might be a threat in some way, of course. Coincidentally, that's exactly when you need to be punished for "misusing" your free speech.

smitherfield 11y ago

There is no right to free speech in the UK. You can go to prison for a racist tweet, for example, which is a whole lot less reasonable than putting a great deal of scrutiny on people who go on the TV news and talk about how they want to become terrorists (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis-supporter_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis... http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-walsh-supporters-of-terror.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-wal... ). Which is absolutely ridiculous and would never be tolerated in the US, the only country in which there's anything approaching an absolute right to free speech.

Coding_Cat 11y ago
Still, the quote from David Cameron almost suggest an extra-legal approach, and definitely insinuates increased spying on it's own citizens. The whole "terrorists propaganda" issue could be dealt with by introducing new laws, as things should go in a rule-of-law, perhaps one which classifies certain groups as hate-groups and bans the promotion of their ideals, I believe similar laws exist in many places in Europe.
arethuza 11y ago
You are correct - but I also vividly remember a message playing as I went through security in a US airport a couple of years ago saying that things like inappropriate jokes etc. could result in arrest.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  Well, an arrest is not the same as being convicted of a crime. There's no way for airport security to know whether you were joking or mentally unstable and dangerous, and it's reasonable that they detain you whilst they find out.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Anyone could be a psychopath too, and highly dangerous. I guess they should detain everyone just in case, and grill them for hours. Of course, it's not like a psychopath could lie convincingly so that he could proceed with his evil plans, so I guess they can't actually let anyone in, ever.
    - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
      Nice strawman. Limiting your free speech by detaining you if you joke about bombs when talking to airport security is completely reasonable. It's very well defined and limited, and giving up this right causes you no harm physically or mentally. Also, there's no slippery slope involved. I dislike airport security as well, but some of the things they do are reasonable.
      - sillygoose 11y ago
        What strawman? You supported the idea of detaining people on any suspicion. I suggested that there's no point in going down that road because anyone could be a threat anywhere. Sure, sometimes someone is suspicious because he's actually up to no good. But that doesn't mean detaining people on various subjective suspicions is a good idea.
        semi-extrinsic 11y ago
        Come now. If someone says "I have a bomb in my luggage" (as a joke), that's hardly "on any suspicion". The person has spoken what amounts to a possibly serious, realistic threat, and the security person has literally no other means of determining whether it was a joke or not.
sillygoose 11y ago
> There is no right to free speech in the UK. Yes, and that's.. what? Not acceptable, but not resisted anyway? Do you think "putting scrutiny"[1] on people who support terrorism is fine, but imprisoning people for a tweet is not? [1] Violating the right to free speech What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists? Do you think there are enough people in the UK to find that many people deranged in that particular way, or do you think some of them might be paid to act like it? Free speech is limited in the US too, whenever it gets too inconvenient to the ruling class: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/14-specific-allegations-of-nypd-brutality-during-occupy-wall-street/260295/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/14-speci...
- vidarh 11y ago
  > What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists? One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. The IRA, for example, was well funded through donations to give one of the most recent examples. The ANC is another one that springs to mind: "'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land" - Margaret Thatcher, 1987 Going back a bit further, many European countries actively tried stopping recruitment to the International Brigades fighting against Franco in the Spanish civil war, up to and including imprisoning people. Irgun is another example: A zionist military organization with several massacres to its name that was considered a terrorist organization by Britain at the time, as well as by some important contemporary Jewish organizations. Irgun is one of the direct predecessors to the Israeli Likud party, that has been part of most Israeli governments since th late 70's. There's a long range of causes that various subsets of Western civil society have given support to that have been considered terrorist by contemporary authorities. Some of them are still seen as terrorists in retrospect, some of them are seen as heroes and freedom fighters. Some are seen as either/both depending on who you ask.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    You're right. But to be more accurate, who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organization that beheads innocent bystanders because they're infidels or something? Usually, a "terrorist" is anyone who poses a threat to the established ruling elites somewhere. But we're told we need to be very afraid of some desert loonies somewhere in Hellholeistan. Naturally then, we need governments to protect us by snooping in on everything we do anywhere. For safety.
pjc50 11y ago
There is the ECHR Article 1 right to free speech. It has qualifications on it which are different from the US ones, but in both countries it's not absolute. It's not correct to say there is no right to free speech.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Rights don't work in degrees though. For example, no one has a sort of right to control his own property as he sees fit. It's also worth noting that governments don't give us our rights - they're inherent in our nature as human beings. When a government declares that its citizens have the right to free speech, they mean it with the caveat of "as long as they're not a threat to our continued rule". The fact that's exactly how they operate can be seen throughout history.
DanBC 11y ago
Do you have a cite for someone going to prison for "a racist tweet"? Because I can point to US citizens spending time in prison for similar online messages. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/tech/social-media/facebook-jailed-teen http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/tech/social-media/facebook... other arrests: http://www.wired.com/2007/12/xbox-live-trash/ http://www.wired.com/2007/12/xbox-live-trash/ http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/02/16/xbox-live-threats-lead-arrest-stop-potential-school-shooting#.VVj4_HXd-Rt http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/02/16/xbox-live-threats-lea...

rorykoehler 11y ago

Who decides what misuse is?

sillygoose 11y ago
Why that would be the people to whose power your speech might be a threat in some way, of course. Coincidentally, that's exactly when you need to be punished for "misusing" your free speech.