advertisement


Dieudonné and the new fascists (part II)

Sumo said:
You're mistaken there. In Europe most countries have that freedom in the constitution too.
Click to expand...

Except that almost all of them have laws forbidding 'holocaust denial', which contradicts whatever pious intentions their constitutions state regarding freedom of speech.

Sumo said:
Btw, re the views of Mencken, in 1930 he wrote: "The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of." And that was only the start of his rant. (A great mind, right? - Imho not!) He seems to have loosened up about this later, but he was not positive about democracy either. It is ironic that you quoted him, though the quote was unobjectionable of course.
Click to expand...

Oh well, no-one's perfect.
 
Of course you know the US violate constitutional rights on an untold scale for the sake of national security.

Joe Hutch said:
Except that almost all of them have laws forbidding 'holocaust denial', which contradicts whatever pious intentions their constitutions state regarding freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
I agree it's a strange law and I doubt that works. It was much debated, for the reason you mention of course.
Another major objection is that it has an unfortunate PR effect, especially on morons, as we can see here too.
It is also annoying to contribute to that PR effect by discussing it. Should call it quits here. Better late than never.
 
Mescalito said:
However, should he be prevented from spouting his vile, odious & hate filled crap? No, he should not.

If he goes beyond what the law allows, prosecute his ass & jail the bugger if possible.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point. The law doesn't allow his "vile, odious & hate filled crap". So your first passage should more correctly end "yes, he should". It's what you yourself advocate, unless you're suggesting prosecuting/jailing his ass are not forms of prevention.
 
I have no problems with this outcome, but some people may not agree and argue that the accused have committed no crime.

Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison and John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, was jailed for eight weeks.

Their messages were sent last July after Ms Criado-Perez led a campaign using social media for a female figure to appear on a Bank of England note.

The court heard that one tweet from Sorley started with an expletive and continued: "Die you worthless piece of crap." Ms Criado-Perez was also told to "go kill yourself".

In a separate set of abusive messages, Nimmo told Ms Criado-Perez to "shut up" and made references to rape followed by "I will find you (smiley face)".
Click to expand...
 
For those who tolerate, agree, or would even extend the restriction on free speech - why?
 
I refer the honourable gentleman to restrictions on the right to shout "fire" in a theatre mentioned up thread (also cont. on page 94).
 
TheDecameron said:
Bubette, in order to show you're truly committed to living as a woman perhaps you could start doing some dusting and post evidence prior to going ahead with the final irrevocable step? Just images of previously poorly cleaned areas such as racks and so forth, none of yourself in role. That sort of content is better posted on other sites- I have an unfortunate mental picture of you resembling Rosemary West.
Click to expand...

Either a new cleaning lady, or a sex-change.
 
Still said:
I refer the honourable gentleman to restrictions on the right to shout "fire" in a theatre mentioned up thread (also cont. on page 94).
Click to expand...
To be pedantic there is no restriction on shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, but you cannot depend on your free speech right as a defence if damage results.

FWIW I think the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law constrained our freedom of speech.

Paul
 
Cav said:
Sorry, I thought my point would be clear but just for you - any restriction on free speech. OK?
Click to expand...

Given that 98.4% of your posts on this forum are whiny whingy thread-craps bleating that people shouldn't comment on ongoing court cases etc I'd have thought your views on free-speech needed no additional clarification.
 
Paul R said:
To be pedantic there is no restriction on shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, but you cannot depend on your free speech right as a defence if damage results.

FWIW I think the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law constrained our freedom of speech.

Paul
Click to expand...

I was aware of the former, but not the latter.
Free speech in the UK has taken a massive battering in the last few decades.
 
Tony L said:
Given that 98.4% of your posts on this forum are whiny whingy thread-craps bleating that people shouldn't comment on ongoing court cases etc I'd have thought your views on free-speech needed no additional clarification.
Click to expand...

Well free speech is what you say it is here, which I accept. Not sure what the puerile abuse is about but that is what free speech is, no?
 
Yesterday there were a lot of talking about anti-Semitism in Europe in the Israeli broadcasts.

France, Belgium, Sweden are leading in anti-Semitic events. In England increase of 50% in anti-Semitism (maybe not all Brits are great liberals?).
There is a growing anti-Semitism in Turkey and many Jewish people want to leave this country too.
30% of the European Jewish wish to leave Europe because of Anti-Semitism, 50% don’t use Jewish symbols like "Magen David" or “Kipa” on their heads while on streets. 80% of those who suffer of anti-Semitic violence don’t complain to local police because local police do nothing.

There was also a debate if there is a difference between anti-Semitism and “anti-Israeli”. In a comparison of what is going on in Iran or in Syria for example, it is clear that Europe has a “special” finger that points toward Israel.

And it is all under freedom of speech of anybody comedians included – hate to Jews and hate to Israel.

Arye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top