# Great Britain fines free speech during Olympics



## TheGreatGatsby

Apparently a Lithuanian fan said something that the Great Nazi Britain didn't like and he has $4K less (plus legal fees).

News from The Associated Press


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Yea.



> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
Click to expand...


Good.  

Fuck him.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
Click to expand...


Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K. 

He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account. 

The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.


----------



## Swagger

How intolerant and culturally unaware of us. Surely LOCOG know that a strong sense of white nationalism prevails across most of Eastern Europe, and that there's a deep cultural suspicion of non-whites and Jews?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Swagger said:


> How intolerant and culturally unaware of us. Surely LOCOG know that a strong sense of white nationalism prevails across most of Eastern Europe, and that there's a deep cultural suspicion of non-whites and Jews?



I sorta doubt he was on that higher plane, but who knows. I do know that a government that fines speech seeks to intimidate and muzzle a person. And is he or the nation better off for it? Certainly the country gets to put an individual in his place and be a money machine feasting off the people when that occurs (I'm so glad that that money could go to unnamed bureaucrats and not towards his daughter's braces or something). Congrats GB on being oppressive like the Muslim nations you're warring against.


----------



## jillian

didn't you already do a thread on this... 

good for britain


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

jillian said:


> didn't you already do a thread on this...
> 
> good for britain



Nope...I mentioned another GB case like this in another thread. Likely, what you're thinking. And is it really good for GB? Are you going to pay me for the time you called me a "twit?" $4K please. Are you going to pay it or be a hypocrite?


----------



## Swagger

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How intolerant and culturally unaware of us. Surely LOCOG know that a strong sense of white nationalism prevails across most of Eastern Europe, and that there's a deep cultural suspicion of non-whites and Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sorta doubt he was on that higher plane, but who knows. I do know that a government that fines speech seeks to intimidate and muzzle a person. And is he or the nation better off for it? Certainly the country gets to put an individual in his place and be a money machine feasting off the people when that occurs (I'm so glad that that money could go to unnamed bureaucrats and not towards his daughter's braces or something). Congrats GB on being oppressive like the Muslim nations you're warring against.
Click to expand...


I've said this before and I'll say it again. The whole politically correct, _I'm offended on behalf of someone I believe should be offended_ circus has, and always will be, a feeding frenzy set aside exclusively for predatory lawyers and litigators to gorge upon. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Valerie

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan *made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria* on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
Click to expand...





Yeah, another dramatic dope disillusioned by the notion that freedom means freedom from consequences for being an asshole in public...  I'm sure this guy imagines every one of his meaningful gestures and precious utterances as certified artistic gold which deserve some sort of Government protection.  Aww


----------



## jillian

TheGreatGatsby said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't you already do a thread on this...
> 
> good for britain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...I mentioned another GB case like this in another thread. Likely, what you're thinking. And is it really good for GB? Are you going to pay me for the time you called me a "twit?" $4K please. Are you going to pay it or be a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


you're still a twit... and if you disrupted an olympic ceremony by publicly saluting nazi's and making a general spectacle of yourself, you'd be an even bigger twit.

people here get arrested for drunk and disorderly. i'd get over it if i were you.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Valerie said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, another dramatic dope disillusioned by the notion that freedom means freedom from consequences for being an asshole in public...  I'm sure this guy imagines every one of his meaningful gestures and precious utterances as certified artistic gold which deserve some sort of Government protection.  Aww
Click to expand...


Who says I don't believe in consequences? He was at a private event. He was likely kicked out of the game with no refund on the ticket he purchased as per the terms and conditions. Who says, he didn't have friends or family members ashamed of his behavior. I'm not of the "delusion" that there are never consequences. But I'm not going to pretend that it's a good idea for the government to juror and arbitrator of random speech. That's nonsense and society is not served by it. And it is a detriment when government becomes heartless and predatorial.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

jillian said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't you already do a thread on this...
> 
> good for britain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...I mentioned another GB case like this in another thread. Likely, what you're thinking. And is it really good for GB? Are you going to pay me for the time you called me a "twit?" $4K please. Are you going to pay it or be a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're still a twit... and if you disrupted an olympic ceremony by publicly saluting nazi's and making a general spectacle of yourself, you'd be an even bigger twit.
> 
> people here get arrested for drunk and disorderly. i'd get over it if i were you.
Click to expand...


Small point__ it was a basketball game, not the opening ceremony.

And the article mentions that he made Nazi hand gestures, whatever that means. But specifically, I believe he was fined $4K for his "racist" comment; in other words a hurtful comment. You are making hurtful comments. Are you going to pay me $4K now or are you going to be a hypocrite?


----------



## California Girl

jillian said:


> didn't you already do a thread on this...
> 
> good for britain



Why do you hate free speech?


----------



## Valerie

TheGreatGatsby said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...I mentioned another GB case like this in another thread. Likely, what you're thinking. And is it really good for GB? Are you going to pay me for the time you called me a "twit?" $4K please. Are you going to pay it or be a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're still a twit... and if you disrupted an olympic ceremony by publicly saluting nazi's and making a general spectacle of yourself, you'd be an even bigger twit.
> 
> people here get arrested for drunk and disorderly. i'd get over it if i were you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Small point__ it was a basketball game, not the opening ceremony.
> 
> And the article mentions that he made Nazi hand gestures, whatever that means. But specifically, I believe he was fined $4K for his "racist" comment; in other words a hurtful comment. You are making hurtful comments. Are you going to pay me $4K now or are you going to be a hypocrite?
Click to expand...




Oh gee, I didn't realize you answered to disillusioned dramatic dope, but if the shoe fits wear it.  I was talking about the loser who acted like an asshole at the Olympics.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Valerie said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're still a twit... and if you disrupted an olympic ceremony by publicly saluting nazi's and making a general spectacle of yourself, you'd be an even bigger twit.
> 
> people here get arrested for drunk and disorderly. i'd get over it if i were you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small point__ it was a basketball game, not the opening ceremony.
> 
> And the article mentions that he made Nazi hand gestures, whatever that means. But specifically, I believe he was fined $4K for his "racist" comment; in other words a hurtful comment. You are making hurtful comments. Are you going to pay me $4K now or are you going to be a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh gee, I didn't realize you answered to disillusioned dramatic dope, but if the shoe fits wear it.  I was talking about the loser who acted like an asshole at the Olympics.
Click to expand...


Are you going to give me $4K for that name you called me? Or are you going to be a hypocrite too?


----------



## Valerie

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small point__ it was a basketball game, not the opening ceremony.
> 
> And the article mentions that he made Nazi hand gestures, whatever that means. But specifically, I believe he was fined $4K for his "racist" comment; in other words a hurtful comment. You are making hurtful comments. Are you going to pay me $4K now or are you going to be a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gee, I didn't realize you answered to disillusioned dramatic dope, but if the shoe fits wear it.  I was talking about the loser who acted like an asshole at the Olympics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to give me $4K for that name you called me? Or are you going to be a hypocrite too?
Click to expand...




_
Disillusioned dope_, it is!  lol


----------



## California Girl

TheGreatGatsby said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...I mentioned another GB case like this in another thread. Likely, what you're thinking. And is it really good for GB? Are you going to pay me for the time you called me a "twit?" $4K please. Are you going to pay it or be a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're still a twit... and if you disrupted an olympic ceremony by publicly saluting nazi's and making a general spectacle of yourself, you'd be an even bigger twit.
> 
> people here get arrested for drunk and disorderly. i'd get over it if i were you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Small point__ it was a basketball game, not the opening ceremony.
> 
> And the article mentions that he made Nazi hand gestures, whatever that means. But specifically, I believe he was fined $4K for his "racist" comment; in other words a hurtful comment. You are making hurtful comments. Are you going to pay me $4K now or are you going to be a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


Facts and Jillian parted company some time ago.


----------



## Valerie

California Girl said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're still a twit... and if you disrupted an olympic ceremony by publicly saluting nazi's and making a general spectacle of yourself, you'd be an even bigger twit.
> 
> people here get arrested for drunk and disorderly. i'd get over it if i were you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small point__ it was a basketball game, not the opening ceremony.
> 
> And the article mentions that he made Nazi hand gestures, whatever that means. But specifically, I believe he was fined $4K for his "racist" comment; in other words a hurtful comment. You are making hurtful comments. Are you going to pay me $4K now or are you going to be a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts and Jillian parted company some time ago.
Click to expand...





   The FACT remains, the man was rightfully fined and removed from the venue.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Valerie said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gee, I didn't realize you answered to disillusioned dramatic dope, but if the shoe fits wear it.  I was talking about the loser who acted like an asshole at the Olympics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to give me $4K for that name you called me? Or are you going to be a hypocrite too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Disillusioned dope_, it is!  lol
Click to expand...


So you can't answer me directly? You can only insult? Sorry I have no interest in childish antics. Consider this a warning. If you don't want to engage in serious dialogue then you shall be ignored like so many trolls before you.

So what is it? You going to give me $4k for your hurtful speech or are you going to admit it's wrong to fine free speech? If it's option c, then I'm going to need actual rationale that goes beyond a character attack of I'm "disillusioned." If you think that then shut the fuck up and don't ever talk to me.


----------



## Valerie

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to give me $4K for that name you called me? Or are you going to be a hypocrite too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Disillusioned dope_, it is!  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't answer me directly? You can only insult? Sorry I have no interest in childish antics. Consider this a warning. If you don't want to engage in serious dialogue then you shall be ignored like so many trolls before you.
> 
> So what is it? You going to give me $4k for your hurtful speech or are you going to admit it's wrong to fine free speech? If it's option c, then I'm going to need actual rationale that goes beyond a character attack of I'm "disillusioned." If you think that then shut the fuck up and don't ever talk to me.
Click to expand...





  Oooh I almost forgot the dramatic part...  





_Disillusioned dramatic dope_ it is!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Valerie said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Disillusioned dope_, it is!  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't answer me directly? You can only insult? Sorry I have no interest in childish antics. Consider this a warning. If you don't want to engage in serious dialogue then you shall be ignored like so many trolls before you.
> 
> So what is it? You going to give me $4k for your hurtful speech or are you going to admit it's wrong to fine free speech? If it's option c, then I'm going to need actual rationale that goes beyond a character attack of I'm "disillusioned." If you think that then shut the fuck up and don't ever talk to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh I almost forgot the dramatic part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Disillusioned dramatic dope_ it is!
Click to expand...


Whatever. I don't care if you call me a name as long as you make some attempt to have reasoned dialogue. You are refusing to do that in true troll fashion and you are now ignored. I don't have time for people like you. I'm a grown up.


----------



## California Girl

Valerie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small point__ it was a basketball game, not the opening ceremony.
> 
> And the article mentions that he made Nazi hand gestures, whatever that means. But specifically, I believe he was fined $4K for his "racist" comment; in other words a hurtful comment. You are making hurtful comments. Are you going to pay me $4K now or are you going to be a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and Jillian parted company some time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT remains, the man was rightfully fined and removed from the venue.
Click to expand...


I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how Jillian can't tell the difference between an Olympic Opening Ceremony and a Basketball Game. It's a competency related issue. I'm not that into sports, but I'm pretty confident I could tell the difference.


----------



## Valerie

> ...
> 
> When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, hate speech that incites violence -- it becomes apparent that even a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.Therefore, much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.
> 
> Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself recognises the need for some limits on free expression. It provides, however, that limits can only be imposed in order to achieve certain specified aims, and only insofar as is necessary to achieve those aims. The Convention lists several permitted reasons for limiting free speech, including national security, the protection of health or morals, and protection of peoples' rights and reputations.
> 
> ...




Free speech - Law and Government


----------



## Valerie

California Girl said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and Jillian parted company some time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT remains, the man was rightfully fined and removed from the venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how Jillian can't tell the difference between an Olympic Opening Ceremony and a Basketball Game. *It's a competency related* issue. I'm not that into sports, but I'm pretty confident I could tell the difference.
Click to expand...




  Oh really?  You'd think a competent mind would immediately see that such a factoid would be totally beside the point...


----------



## California Girl

Valerie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT remains, the man was rightfully fined and removed from the venue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how Jillian can't tell the difference between an Olympic Opening Ceremony and a Basketball Game. *It's a competency related* issue. I'm not that into sports, but I'm pretty confident I could tell the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  You'd think a competent mind would immediately see that such a factoid would be totally beside the point...
Click to expand...


Beside the point? She didn't even know where it took place, yet alone manage a rational consideration of the issue. The nazi salute offends me, along with pretty much every decent being on the planet... does that mean we should shut them up? Personally, I'm not convinced. I'm not saying the fine etc was wrong... or right... I haven't decided what I think about it... but that's because I tend to think about an issue logically and with consideration rather than emotion.


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
Click to expand...


Whatever.  Fuck him.  Anyone that makes ape noises at blacks and gives nazi salutes is going to get no sympathy from me.


----------



## California Girl

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever.  Fuck him.  Anyone that makes ape noises at blacks and gives nazi salutes is going to get no sympathy from me.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree... it's sickening... but there is a large part of me that says I'd rather these people were out in the open than hiding... they're far more dangerous when they're hiding.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever.  Fuck him.  Anyone that makes ape noises at blacks and gives nazi salutes is going to get no sympathy from me.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous. You can't fine public discourse. By your fucked up logic, if I called you a monkey or said that the Nazis did some things right then you could fine me $4K. You're a loser if you believe that shit.


----------



## Valerie

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  Fuck him.  Anyone that makes ape noises at blacks and gives nazi salutes is going to get no sympathy from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. You can't fine public discourse. By your fucked up logic, if I called you a monkey or said that the Nazis did some things right then you could fine me $4K. *You're a loser if you believe that shit.*
Click to expand...





Aww looky who's resorting to insults.  tsk tsk tsk!


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
Click to expand...


Actually, let me amplify my response.  Instead of just "Fuck him" let me add "Fuck you too".  He made monkey noises.  He made Nazi salutes.  He pleaded guilty.  And you're trying to find an excuse for him by saying he may have been using an English colloquialism and all the English people around him unfortunately misunderstood????

Your views on free speech are clearly very different to mine.  I will defend to my dying breath any person's right to express disagreement on any subject whatsoever, including holding forth on why black people are inferior to whites, or whites are inferior to blacks, or whatever.

But making ape noises?  Nazi salutes?  Nah. Crosses a line.  It's not even speech for chrissakes, much less free speech.

If you want to include that kind of thing under your "Free Speech" banner then you're trivializing what it really stands for, and thereby doing much more damage to the idea of free speech than I am.


----------



## Swagger

Hang on a second. How do we know he wasn't imitating a Roman salute? Besides, what's a "Nazi gesture"? The article's very vague on this.


----------



## tigerbob

Swagger said:


> Hang on a second. How do we know he wasn't imitating a Roman salute? Besides, what's a "Nazi gesture"? The article's very vague on this.



Interestingly enough, how do we know he wasn't making the old fashioned 'Olympic salute', which if I recall correctly was often mistaken for the nazi salute (difference I believe is that the olympic salute is to the side, the nazi one is in front)/

I may be wrong on that, but that's my recollection.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, let me amplify my response.  Instead of just "Fuck him" let me add "Fuck you too".  He made monkey noises.  He made Nazi salutes.  He pleaded guilty.  And you're trying to find an excuse for him by saying he may have been using an English colloquialism and all the English people around him unfortunately misunderstood????
> 
> Your views on free speech are clearly very different to mine.  I will defend to my dying breath any person's right to express disagreement on any subject whatsoever, including holding forth on why black people are inferior to whites, or whites are inferior to blacks, or whatever.
> 
> But making ape noises?  Nazi salutes?  Nah. Crosses a line.  It's not even speech for chrissakes, much less free speech.
> 
> If you want to include that kind of thing under your "Free Speech" banner then you're trivializing what it really stands for, and thereby doing much more damage to the idea of free speech than I am.
Click to expand...


--I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.

--Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.

--You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.

--My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.

--And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.


----------



## Swagger

Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.

This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly? 

Care to comment, Jil & Val?


----------



## freedombecki

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Apparently a Lithuanian fan said something that the Great Nazi Britain didn't like and he has $4K less (plus legal fees).
> 
> News from The Associated Press


----------



## manifold

California Girl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't you already do a thread on this...
> 
> good for britain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate free speech?
Click to expand...


Do you even have to ask?


----------



## manifold

Thankfully this wouldn't happen here in the US where speech is still mostly free.

If I were a Brit I'd feel much shame about this.


----------



## freedombecki

Swagger said:


> Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.
> 
> This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly?
> 
> Care to comment, Jil & Val?


I read the article. There were not enough details given about exactly what she was saying to make any kind of a reader comment. Neo-Nazi could be construed as bad by some if they are adamant holocaust deniers and call sufficient attention to their agendas. It would be inappropriate to use an athlete at the Olympics to proffer such causes, imho, but still, the article was vague at its worst and noncommittal at its best.


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, let me amplify my response.  Instead of just "Fuck him" let me add "Fuck you too".  He made monkey noises.  He made Nazi salutes.  He pleaded guilty.  And you're trying to find an excuse for him by saying he may have been using an English colloquialism and all the English people around him unfortunately misunderstood????
> 
> Your views on free speech are clearly very different to mine.  I will defend to my dying breath any person's right to express disagreement on any subject whatsoever, including holding forth on why black people are inferior to whites, or whites are inferior to blacks, or whatever.
> 
> But making ape noises?  Nazi salutes?  Nah. Crosses a line.  It's not even speech for chrissakes, much less free speech.
> 
> If you want to include that kind of thing under your "Free Speech" banner then you're trivializing what it really stands for, and thereby doing much more damage to the idea of free speech than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.
> 
> --Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.
> 
> --You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.
> 
> --My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.
> 
> --And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.
Click to expand...


I believe I've made it perfectly clear what my position regarding free speech is.  In case you missed it, it's in the 2rd paragraph of my previous post.  We clearly have different views about the definition of the word speech.  

However, because I don't agree with you, you think I should have my right to it taken away.  That's an interesting position you've got for yourself there.  Agree with your position on the one hand....lose my right to free speech on the other.  Hmmmm, something seems odd about that.

And it's also interesting that you choose to bring up what Britain fought for in WWII.  If you could ask your grandfather whether he died to protect the rights of people to give Nazi salutes, I wonder what he would have said.  I'm pretty sure I know what mine would have said.


----------



## tigerbob

Swagger said:


> Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.
> 
> This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly?
> 
> Care to comment, Jil & Val?



I know I'm not Jill or Val, but I thought I'd comment anyway.  I understand that far right / anti semite issues are a touchy subject in Germany.  However......

If the article from the Mail is all there is to it, I find this simply a staggeringly bad decision.  She's been sent home for being in a relationship with someone who's a member of a (presumably, if it has contested elections) legal political party.

Very, very bad decision.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, let me amplify my response.  Instead of just "Fuck him" let me add "Fuck you too".  He made monkey noises.  He made Nazi salutes.  He pleaded guilty.  And you're trying to find an excuse for him by saying he may have been using an English colloquialism and all the English people around him unfortunately misunderstood????
> 
> Your views on free speech are clearly very different to mine.  I will defend to my dying breath any person's right to express disagreement on any subject whatsoever, including holding forth on why black people are inferior to whites, or whites are inferior to blacks, or whatever.
> 
> But making ape noises?  Nazi salutes?  Nah. Crosses a line.  It's not even speech for chrissakes, much less free speech.
> 
> If you want to include that kind of thing under your "Free Speech" banner then you're trivializing what it really stands for, and thereby doing much more damage to the idea of free speech than I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.
> 
> --Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.
> 
> --You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.
> 
> --My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.
> 
> --And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I've made it perfectly clear what my position regarding free speech is.  In case you missed it, it's in the 2rd paragraph of my previous post.  We clearly have different views about the definition of the word speech.
> 
> However, because I don't agree with you, you think I should have my right to it taken away.  That's an interesting position you've got for yourself there.  Agree with your position on the one hand....lose my right to free speech on the other.  Hmmmm, something seems odd about that.
> 
> And it's also interesting that you choose to bring up what Britain fought for in WWII.  If you could ask your grandfather whether he died to protect the rights of people to give Nazi salutes, I wonder what he would have said.  I'm pretty sure I know what mine would have said.
Click to expand...


No. I don't want you to lose free speech (then again in GB you really don't have free speech b/c the government can prosecute you for speech they disagree with). I'm saying that if you don't value your speech then existentially speaking, you don't deserve free speech. Nice try, of twisting it to create some form of artificial irony. And I am saying that if you are willing to rob other people of their free speech (and you are) then yes, you don't deserve your free speech. Otherwise, stop pretending that I'm the gestapo trying to take away your speech rights.

My gramps got shot dethroning the Nazis who ruled at that time. He fought for humanity. Part of that humanity includes freedom of political beliefs. He was fighting that the American ideals of freedom. He was not fighting for oppression (something the Nazis did; something you advocate at least to a certain degree).


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

freedombecki said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.
> 
> This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly?
> 
> Care to comment, Jil & Val?
> 
> 
> 
> I read the article. There were not enough details given about exactly what she was saying to make any kind of a reader comment. Neo-Nazi could be construed as bad by some if they are adamant holocaust deniers and call sufficient attention to their agendas. It would be inappropriate to use an athlete at the Olympics to proffer such causes, imho, but still, the article was vague at its worst and noncommittal at its best.
Click to expand...


But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> --I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.
> 
> --Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.
> 
> --You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.
> 
> --My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.
> 
> --And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I've made it perfectly clear what my position regarding free speech is.  In case you missed it, it's in the 2rd paragraph of my previous post.  We clearly have different views about the definition of the word speech.
> 
> However, because I don't agree with you, you think I should have my right to it taken away.  That's an interesting position you've got for yourself there.  Agree with your position on the one hand....lose my right to free speech on the other.  Hmmmm, something seems odd about that.
> 
> And it's also interesting that you choose to bring up what Britain fought for in WWII.  If you could ask your grandfather whether he died to protect the rights of people to give Nazi salutes, I wonder what he would have said.  I'm pretty sure I know what mine would have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I don't want you to lose free speech (then again in GB you really don't have free speech b/c the government can prosecute you for speech they disagree with). I'm saying that if you don't value your speech then existentially speaking, you don't deserve free speech. Nice try, of twisting it to create some form of artificial irony. And I am saying that if you are willing to rob other people of their free speech (and you are) then yes, you don't deserve your free speech. Otherwise, stop pretending that I'm the gestapo trying to take away your speech rights.
> 
> My gramps got shot dethroning the Nazis who ruled at that time. He fought for humanity. Part of that humanity includes freedom of political beliefs. He was fighting that the American ideals of freedom. He was not fighting for oppression (something the Nazis did; something you advocate at least to a certain degree).
Click to expand...


I'm not pretending you're anything.  I honestly do think there's some conflict in your position.  I'm fully aware that there's some in mine as well, and also that where black and white become grey are difficult to quantify precisely.  I have to rely on my moral compass for such judgements.  My compass is clearly different to yours, but I will defend your right to have that position.

My grandpa on my father's side was also killed in the war (tail gunner on a Lanc in 1942 over Holland).  My grandfather on my mother's side was killed in the bombing of Liverpool in, I believe, late 1941, along with my mother's 16 year old sister.  As a fire chief working the Liverpool docks, my father was nearly killed several times and saw many of his friends killed.  My Godmother Alice was a German Jew.  She left Germany when she got married in the early 1920s and came to live in London.  She lost every member of her family except an Uncle (7 people, including both parents) at Buchenwald I recall her once telling me, when I was very young - the only time she ever really spoke of it to me

Not one of them I would imagine would agree with your position on what was being fought for, inasmuch as the degree to which you believe it extends.  However, they would agree with fighting for your right to your opinion, and to express it openly.

I have tried my best to explain (on a message board, where nuances can be lost) the difference I have with your opinion.  I don't believe that monkey noises and Nazi salutes have any place in society.  Some people seem to believe that if that is my position, then my position must therefore extend further.  It doesn't.  You brought up the fact that if I didn't see it your way then I must advocate oppression.  I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way, but it would appear that your mind is made up.  Fair enough.


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.
> 
> This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly?
> 
> Care to comment, Jil & Val?
> 
> 
> 
> I read the article. There were not enough details given about exactly what she was saying to make any kind of a reader comment. Neo-Nazi could be construed as bad by some if they are adamant holocaust deniers and call sufficient attention to their agendas. It would be inappropriate to use an athlete at the Olympics to proffer such causes, imho, but still, the article was vague at its worst and noncommittal at its best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."
Click to expand...


Denial of the holocaust is a political position.  I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.


----------



## manifold

tigerbob said:


> Denial of the holocaust is a political position.  I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.



I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?


----------



## tigerbob

manifold said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial of the holocaust is a political position.  I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?
Click to expand...




I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position.  I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the article. There were not enough details given about exactly what she was saying to make any kind of a reader comment. Neo-Nazi could be construed as bad by some if they are adamant holocaust deniers and call sufficient attention to their agendas. It would be inappropriate to use an athlete at the Olympics to proffer such causes, imho, but still, the article was vague at its worst and noncommittal at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denial of the holocaust is a political position.  I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.
Click to expand...


It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.


----------



## manifold

tigerbob said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial of the holocaust is a political position.  I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position.  I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.
Click to expand...


So you don't think monkey noises could be used to make a political statement?

Tell me again who was injured by the monkey noises.  I'll wait.


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denial of the holocaust is a political position.  I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.
Click to expand...


Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's.  And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech.  I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial of the holocaust is a political position.  I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's.  And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech.  I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.
Click to expand...


It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.


----------



## tigerbob

manifold said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position.  I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think monkey noises could be used to make a political statement?
> 
> Tell me again who was injured by the monkey noises.  I'll wait.
Click to expand...


No, I don't.

As to the injury question, I have no idea.  If you mean physical injury, I haven't seen any reports of that.  If you mean emotional injury I suspect many people, in particular the people they were directed towards.  That would appear to be the desired result of the action.

I'm sure you now have a follow up question.


----------



## tigerbob

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's.  And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech.  I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


If you say so.


----------



## manifold

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's.  And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech.  I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


He'd only support prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust if they did so while giving a nazi salute and scratching their armpit like a monkey.  Because that makes all the difference don't you know.


----------



## Dr Grump

Couple to sue over 'anti-Bush T-shirt' arrest - World - www.smh.com.au

USATODAY.com - Woman bounced from Southwest flight for T-shirt


----------



## manifold

tigerbob said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position.  I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think monkey noises could be used to make a political statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't.
Click to expand...


You'd be wrong.  People did it to GWB.


----------



## Dr Grump

California Girl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't you already do a thread on this...
> 
> good for britain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate free speech?
Click to expand...


I think she hates hate speech. And if you are so into free speech, go yell 'fire' in a theatre....


----------



## tigerbob

manifold said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's.  And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech.  I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He'd only support prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust if they did so while giving a nazi salute and scratching their armpit like a monkey.  Because that makes all the difference don't you know.
Click to expand...


OK, well if that's where this is going I'll leave you both to it.  I've tried to explain the distinction I see reasonably but clearly you're not going to see it, so there's very little point in discussing it further.


----------



## del

TheGreatGatsby said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't you already do a thread on this...
> 
> good for britain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...I mentioned another GB case like this in another thread. Likely, what you're thinking. And is it really good for GB? Are you going to pay me for the time you called me a "twit?" $4K please. Are you going to pay it or be a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


we're not in great britain

keep it under your hat, jay


----------



## Dr Grump

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> --I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.
> 
> --Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.
> 
> --You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.
> 
> --My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.
> 
> --And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I've made it perfectly clear what my position regarding free speech is.  In case you missed it, it's in the 2rd paragraph of my previous post.  We clearly have different views about the definition of the word speech.
> 
> However, because I don't agree with you, you think I should have my right to it taken away.  That's an interesting position you've got for yourself there.  Agree with your position on the one hand....lose my right to free speech on the other.  Hmmmm, something seems odd about that.
> 
> And it's also interesting that you choose to bring up what Britain fought for in WWII.  If you could ask your grandfather whether he died to protect the rights of people to give Nazi salutes, I wonder what he would have said.  I'm pretty sure I know what mine would have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I don't want you to lose free speech (then again in GB you really don't have free speech b/c the government can prosecute you for speech they disagree with). I'm saying that if you don't value your speech then existentially speaking, you don't deserve free speech. Nice try, of twisting it to create some form of artificial irony. And I am saying that if you are willing to rob other people of their free speech (and you are) then yes, you don't deserve your free speech. Otherwise, stop pretending that I'm the gestapo trying to take away your speech rights.
> 
> My gramps got shot dethroning the Nazis who ruled at that time. He fought for humanity. Part of that humanity includes freedom of political beliefs. He was fighting that the American ideals of freedom. He was not fighting for oppression (something the Nazis did; something you advocate at least to a certain degree).
Click to expand...


The US doesn't have total free speech either....

Your grand dad was fighting them over there so he did have to fight them in the US. 

As I said in my last, go yell fire in a theatre

I also hear that the US is about to pass a law aimed at the Westboro loons that says you can't protest a funeral of a member of the armed services any more. Gee, does that mean Americans HATE free speech, or that there are some loons out there that will take the mindset of freedom loving folks to the nth degree and abuse what free speech is suposed to all aobut..


----------



## del

California Girl said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how Jillian can't tell the difference between an Olympic Opening Ceremony and a Basketball Game. *It's a competency related* issue. I'm not that into sports, but I'm pretty confident I could tell the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  You'd think a competent mind would immediately see that such a factoid would be totally beside the point...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beside the point? She didn't even know where it took place, yet alone manage a rational consideration of the issue. *The nazi salute offends me*, along with pretty much every decent being on the planet... does that mean we should shut them up? Personally, I'm not convinced. I'm not saying the fine etc was wrong... or right... I haven't decided what I think about it... but that's because I tend to think about an issue logically and with consideration rather than emotion.
Click to expand...


----------



## del

California Girl said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not good. You may not like what he said, but if you have a government that punishes speech then you have an oppressive government. And in fact, you don't even know exactly what he said that was supposed to have been worth $4K.
> 
> He may have just said something like, "get that monkey" off his back b/c he was fouling and all of the sudden it's considered "racism" and worthy of draining his bank account.
> 
> The man that gives away his liberties to word police, does not deserve them. You bob, do not deserve your free speech. You have happily accepted your lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  Fuck him.  Anyone that makes ape noises at blacks and gives nazi salutes is going to get no sympathy from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree... it's sickening... but there is a large part of me that says I'd rather these people were out in the open than hiding... they're far more dangerous when they're hiding.
Click to expand...


you mean like *reenactors*?


----------



## Dr Grump

California Girl said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and Jillian parted company some time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT remains, the man was rightfully fined and removed from the venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how Jillian can't tell the difference between an Olympic Opening Ceremony and a Basketball Game. It's a competency related issue. I'm not that into sports, but I'm pretty confident I could tell the difference.
Click to expand...


And you can't tell the difference between 'opening ceremony' and 'ceremony'...what was that about competency again?


----------



## manifold

tigerbob said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He'd only support prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust if they did so while giving a nazi salute and scratching their armpit like a monkey.  Because that makes all the difference don't you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, well if that's where this is going I'll leave you both to it.  I've tried to explain the distinction I see reasonably but clearly you're not going to see it, so there's very little point in discussing it further.
Click to expand...


I see it just fine.  What you consider a slight inconsistency in your position is actually an irreconcilable contradiction.  You either defend free speech from government infringement, or you don't.  You've fooled yourself into believing that it's ok to defend some speech from government infringement but not other speech.  According to you, this same guy could go to an event with Israeli athletes and start shouting that the holocaust was a hoax and that would be protected speech, but making monkey noises is worthy of criminal prosecution.


----------



## Dr Grump

manifold said:


> [
> 
> You either defend free speech from government infringement, or you don't.



Nope, there are caveats. And that Lithuanian loser just found out about one of them....


----------



## manifold

Dr Grump said:


> I also hear that the US is about to pass a law aimed at the Westboro loons that says you can't protest a funeral of a member of the armed services any more. Gee, does that mean Americans HATE free speech, or that there are some loons out there that will take the mindset of freedom loving folks to the nth degree and abuse what free speech is suposed to all aobut..



It means free speech took another one on the chin.


----------



## tigerbob

manifold said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd only support prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust if they did so while giving a nazi salute and scratching their armpit like a monkey.  Because that makes all the difference don't you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, well if that's where this is going I'll leave you both to it.  I've tried to explain the distinction I see reasonably but clearly you're not going to see it, so there's very little point in discussing it further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it just fine.  What you consider a slight inconsistency in your position is actually an irreconcilable contradiction.  You either defend free speech from government infringement, or you don't.  You've fooled yourself into believing that it's ok to defend some speech from government infringement but not other speech.  According to you, this same guy could go to an event with Israeli athletes and start shouting that the holocaust was a hoax and that would be protected speech, but making monkey noises is worthy of criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...


No, I'm prepared to admit that that's a very interesting parallel and one that I would need to consider very carefully.


----------



## Dr Grump

manifold said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also hear that the US is about to pass a law aimed at the Westboro loons that says you can't protest a funeral of a member of the armed services any more. Gee, does that mean Americans HATE free speech, or that there are some loons out there that will take the mindset of freedom loving folks to the nth degree and abuse what free speech is suposed to all aobut..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means free speech took another one on the chin.
Click to expand...


Nope, it means some loser got his just desserts...


----------



## Valerie

Dr Grump said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also hear that the US is about to pass a law aimed at the Westboro loons that says you can't protest a funeral of a member of the armed services any more. Gee, does that mean Americans HATE free speech, or that there are some loons out there that will take the mindset of freedom loving folks to the nth degree and abuse what free speech is suposed to all aobut..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means free speech took another one on the chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it means *some loser got his just desserts*...
Click to expand...




Yep.



BTW I once had an argument with a friend about the correct usage of just desserts vs just deserts, as I had always assumed it meant how one got justice at the end...at the end, as in dessert, after dinner...with two esses lol But as it turned out I was wrong as I realized it meant just deserts, meaning those in the right had deserted all sympathy for him...  



He got his just deserts.


----------



## jillian

manifold said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also hear that the US is about to pass a law aimed at the Westboro loons that says you can't protest a funeral of a member of the armed services any more. Gee, does that mean Americans HATE free speech, or that there are some loons out there that will take the mindset of freedom loving folks to the nth degree and abuse what free speech is suposed to all aobut..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means free speech took another one on the chin.
Click to expand...


you know, the case law, even in this country, doesn't give an absolute right to "free speech". for example... defamation... or commercial speech... or any other number of circumstances.

most people use their common sense in deciding what should be controlled.

and there are contexts which by their nature, permit limitations to free speech... like the olympics.... or when you're a teacher... or when you write things about your employer on Facebook.


----------



## manifold

jillian said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also hear that the US is about to pass a law aimed at the Westboro loons that says you can't protest a funeral of a member of the armed services any more. Gee, does that mean Americans HATE free speech, or that there are some loons out there that will take the mindset of freedom loving folks to the nth degree and abuse what free speech is suposed to all aobut..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means free speech took another one on the chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know, the case law, even in this country, doesn't give an absolute right to "free speech". for example... defamation... or commercial speech... or any other number of circumstances.
> 
> most people use their common sense in deciding what should be controlled.
> 
> and there are contexts which by their nature, permit limitations to free speech... like the olympics.... or when you're a teacher... or when you write things about your employer on Facebook.
Click to expand...


Thanks for soundly refuting a point I never made.

Damn, some of you folks are really awesome at that.


----------



## Noomi

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
Click to expand...


Behavior like that should NEVER be acceptable.


----------



## manifold

Noomi said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behavior like that should NEVER be acceptable.
Click to expand...


That doesn't mean it should be prosecuted.


----------



## Swagger

Didn't the American Pledge of Allegiance include a Nazi-like salute back in 'the day'?


----------



## Swagger

Oh, and by the way. For those of you who seem to believe that America holds some kind of free speech highground over the rest of the world, think again. These children expressed opinions held by many, but were removed from their school for holding such views. Even though many people of colour make disparaging, yet valid, observations about other races. Seems to me that whites are, for whatever reason, held to a much, much higher standard.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAR2h5aSQO4"]Teens Forced Out of Gainsville High School for Saying What So Many Think:[/ame]


----------



## Ravi

London is hosting the Olympics. Great Britain is paying for security. Therefore they have every right to enforce sanctions against bad behavior.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> London is hosting the Olympics. Great Britain is paying for security. Therefore they have every right to enforce sanctions against bad behavior.



I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events.  I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> London is hosting the Olympics. Great Britain is paying for security. Therefore they have every right to enforce sanctions against bad behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events.  I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.
Click to expand...

Why? It cost them money to deal with him.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> London is hosting the Olympics. Great Britain is paying for security. Therefore they have every right to enforce sanctions against bad behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events.  I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? It cost them money to deal with him.
Click to expand...


Since when is that the standard?


----------



## Swagger

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> London is hosting the Olympics. Great Britain is paying for security. Therefore they have every right to enforce sanctions against bad behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events. * I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.*
Click to expand...


So do I. Though what do you think would happen if someone made a big show of making Nazi salutes on 5th Avenue during the day?


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events.  I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It cost them money to deal with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when is that the standard?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.

Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?


----------



## High_Gravity

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
Click to expand...


Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.


----------



## L.K.Eder

> In court on Wednesday a lawyer for the Lithuanian fan on trial said his  client believed his gestures and behaviour were acceptable at sports  matches at home.



haha


----------



## manifold

Swagger said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> London is hosting the Olympics. Great Britain is paying for security. Therefore they have every right to enforce sanctions against bad behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events. * I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I. Though what do you think would happen if someone made a big show of making Nazi salutes on 5th Avenue during the day?
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt he'd be charged with a crime.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It cost them money to deal with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is that the standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.
> 
> Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?
Click to expand...


Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else.  And frankly, it saddens me that you do.


----------



## manifold

High_Gravity said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.
Click to expand...


But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.


----------



## High_Gravity

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.
Click to expand...


Probably not but every country has their own laws and people need to at least read into them before they go there. In a Muslim country you can get fined for holding your girlfriends had in public and you can get thrown in prison for having sex with someone who isnt your wife.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is that the standard?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.
> 
> Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else.  And frankly, it saddens me that you do.
Click to expand...

You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).

I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.

I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.


----------



## Swagger

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.
Click to expand...


In some European countries you can get up to three years in prison for simply denying the Holocaust.


----------



## manifold

High_Gravity said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not but every country has their own laws and people need to at least read into them before they go there. In a Muslim country you can get fined for holding your girlfriends had in public and you can get thrown in prison for having sex with someone who isnt your wife.
Click to expand...


That's not a model I'm interested in replicating here.  How about you?


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.
> 
> Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else.  And frankly, it saddens me that you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).
> 
> I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.
> 
> I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.
Click to expand...


Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.


----------



## Liability

What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech.  I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment.  We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech.  We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas."  We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.

Great Britain doesn't see things our way.  

I think *we* bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions.  But I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.

I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.


----------



## Swagger

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else.  And frankly, it saddens me that you do.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).
> 
> I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.
> 
> I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.
Click to expand...


The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else.  And frankly, it saddens me that you do.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).
> 
> I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.
> 
> I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.
Click to expand...

The government is providing security. If the private sector was providing security, it wouldn't have been an issue.

btw, the Brits already had a law against what they deem "an olympic offense."

The Definition of an Olympic Crime

Why do you hate Olympic values? That seems rather bigoted.


----------



## manifold

Swagger said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).
> 
> I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.
> 
> I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...


Taxpayers fund roads too.  Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.


----------



## Liability

manifold said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers fund roads too.  Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.
Click to expand...


Free speech based on who pays?

I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation.  She is wrong, of course.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).
> 
> I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.
> 
> I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government is providing security. If the private sector was providing security, it wouldn't have been an issue.
> 
> btw, the Brits already had a law against what they deem "an olympic offense."
> 
> The Definition of an Olympic Crime
> 
> Why do you hate Olympic values? That seems rather bigoted.
Click to expand...




I never said they didn't act in accordance with their laws dummy.  I simply think their laws in this area go too far to stifle free speech.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> The government is providing security. If the private sector was providing security, it wouldn't have been an issue.
> 
> btw, the Brits already had a law against what they deem "an olympic offense."
> 
> The Definition of an Olympic Crime
> 
> Why do you hate Olympic values? That seems rather bigoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they didn't act in accordance with their laws dummy.  I simply think their laws in this area go too far to stifle free speech.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the Brits don't follow the concept of free speech like we do.

However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[56][57] incitement,[58] incitement to racial hatred,[59] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[58][60] glorifying terrorism,[61][62] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[63][64] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[65] sedition,[65] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[66] defamation,[67] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[68][69] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[69] scandalizing the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[69] time, manner, and place restrictions,[70] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

wikipedia


----------



## Swagger

Liability said:


> What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech.  I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment.  We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech.  We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas."  We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.
> 
> Great Britain doesn't see things our way.
> 
> I think *we* bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions.  But I wouldn't have it any other way.
> 
> And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.
> 
> *I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.*



You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayers fund roads too.  Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech based on who pays?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation.  She is wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.


----------



## Liability

Swagger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech.  I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment.  We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech.  We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas."  We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.
> 
> Great Britain doesn't see things our way.
> 
> I think *we* bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions.  But I wouldn't have it any other way.
> 
> And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.
> 
> *I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.
Click to expand...


At the risk of being serious for a second longer, I find your post encouraging.

That said, I still believe that the Brits have a different notion of what "free speech" is intended to cover.

Hell, for that matter, my own understanding of the First Amendment is different than that of many other dedicated American Constitutional loyalists.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayers fund roads too.  Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech based on who pays?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation.  She is wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.
Click to expand...


The British government has a duty to protect the people participating in and watching the Games.  They thus have a very pronounced, legitimate say in matters of SECURITY.  But hateful speech (like Nazi salutes and racist grunts) doesn't truly represent any security risk.

No.  They didn't fine the guy on the basis of the notion that his "speech" constituted a security risk.  They fined him on the basis that his KIND of speech was deemed hateful or otherwise worthy of suppression on a NON-security basis.

"This is about respecting their opponents, it is about respecting the games, the Olympic values, and it is a celebration of friendship between people from all over the world." -- quoting, evidently, International Basketball Federation secretary general Patrick Baumann in the article cited in the OP:   News from The Associated Press.

Here's an interesting legal analysis from the British "Crown Prosecution Services" web site.   Racist and Religious Crime: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## Swagger

Liability said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech.  I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment.  We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech.  We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas."  We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.
> 
> Great Britain doesn't see things our way.
> 
> I think *we* bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions.  But I wouldn't have it any other way.
> 
> And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.
> 
> *I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the risk of being serious for a second longer, I find your post encouraging.
> 
> *That said, I still believe that the Brits have a different notion of what "free speech" is intended to cover.*
> 
> Hell, for that matter, my own understanding of the First Amendment is different than that of many other dedicated American Constitutional loyalists.
Click to expand...


For the whole notion of free speech to enjoy any semblance of credibility/integrity, there should be no disparity whatsoever wherever it's enshrined. But, like I said, the London Olympcis is being used as a tool by the parasitic UN to impress upon everyone the importance (in their opinion) of "diversity" and "enrichment" because they're afraid of all the mounting support the European right-wing is enjoying as a result of the Eurozone collapsing for all to see.

The whole event has been politicised beyond compare. Any dissenting voices are being stamped on and the shame lies at our door for allowing it to happen.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Swagger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of being serious for a second longer, I find your post encouraging.
> 
> *That said, I still believe that the Brits have a different notion of what "free speech" is intended to cover.*
> 
> Hell, for that matter, my own understanding of the First Amendment is different than that of many other dedicated American Constitutional loyalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the whole notion of free speech to enjoy any semblance of credibility/integrity, there should be no disparity whatsoever wherever it's enshrined. But, like I said, the London Olympcis is being used as a tool by the parasitic UN to impress upon everyone the importance (in their opinion) of "diversity" and "enrichment" because they're afraid of all the mounting support the European right-wing is enjoying as a result of the Eurozone collapsing for all to see.
> 
> The whole event has been politicised beyond compare. Any dissenting voices are being stamped on and the shame lies at our door for allowing it to happen.
Click to expand...



hahahaha


----------



## Valerie

A "free" sports stadium crowd in the USA would promptly kick the ass of any creep making ape gestures at black athletes... The ass kicker would then be removed from the venue and fined as well, and then probably sued by the creep to boot.  SO, we have rational solutions in public places and live by the "peaceable assembly" standard where you can't go around acting like an asshat and inciting violence in a sports stadium (for example) lest you find yourself on the receiving end of a legal consequence such as a fine and or a ban from the venue.  boo hoo


----------



## Swagger

So, L.K.Eder. By that should I assume you believe that free speech should be applied as selectively as it's being at the London Olympics?


----------



## Valerie

_The UK is known around the world for its respect for and tolerance of free speech. Although free speech has long been recognised as a common law right in Britain, it also has a statutory basis in Article 10 of the European Conventionon Human Rights (the "Convention"), which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

In fact, Article 10 of the Convention goes beyond free "speech" and guarantees freedom of "expression," which includes not only the spoken word, but written material, images and other published or broadcast material.

When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, hate speech that incites violence -- it becomes apparent thateven a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.Therefore, *much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.*

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself recognises the need for some limits on free expression. It provides, however, that limits can only be imposed in order to achieve certain specified aims, and only insofar as is necessary to achieve those aims. The Convention lists several permitted reasons for limiting free speech, including national security, the protection of health or morals, and protection of peoples' rights and reputations._

Free speech - Law and Government


----------



## mal

tigerbob said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Fuck him.
Click to expand...


Even Racist and Idiotic Free Speech is Free Speech...

Wait, this wasn't in America?...

Carry on. 



peace...


----------



## L.K.Eder

Swagger said:


> So, L.K.Eder. By that should I assume you believe that free speech should be applied as selectively as it's being at the London Olympics?



no, but you can assume that i am most entertained by your dramantics.


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech based on who pays?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation.  She is wrong, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British government has a duty to protect the people participating in and watching the Games.  They thus have a very pronounced, legitimate say in matters of SECURITY.  But hateful speech (like Nazi salutes and racist grunts) doesn't truly represent any security risk.
> 
> No.  They didn't fine the guy on the basis of the notion that his "speech" constituted a security risk.  They fined him on the basis that his KIND of speech was deemed hateful or otherwise worthy of suppression on a NON-security basis.
> 
> "This is about respecting their opponents, it is about respecting the games, the Olympic values, and it is a celebration of friendship between people from all over the world." -- quoting, evidently, International Basketball Federation secretary general Patrick Baumann in the article cited in the OP:   News from The Associated Press.
> 
> Here's an interesting legal analysis from the British "Crown Prosecution Services" web site.   Racist and Religious Crime: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
Click to expand...

The basketball federation secretary general doesn't have any police powers, so his opinion is merely an opinion.


----------



## catzmeow

Valerie said:


> When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, *hate speech that incites violence *-- it becomes apparent thateven a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.Therefore, *much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.*



Hate speech that incites violence...would that include someone stating that Islam condones violence?  Or, that Christianity is an oppressive religion?  Or even that "the Virgin Mary was actually a whore?"

Is the quoted text "newspeak" for:  It's cool for government to squash politically, religiously, and racially unpopular views in the guise of protecting us?

Yeah, fuck that.  *That kind of protection I do not need.*


----------



## Toro

Britain has been doing this for awhile.

A fan at a soccer game was arrested for making a monkey gesture at a black player a year or so ago.  The guy is a brain-dead idiot but political correctness has gone way, way too far when that happens.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Noomi said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behavior like that should NEVER be acceptable.
Click to expand...


Acceptable? What does that mean? Like tolerated? I don't have to accept the sentiment. But I do accept that part of free speech is realizing that people are going to say things you don't like.

Also, corrupt governments word policing? Do you really want that? $4K for a word? I don't know what world you live in. I don't want to live in a world in which a government literally thinks its their right to drain your bank account b/c they don't like your thoughts.

And I have no doubt that this law is being conveniently enforced to suit a political narrative. My guess is that minorities can say ten degrees of sh*t about whitey and nothing will happen. That's how these uppity socialist nations roll.


----------



## High_Gravity

Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are pretty tolerant with free speech.


----------



## High_Gravity

Toro said:


> Britain has been doing this for awhile.
> 
> A fan at a soccer game was arrested for making a monkey gesture at a black player a year or so ago.  The guy is a brain-dead idiot but political correctness has gone way, way too far when that happens.



That said, whats up with all the Euros and those monkey gestures? I don't see any of that this side of the pond.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

High_Gravity said:


> Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are pretty tolerant with free speech.



Exactly! Head on the nail! That is just one more reason why the law is BS! Where's their 4K fines?


----------



## High_Gravity

TheGreatGatsby said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are pretty tolerant with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Head on the nail! That is just one more reason why the law is BS! Where's their 4K fines?
Click to expand...


Good point.


----------



## manifold

High_Gravity said:


> Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are* pretty *tolerant with free speech.



Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong.  I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British government has a duty to protect the people participating in and watching the Games.  They thus have a very pronounced, legitimate say in matters of SECURITY.  But hateful speech (like Nazi salutes and racist grunts) doesn't truly represent any security risk.
> 
> No.  They didn't fine the guy on the basis of the notion that his "speech" constituted a security risk.  They fined him on the basis that his KIND of speech was deemed hateful or otherwise worthy of suppression on a NON-security basis.
> 
> "This is about respecting their opponents, it is about respecting the games, the Olympic values, and it is a celebration of friendship between people from all over the world." -- quoting, evidently, International Basketball Federation secretary general Patrick Baumann in the article cited in the OP:   News from The Associated Press.
> 
> Here's an interesting legal analysis from the British "Crown Prosecution Services" web site.   Racist and Religious Crime: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The basketball federation secretary general doesn't have any police powers, so his opinion is merely an opinion.
Click to expand...


The federation spokesman was articulating the basis of the policy and the reason for that arrest, regardless of the fact that he was neither a cop nor a prosecutor.

So your quibble is utterly beside the point -- which is kind of your SOP.

It certainly addresses the point:  the arrest was not made in the interest of "security."   It was made in the interest of political correctness.  And while lots of us detest what the fucking asshole did and said, we can still disagree that political correctness is ever a valid ground to suppress free speech.


----------



## L.K.Eder

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are* pretty *tolerant with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong.  I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.
Click to expand...


to really juxtapose it, the "death to the uk" chanters would have to have been at an olympic event, duh


----------



## High_Gravity

manifold said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are* pretty *tolerant with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong.  I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.
Click to expand...


Selective would be the correct word, yes.


----------



## L.K.Eder

High_Gravity said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are* pretty *tolerant with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong.  I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selective would be the correct word, yes.
Click to expand...



selective regarding the juxtaposition.


----------



## High_Gravity

L.K.Eder said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are* pretty *tolerant with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong.  I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to really juxtapose it, the "death to the uk" chanters would have to have been at an olympic event, duh
Click to expand...


Did this man get fined just because he was at an Olympic event? I thought this was English law across the board regardless of the venue?


----------



## L.K.Eder

High_Gravity said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong.  I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to really juxtapose it, the "death to the uk" chanters would have to have been at an olympic event, duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this man get fined just because he was at an Olympic event? I thought this was English law across the board regardless of the venue?
Click to expand...


all these stories have been about the olympics.

according to swagger:



> But, like I said, the London Olympcis is being used as a tool by the  parasitic UN to impress upon everyone the importance (in their opinion)  of "diversity" and "enrichment" because they're afraid of all the  mounting support the European right-wing is enjoying as a result of the  Eurozone collapsing for all to see.
> 
> The whole event has been politicised beyond compare. Any dissenting  voices are being stamped on and the shame lies at our door for allowing  it to happen.



i repeat:


hahaha


----------



## Swagger

High_Gravity said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong.  I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to really juxtapose it, the "death to the uk" chanters would have to have been at an olympic event, duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this man get fined just because he was at an Olympic event? I thought this was English law across the board regardless of the venue?
Click to expand...


No. It's more than likely he was made an example of due to fears that his behaviour may encourage others to do the same. It was all carried-out in the name of political correctness, rather than due to any legal violation, because unlike in Germany, it isn't actually illegal to do a Nazi salute in the United Kingdom.


----------



## Sallow

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Apparently a Lithuanian fan said something that the Great Nazi Britain didn't like and he has $4K less (plus legal fees).
> 
> News from The Associated Press



And?


----------



## mal

Valerie said:


> _The UK is known around the world for its respect for and tolerance of free speech. Although free speech has long been recognised as a common law right in Britain, it also has a statutory basis in Article 10 of the European Conventionon Human Rights (the "Convention"), which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
> 
> In fact, Article 10 of the Convention goes beyond free "speech" and guarantees freedom of "expression," which includes not only the spoken word, but written material, images and other published or broadcast material.
> 
> When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, hate speech that incites violence -- it becomes apparent thateven a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.Therefore, *much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.*
> 
> Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself recognises the need for some limits on free expression. It provides, however, that limits can only be imposed in order to achieve certain specified aims, and only insofar as is necessary to achieve those aims. The Convention lists several permitted reasons for limiting free speech, including national security, the protection of health or morals, and protection of peoples' rights and reputations._
> 
> Free speech - Law and Government



Unless it's "Go and Kill or Harm..." then it shouldn't Concern you. 

Do you really Need Government Intruding that much and Protecting you from Words?...

Sad.



peace...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Sallow said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently a Lithuanian fan said something that the Great Nazi Britain didn't like and he has $4K less (plus legal fees).
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


And there's 8 pages. Read some.


----------



## mal

Sallow said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently a Lithuanian fan said something that the Great Nazi Britain didn't like and he has $4K less (plus legal fees).
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


You want some of that Action here in the States?...



peace...


----------



## Ravi

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British government has a duty to protect the people participating in and watching the Games.  They thus have a very pronounced, legitimate say in matters of SECURITY.  But hateful speech (like Nazi salutes and racist grunts) doesn't truly represent any security risk.
> 
> No.  They didn't fine the guy on the basis of the notion that his "speech" constituted a security risk.  They fined him on the basis that his KIND of speech was deemed hateful or otherwise worthy of suppression on a NON-security basis.
> 
> "This is about respecting their opponents, it is about respecting the games, the Olympic values, and it is a celebration of friendship between people from all over the world." -- quoting, evidently, International Basketball Federation secretary general Patrick Baumann in the article cited in the OP:   News from The Associated Press.
> 
> Here's an interesting legal analysis from the British "Crown Prosecution Services" web site.   Racist and Religious Crime: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
> 
> 
> 
> The basketball federation secretary general doesn't have any police powers, so his opinion is merely an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federation spokesman was articulating the basis of the policy and the reason for that arrest, regardless of the fact that he was neither a cop nor a prosecutor.
> 
> So your quibble is utterly beside the point -- which is kind of your SOP.
> 
> It certainly addresses the point:  the arrest was not made in the interest of "security."   It was made in the interest of political correctness.  And while lots of us detest what the fucking asshole did and said, we can still disagree that political correctness is ever a valid ground to suppress free speech.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I'll take Scotland Yard's version over yours any day of the week.



> The 36-year-old fan, who has not been identified, was arrested "on suspicion of a racially aggravated public-order offence," according to a Scotland Yard spokesman. It is just the latest among several racially tinged incidents to have arisen in London over the past week.


Lithuanian fan arrested for making monkey chants


----------



## Swagger

Jesus wept, it's even worse than I thought. From Ravi's Yahoo article:



> *Undercover police infiltrated the crowd and seized the man during the game* between Lithuania and Nigeria at the basketball arena in the Olympic Park


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> Jesus wept, it's even worse than I thought. From Ravi's Yahoo article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Undercover police infiltrated the crowd and seized the man during the game* between Lithuania and Nigeria at the basketball arena in the Olympic Park
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess paying attention to the assholes after an hour of assholiness is infiltration.


----------



## Swagger

Forgive me if I'm wrong, Ravi, but undercover officers (who I'm assuming are Special Branch) are supposed to be on the look-out for threats posed to the security of the audience and the structure the event's being held in; not some drunken idiot making a fool of himself.


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong, Ravi, but undercover officers (who I'm assuming are Special Branch) are supposed to be on the look-out for threats posed to the security of the audience and the structure the event's being held in; not some drunken idiot making a fool of himself.


Drunken idiots get ejected from our stadiums on a regular basis. They usually ARE a threat to security.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, Ravi, but undercover officers (who I'm assuming are Special Branch) are supposed to be on the look-out for threats posed to the security of the audience and the structure the event's being held in; not some drunken idiot making a fool of himself.
> 
> 
> 
> Drunken idiots get ejected from our stadiums on a regular basis. They usually ARE a threat to security.
Click to expand...


How many have to plead guilty to a crime and pay a fine to avoid jail time?


----------



## Valerie

catzmeow said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, *hate speech that incites violence *-- it becomes apparent thateven a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.Therefore, *much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate speech that incites violence...would that include someone stating that Islam condones violence?  Or, that Christianity is an oppressive religion?  Or even that "the Virgin Mary was actually a whore?"
> 
> Is the quoted text "newspeak" for:  It's cool for government to squash politically, religiously, and racially unpopular views in the guise of protecting us?
> 
> Yeah, fuck that.  *That kind of protection I do not need.*
Click to expand...





Despite all the histrionics, it's simply the kind of protection where specifically you can't go the Olympics and act like an asshat in the crowd without being removed and fined.  The creep's still free to go about his life as an asshat and you could always join him at the asshat club and give him a high five for freedom.


----------



## High_Gravity

Swagger said:


> Jesus wept, it's even worse than I thought. From Ravi's Yahoo article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Undercover police infiltrated the crowd and seized the man during the game* between Lithuania and Nigeria at the basketball arena in the Olympic Park
Click to expand...


Well to be fair I figured there would be undercover security at this thing.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, Ravi, but undercover officers (who I'm assuming are Special Branch) are supposed to be on the look-out for threats posed to the security of the audience and the structure the event's being held in; not some drunken idiot making a fool of himself.
> 
> 
> 
> Drunken idiots get ejected from our stadiums on a regular basis. They usually ARE a threat to security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many have to plead guilty to a crime and pay a fine to avoid jail time?
Click to expand...

Here's just one, there are tons of them out there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U_wbfl2mV0]Red Sox fans ejected from Yankee Stadium - 2 - YouTube[/ame]

Have you ever actually been to a sporting event???


----------



## Valerie

_Good Lord, what is the world coming to when I can't blatantly mock Nigerian basketball players with ape gestures at the Olympics!  *sob*_


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drunken idiots get ejected from our stadiums on a regular basis. They usually ARE a threat to security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many have to plead guilty to a crime and pay a fine to avoid jail time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's just one, there are tons of them out there.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U_wbfl2mV0]Red Sox fans ejected from Yankee Stadium - 2 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Have you ever actually been to a sporting event???
Click to expand...


That's actually zero.

Try again


----------



## High_Gravity

Swagger said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong, Ravi, but undercover officers (who I'm assuming are Special Branch) are supposed to be on the look-out for threats posed to the security of the audience and the structure the event's being held in; not some drunken idiot making a fool of himself.



I have to ask depending on how many Blacks or Africans in the crowd, letting this guy continue to make an ass out of himself could have started some shit.


----------



## manifold

High_Gravity said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, Ravi, but undercover officers (who I'm assuming are Special Branch) are supposed to be on the look-out for threats posed to the security of the audience and the structure the event's being held in; not some drunken idiot making a fool of himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ask depending on how many Blacks or Africans in the crowd, letting this guy continue to make an ass out of himself could have started some shit.
Click to expand...


I've yet to read one single opinion in this thread suggesting that he shouldn't have been removed from the event, forcibly if necessary.

What many of us find objectionable is charging him with a crime, and making him plead guilty and pay a fine to avoid going to jail.


----------



## Ravi

Foxboro to fine people for public drunkenness - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

Who forced him to plead guilty?


----------



## manifold

Public drunkenness is not speech.


----------



## Valerie

manifold said:


> Public drunkenness is not speech.





How come you aren't free to express yourself by pulling out your pecker in the crowd?


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Public drunkenness is not speech.



sigh....you went off into a tangent. I was merely making the point to Swaggert (or was it you) that public drunkenness is a security threat and THAT IS WHY the police were "infiltrating" the drunks.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public drunkenness is not speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you aren't free to express yourself by pulling out your pecker in the crowd?
Click to expand...

And why isn't he upset about THAT violation of free speech, lol.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public drunkenness is not speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sigh....you went off into a tangent. I was merely making the point to Swaggert (or was it you) that public drunkenness is a security threat and THAT IS WHY the police were "infiltrating" the drunks.
Click to expand...


Still doesn't justify criminal prosecution IMO.

It's ok if your opinion on the matter differs from mine, it just means I value freedom more than you do (but that doesn't make you special by any stretch).


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Swagger said:


> Jesus wept, it's even worse than I thought. From Ravi's Yahoo article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Undercover police infiltrated the crowd and seized the man during the game* between Lithuania and Nigeria at the basketball arena in the Olympic Park
Click to expand...


Yea, paying police to go undercover to word police? That's the epitome of waste and governmental deviance.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public drunkenness is not speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sigh....you went off into a tangent. I was merely making the point to Swaggert (or was it you) that public drunkenness is a security threat and THAT IS WHY the police were "infiltrating" the drunks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doesn't justify criminal prosecution IMO.
> 
> It's ok if your opinion on the matter differs from mine, it just means I value freedom more than you do (but that doesn't make you special by any stretch).
Click to expand...



The Brits are perfectly within their rights to compel order at the Olympics. So too would be anyone else. There was nothing unreasonable done nor was anyone's free speech threatened. No one is required to provide a platform for stupidity.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> sigh....you went off into a tangent. I was merely making the point to Swaggert (or was it you) that public drunkenness is a security threat and THAT IS WHY the police were "infiltrating" the drunks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still doesn't justify criminal prosecution IMO.
> 
> It's ok if your opinion on the matter differs from mine, it just means I value freedom more than you do (but that doesn't make you special by any stretch).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Brits are perfectly within their rights to compel order at the Olympics. So too would be anyone else. There was nothing unreasonable done nor was anyone's free speech threatened. No one is required to provide a platform for stupidity.
Click to expand...


I always knew you only pay lip service when it comes to supporting individual liberty and rights (except for the right to kill babies of course, that one you hold dear).

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public drunkenness is not speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you aren't free to express yourself by pulling out your pecker in the crowd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why isn't he upset about THAT violation of free speech, lol.
Click to expand...






I suppose not being able to rank on black people in public feels particularly oppressive to manifail, as of course whipping it out had never even occurred to him since it would probably expose his pubes as longer than his puny pecker...


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you aren't free to express yourself by pulling out your pecker in the crowd?
> 
> 
> 
> And why isn't he upset about THAT violation of free speech, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose not being able to rank on black people in public feels particularly oppressive to manifail, as of course whipping it out had never even occurred to him since it would probably expose his pubes as longer than his puny pecker...
Click to expand...

I just wish he was brave enough to make ape noises and throw around Hitler salutes at the next football game he attends.


----------



## L.K.Eder

maybe it is comforting to some of you to know that che guevara t-shirts are banned from olympic events as well.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Valerie said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public drunkenness is not speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you aren't free to express yourself by pulling out your pecker in the crowd?
Click to expand...


that reminds me of the english fan who tried to distract the italian trying to convert the deciding penalty by dropping his trousers.

i have to look up what happened to him, haha


----------



## High_Gravity

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why isn't he upset about THAT violation of free speech, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose not being able to rank on black people in public feels particularly oppressive to manifail, as of course whipping it out had never even occurred to him since it would probably expose his pubes as longer than his puny pecker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just wish he was brave enough to make ape noises and throw around Hitler salutes at the next football game he attends.
Click to expand...


He should do that at an NBA Basketball game in Washington DC or Detroit.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why isn't he upset about THAT violation of free speech, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose not being able to rank on black people in public feels particularly oppressive to manifail, as of course whipping it out had never even occurred to him since it would probably expose his pubes as longer than his puny pecker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just wish he was brave enough to make ape noises and throw around Hitler salutes at the next football game he attends.
Click to expand...


you are only really free if you can be an ass without consequences.


----------



## High_Gravity

L.K.Eder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose not being able to rank on black people in public feels particularly oppressive to manifail, as of course whipping it out had never even occurred to him since it would probably expose his pubes as longer than his puny pecker...
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish he was brave enough to make ape noises and throw around Hitler salutes at the next football game he attends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are only really free if you can be an ass without consequences.
Click to expand...


I don't think anywhere is like that.


----------



## L.K.Eder

High_Gravity said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish he was brave enough to make ape noises and throw around Hitler salutes at the next football game he attends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are only really free if you can be an ass without consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anywhere is like that.
Click to expand...



that's not fair.

will the persecution never stop?


----------



## High_Gravity

L.K.Eder said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are only really free if you can be an ass without consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anywhere is like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's not fair.
> 
> will the persecution never stop?
Click to expand...


People don't like being insulted, I don't know bro.


----------



## mal

Valerie said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, *hate speech that incites violence *-- it becomes apparent thateven a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.Therefore, *much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate speech that incites violence...would that include someone stating that Islam condones violence?  Or, that Christianity is an oppressive religion?  Or even that "the Virgin Mary was actually a whore?"
> 
> Is the quoted text "newspeak" for:  It's cool for government to squash politically, religiously, and racially unpopular views in the guise of protecting us?
> 
> Yeah, fuck that.  *That kind of protection I do not need.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all the histrionics, it's simply the kind of protection where specifically you can't go the Olympics and act like an asshat in the crowd without being removed and fined.  The creep's still free to go about his life as an asshat and you could always join him at the asshat club and give him a high five for freedom.
Click to expand...


Why do you Hate Rights?...



peace...


----------



## Ravi

L.K.Eder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose not being able to rank on black people in public feels particularly oppressive to manifail, as of course whipping it out had never even occurred to him since it would probably expose his pubes as longer than his puny pecker...
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish he was brave enough to make ape noises and throw around Hitler salutes at the next football game he attends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are only really free if you can be an ass without consequences.
Click to expand...


What a great campaign slogan!


----------



## manifold

How does Ravi even know this guy was a racist and not just buying into stereotypes?


----------



## mal

manifold said:


> How does Ravi even know this guy was a racist and not just buying into stereotypes?



Do I sense a Possible 4F Theme Brewing?...

Or do I?... 



peace...


----------



## manifold

mal said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Ravi even know this guy was a racist and not just buying into stereotypes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I sense a Possible 4F Theme Brewing?...
> 
> Or do I?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Ravi values ______ more than she values the right to speak one's mind without fear of prosecution.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> How does Ravi even know this guy was a racist and not just buying into stereotypes?


I didn't say he was a racist.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Ravi even know this guy was a racist and not just buying into stereotypes?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say he was a racist.
Click to expand...


but definitely he is a dumb-ass who is poorer by 2500 quid


----------



## Ravi

L.K.Eder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Ravi even know this guy was a racist and not just buying into stereotypes?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but definitely he is a dumb-ass who is poorer by 2500 quid
Click to expand...

But he did put Lithuania on the map!


----------



## Liability

manifold said:


> Public drunkenness is not speech.



Well, not comprehensible, anyway.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Liability said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public drunkenness is not speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not comprehensible, anyway.
Click to expand...


drunken gibberish should be encompassed by freedom of expression


----------



## Liability

L.K.Eder said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public drunkenness is not speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not comprehensible, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> drunken gibberish should be encompassed by freedom of expression
Click to expand...


ahyl shay thash noshtuxha bird ahdeer.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Liability said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not comprehensible, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drunken gibberish should be encompassed by freedom of expression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ahyl shay thash noshtuxha bird ahdeer.
Click to expand...



i may not agree with that gibberish, but i support your freedom to utter it.


but here is a hint:

if you do it in albania, you might violate 4 of their anti-obscenity laws.


----------



## Liability

L.K.Eder said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> drunken gibberish should be encompassed by freedom of expression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahyl shay thash noshtuxha bird ahdeer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i may not agree with that gibberish, but i support your freedom to utter it.
> 
> 
> but here is a hint:
> 
> if you do it in albania, you might violate 4 of their anti-obscenity laws.
Click to expand...


All with no tit or pussy?  That's whack.


----------



## Politico

Hope they took his ticket too.


----------

