UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

[idb]

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

It is not anyone's responsibility to prove that there was no intent to incite violence. If you want to claim that there was such an intent, then the burden is completely on you to prove it.

See also: “Innocent until proven guilty.”

On what evidence?
No one can produce the offending post.

Some guy claims he was unfairly approached by the police and we have to just take his word for it and snipe from our ideological corners?
It's a non-story until evidence has been produced - but it's been picked up by partisan groups to 'prove' their claims of unfairness and discrimination and...whatever...

It's funny that you're the one demanding proof...where's the proof that he was unfairly treated...or that his posts were so innocent?

 

[Tilly]

Since the police visited him - but didnt arrest him - he probably wasn’t doing anything illegal like inciting violence.

 

[RWNJ]

Does it matter? If it is critical of Islam, it's hate speech.

We have the word of one aggrieved individual that all he did was post something that was critical of Islam.
It would be interesting to have a look at what he wrote.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

Does it matter? If it is critical of Islam, it's hate speech.

We have the word of one aggrieved individual that all he did was post something that was critical of Islam.
It would be interesting to have a look at what he wrote.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You mean just like you automatically think he actually did something wrong? Let's cut to the chase. If what he said was merely offensive, do you think he should suffer legal consequences for it? A simple yes or no is all I require.

 

[Tilly]

Now you are making stuff up. How could I make any claims when I do not know what was said ?

What I have quoted is this.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that unreasonable ?

Heckler's veto - Wikipedia

That has limited coverage. This is more about inciting the feeble minded to violence. We just had an MP murdered by a loon who was full of this shit.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

This covers it nicely.

....unless it will lead to imminent violence."


How is that determined?

 

[RWNJ]

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

It is not anyone's responsibility to prove that there was no intent to incite violence. If you want to claim that there was such an intent, then the burden is completely on you to prove it.

See also: “Innocent until proven guilty.”

On what evidence?
No one can produce the offending post.

Some guy claims he was unfairly approached by the police and we have to just take his word for it and snipe from our ideological corners?
It's a non-story until evidence has been produced - but it's been picked up by partisan groups to 'prove' their claims of unfairness and discrimination and...whatever...

It's funny that you're the one demanding proof...where's the proof that he was unfairly treated...or that his posts were so innocent?

If he actually posted hate speech, then he would already be on trial for it. As far as I know, no one gives warnings for actual hate speech.

 

[RWNJ]

Now you are making stuff up. How could I make any claims when I do not know what was said ?

What I have quoted is this.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that unreasonable ?

Heckler's veto - Wikipedia

That has limited coverage. This is more about inciting the feeble minded to violence. We just had an MP murdered by a loon who was full of this shit.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

This covers it nicely.

....unless it will lead to imminent violence."


How is that determined?

It's like pornography. You know it when you see it.

 

[idb]

We have the word of one aggrieved individual that all he did was post something that was critical of Islam.
It would be interesting to have a look at what he wrote.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

We have the word of one aggrieved individual that all he did was post something that was critical of Islam.
It would be interesting to have a look at what he wrote.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You mean just like you automatically think he actually did something wrong? Let's cut to the chase. If what he said was merely offensive, do you think he should suffer legal consequences for it? A simple yes or no is all I require.

Your first statement is wrong.
What makes you think I 'automatically think he did something wrong'?

Free speech means the right to offend people.
That's a given.
Why would you think I believe otherwise?

 

[RWNJ]

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You mean just like you automatically think he actually did something wrong? Let's cut to the chase. If what he said was merely offensive, do you think he should suffer legal consequences for it? A simple yes or no is all I require.

Your first statement is wrong.
What makes you think I 'automatically think he did something wrong'?

Free speech means the right to offend people.
That's a given.
Why would you think I believe otherwise?

Just wanted to know where you stood.

 

[hunarcy]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

There is no free speech without the freedom to offend.

Britain's Anti-Hate Speech Laws Are an Attack on Free Speech

 

[idb]

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

It is not anyone's responsibility to prove that there was no intent to incite violence. If you want to claim that there was such an intent, then the burden is completely on you to prove it.

See also: “Innocent until proven guilty.”

On what evidence?
No one can produce the offending post.

Some guy claims he was unfairly approached by the police and we have to just take his word for it and snipe from our ideological corners?
It's a non-story until evidence has been produced - but it's been picked up by partisan groups to 'prove' their claims of unfairness and discrimination and...whatever...

It's funny that you're the one demanding proof...where's the proof that he was unfairly treated...or that his posts were so innocent?

If he actually posted hate speech, then he would already be on trial for it. As far as I know, no one gives warnings for actual hate speech.

Responsible policing doesn't always mean arrest.
It can also mean giving fair warning.

Why is everything so black or white to you?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

May and her cronies would be appalled at being described as liberals. They are a bunch of right wing shits.
However your ignorance of the UK cannot be calculated by any method known to mankind.

Take a moment and tell me what you are not allowed to say in the UK.

For one thing, you're not allowed to criticize Islam.

Yes you are.

NATIONAL FRONT

Have you got anything else ?

NO! You aren't.

UK police warn man to stop criticizing Islam on Facebook

British taxpayer money being wasted on British police arresting people in Britainstan for posting things on Twitter that hurt Bedwetting Snowflakes feelings and that offend the 7th Century Death Cult.

ALL links are from MAINSTREAM publications, so no Jihad Watch or Gateway Pundit or anything like those, ALL MAINSTREAM publications:

Arrests for offensive Facebook posts are increasing in London

In Britain, police arrest Twitter and Facebook users if they make anti-Muslim statements

"British police are arresting people in the middle of the night if they have made racist or anti-Muslim comments on Twitter following the murder of a soldier by two Muslims in Woolwich, London.

Three men have so far been taken into custody for using Twitter and Facebook to criticize Muslims.

In the Woolwich attack, Lee Rigby, a drummer in the Royal Regiment of Fusliers, was run down in a car and then hacked and stabbed to death by two men with knives and a cleaver. They told a man video recording the scene that it was vengeance for the killings of Muslims by the British Army."

In Britain, police arrest Twitter and Facebook users if they make anti-Muslim statements

British Police Just Imprisoned A Man For Posting Mean Things About Muslims On Facebook

British Police Just Imprisoned A Man For Posting Mean Things About Muslims On Facebook

Also:

Revealed: Police arrests on Twitter and Facebook

 

[idb]

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You mean just like you automatically think he actually did something wrong? Let's cut to the chase. If what he said was merely offensive, do you think he should suffer legal consequences for it? A simple yes or no is all I require.

Your first statement is wrong.
What makes you think I 'automatically think he did something wrong'?

Free speech means the right to offend people.
That's a given.
Why would you think I believe otherwise?

Just wanted to know where you stood.

You make too many assumptions.
Take some time to step back and think critically and maybe give some room for nuance.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

May and her cronies would be appalled at being described as liberals. They are a bunch of right wing shits.
However your ignorance of the UK cannot be calculated by any method known to mankind.

Take a moment and tell me what you are not allowed to say in the UK.

For one thing, you're not allowed to criticize Islam.

Yes you are.

NATIONAL FRONT

Have you got anything else ?

NO! You aren't.

UK police warn man to stop criticizing Islam on Facebook

British taxpayer money being wasted on British police arresting people in Britainstan for posting things on Twitter that hurt Bedwetting Snowflakes feelings and that offend the 7th Century Death Cult.

ALL links are from MAINSTREAM publications, so no Jihad Watch or Gateway Pundit or anything like those, ALL MAINSTREAM publications:

Arrests for offensive Facebook posts are increasing in London

In Britain, police arrest Twitter and Facebook users if they make anti-Muslim statements

"British police are arresting people in the middle of the night if they have made racist or anti-Muslim comments on Twitter following the murder of a soldier by two Muslims in Woolwich, London.

Three men have so far been taken into custody for using Twitter and Facebook to criticize Muslims.

In the Woolwich attack, Lee Rigby, a drummer in the Royal Regiment of Fusliers, was run down in a car and then hacked and stabbed to death by two men with knives and a cleaver. They told a man video recording the scene that it was vengeance for the killings of Muslims by the British Army."

In Britain, police arrest Twitter and Facebook users if they make anti-Muslim statements

British Police Just Imprisoned A Man For Posting Mean Things About Muslims On Facebook

British Police Just Imprisoned A Man For Posting Mean Things About Muslims On Facebook

Also:

Revealed: Police arrests on Twitter and Facebook

So what did they say ?

 

[RWNJ]

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You mean just like you automatically think he actually did something wrong? Let's cut to the chase. If what he said was merely offensive, do you think he should suffer legal consequences for it? A simple yes or no is all I require.

Your first statement is wrong.
What makes you think I 'automatically think he did something wrong'?

Free speech means the right to offend people.
That's a given.
Why would you think I believe otherwise?

Just wanted to know where you stood.

You make too many assumptions.
Take some time to step back and think critically and maybe give some room for nuance.

OK. Let's shift gears. Do you think that the UK does not prosecute people for saying things that would barely raise an eyebrow in the States? Do you think that they are not prosecuting people just for give their opinions. Because it is happening. In fact, as someone just posted, the "victim" gets to decide if someone's speech is hurtful or threatening. Say WHAT?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You mean just like you automatically think he actually did something wrong? Let's cut to the chase. If what he said was merely offensive, do you think he should suffer legal consequences for it? A simple yes or no is all I require.

Your first statement is wrong.
What makes you think I 'automatically think he did something wrong'?

Free speech means the right to offend people.
That's a given.
Why would you think I believe otherwise?

Just wanted to know where you stood.

You make too many assumptions.
Take some time to step back and think critically and maybe give some room for nuance.

OK. Let's shift gears. Do you think that the UK does not prosecute people for saying things that would barely raise an eyebrow in the States? Do you think that they are not prosecuting people just for give their opinions. Because it is happening. In fact, as someone just posted, the "victim" gets to decide if someone's speech is hurtful or threatening. Say WHAT?

Give an example of these prosecutions.

 

[saveliberty]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

May and her cronies would be appalled at being described as liberals. They are a bunch of right wing shits.
However your ignorance of the UK cannot be calculated by any method known to mankind.

Take a moment and tell me what you are not allowed to say in the UK.

Hate speech - Wikipedia

Gee, that took no time at all for me to find them and don't even live there. It would seem you are being deliberately misleading.

Well thank you for that.

Free speech has its limits.

"Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Does that seem unreasonable to you ?

Depends how you define imminent. The UK seems to think if it is possible that is enough, I find that unreasonable.

 

[saveliberty]

For one thing, you're not allowed to criticize Islam.

Yes you are.

NATIONAL FRONT

Have you got anything else ?

NO! You aren't.

UK police warn man to stop criticizing Islam on Facebook

What did he write?

Its a big secret.

Back on your knees, pussy. Kiss that Muslim ass.

I gave him the name pussboy last year.

 

[Tilly]

Now you are making stuff up. How could I make any claims when I do not know what was said ?

What I have quoted is this.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that unreasonable ?

Heckler's veto - Wikipedia

That has limited coverage. This is more about inciting the feeble minded to violence. We just had an MP murdered by a loon who was full of this shit.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

This covers it nicely.

....unless it will lead to imminent violence."


How is that determined?

It's like pornography. You know it when you see it.

Not when it emanates from mosques.

 

[idb]

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

You mean just like you automatically think he actually did something wrong? Let's cut to the chase. If what he said was merely offensive, do you think he should suffer legal consequences for it? A simple yes or no is all I require.

Your first statement is wrong.
What makes you think I 'automatically think he did something wrong'?

Free speech means the right to offend people.
That's a given.
Why would you think I believe otherwise?

Just wanted to know where you stood.

You make too many assumptions.
Take some time to step back and think critically and maybe give some room for nuance.

OK. Let's shift gears. Do you think that the UK does not prosecute people for saying things that would barely raise an eyebrow in the States? Do you think that they are not prosecuting people just for give their opinions. Because it is happening. In fact, as someone just posted, the "victim" gets to decide if someone's speech is hurtful or threatening. Say WHAT?

"In fact"?
Is it a fact?

I don't know that they're prosecuting people for giving their opinions.
I believe they're prosecuting people for threatening language or inciting violence...is that what you call 'opinion'?

 

[Tilly]

Since the police visited him - but didnt arrest him - he probably wasn’t doing anything illegal like inciting violence.

So what did he say ?

I wasn’t there. What did he say?