4 months in prison for wearing a hateful t-shirt....yay for free speech Britain!

God in heaven, im always fucking around I take no one or nothing seriously if you do you have a problem.
If people cant mess around shooting the shit in a fun forum without getting all emotional, again their problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

We could start an anti anti - sarcasm thread that would be just as fun. ;D

---

Yeah that would be fucking hilarious. It would be so full of useful insights and go on and on. I am sure everyone would love it. It would be like the best thread ever and not at all repetitive or boring.

---

:kissasskc4:

---

I think you got a touch lost after the first anti. Anti anti means against the against the the first mentioned.

There has been no ass kissing by either a pro or an anti or and anti anti pro sarcasm.


See what you've done now my stuttering is back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

We could start an anti anti - sarcasm thread that would be just as fun. ;D

---

Yeah that would be fucking hilarious. It would be so full of useful insights and go on and on. I am sure everyone would love it. It would be like the best thread ever and not at all repetitive or boring.

---

:kissasskc4:

---

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=Epi...:32,s:20,i:256http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/20...dab61b4369.jpg


Its called sarcasm, and Andre liking a post does not make him an arse kisser anymore than you kissing ass makes people like your posts ;)

---

:vd:


It was directed at you.

---

I never realised that, not understanding sarcasm and knowing only how to be pedantic, not witty or ebullient myself. Personally I just mope about waiting for your good self to air your erudite opinions and enlighten us savages on what it means to be a sophisticated and intelligent correspondent. Lucid, insightful and always sensitive to every nuance and double entendre, your humility, grace and your florid and spectacularly individual writing style where letters and words are concerned, often reduces me to swooning under the heavy burden of your greatness.

Your considered opinion on both Free speech, offensive t-shirts and sarcasm, has been a real eye opener and has added tremendously to this thread.

On behalf of @Gandalf who started the thread, whose peachy arse is a welcome and regular cushion for both my lips, @Andre whose not insubstantial Australian derrière has already been the recipient of more than its share of XXXX from moi, and every other @poster who uses the site whose arses I will no doubt get around to kissing eventually

Thank You
@TitoFan

---

I've got my sarcasm sensor turned off at the moment, so......
you're very welcome, @Greenbeanz. I knew you'd come around sooner or later.

:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

That's what happens with older folk Tito, the trousers come down and the ass kissing goes on for hours. Never get old.

---

First you lose your hair..... then you lose your dignity.

:D

---

Still have a full head of hair. Just starting to go gray here and there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

That's what happens with older folk Tito, the trousers come down and the ass kissing goes on for hours. Never get old.

---

First you lose your hair..... then you lose your dignity.

:D

---

Still have a full head of hair. Just starting to go gray here and there.

---

We can't tell, what with the baseball cap and all.

andre threads the thread that threaded the eye of the iris of the ball of the eyeball.

I believe that the perpetrator of this crime had mental health issues, his son had been killed by the police so he did have some resentment against them when he committed the "crime".

Seems there is a trend

Britain’s High-Tech Thought Police - Reason.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

That's what happens with older folk Tito, the trousers come down and the ass kissing goes on for hours. Never get old.

---

First you lose your hair..... then you lose your dignity.

:D

---

Still have a full head of hair. Just starting to go gray here and there.

---

We can't tell, what with the baseball cap and all.

---

I think he's Jewish, its a skull cap.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

andre threads the thread that threaded the eye of the iris of the ball of the eyeball.

---

You needling me? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Seems there is a trend

Britain’s High-Tech Thought Police - Reason.com

---

Very interesting. Wonder what the answer will be between harassment cyber stalking and free speech?

Hey we got a mention!!

page two: Just drop a comma in after the word Facebook, and we are alive and kicking baby :D.

Speech is either free or it isn’t. And if it is, then that means everyone must have it—not just nice people, but also nasty people; not just the right-on, but also the racist; not just well-educated judges who use their free speech to spout BS about how abhorrent certain jokes are, but also immature tweeters, Facebook saddos, and unpopular bloggers who use their free speech to insult minorities or make bad gags about missing girls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

I believe that the perpetrator of this crime had mental health issues, his son had been killed by the police so he did have some resentment against them when he committed the "crime".

---

Wow thats tough,the story behind the story :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

That's what happens with older folk Tito, the trousers come down and the ass kissing goes on for hours. Never get old.

---

First you lose your hair..... then you lose your dignity.

:D

---

Still have a full head of hair. Just starting to go gray here and there.

---

We can't tell, what with the baseball cap and all.

---

I think he's Jewish, its a skull cap.:)

---

Not Jewish,

Keep the Flames hidden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Seems there is a trend

Britain’s High-Tech Thought Police - Reason.com

---

Very interesting. Wonder what the answer will be between harassment cyber stalking and free speech?

Hey we got a mention!!

page two: Just drop a comma in after the word Facebook, and we are alive and kicking baby :D.

Speech is either free or it isn’t. And if it is, then that means everyone must have it—not just nice people, but also nasty people; not just the right-on, but also the racist; not just well-educated judges who use their free speech to spout BS about how abhorrent certain jokes are, but also immature tweeters, Facebook saddos, and unpopular bloggers who use their free speech to insult minorities or make bad gags about missing girls.

---

You're absolutely right, Andre. Speech is either free or it isn't. So this guy could've paid for a billboard saying the same thing, and he's totally within his rights of free speech. He could put a sign in front of his house with the same message he had on his T-shirt.

Unfortunately, if a relative of one of those policewomen killed in the attack went over and kicked the living shit out of this guy, he be charged with assault and probably imprisoned. Such are the inequities of justice and laws in society.

Personally, I think 4 months in jail is a bit harsh for wearing a tasteless T-shirt. But none of us would probably be too upset if a meteorite just happened to obliterate the guy as he was headed to the local tavern while wearing his T-shirt. It must be mentioned, however, that the article says the guy had had a previous jail term suspended. So the model citizen he ain't.

People are adept at knowing the law and toeing that line.... sometimes even mockingly. The guy knows he's protected by freedom of speech laws, so he crosses that line between tasteless and completely crass and inhumane.

IMO, a person like that needs to understand that there are consequences to be faced when you behave in such an abhorrent fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

You're absolutely right, Andre. Speech is either free or it isn't. So this guy could've paid for a billboard saying the same thing, and he's totally within his rights of free speech. He could put a sign in front of his house with the same message he had on his T-shirt.

Unfortunately, if a relative of one of those policewomen killed in the attack went over and kicked the living shit out of this guy, he be charged with assault and probably imprisoned. Such are the inequities of justice and laws in society.

Personally, I think 4 months in jail is a bit harsh for wearing a tasteless T-shirt. But none of us would probably be too upset if a meteorite just happened to obliterate the guy as he was headed to the local tavern while wearing his T-shirt. It must be mentioned, however, that the article says the guy had had a previous jail term suspended. So the model citizen he ain't.

People are adept at knowing the law and toeing that line.... sometimes even mockingly. The guy knows he's protected by freedom of speech laws, so he crosses that line between tasteless and completely crass and inhumane.

IMO, a person like that needs to understand that there are consequences to be faced when you behave in such an abhorrent fashion.

---

Perhaps you don't fully grasp the idea of free speech. The deal is you can say what you want so long as it's not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Being able to hit/punch/kick/strike a person is not "free speech". People are entitled to their rights until they violate someone else's and striking someone no matter how much of a dirtbag they are when it comes to free speech is against the law and rightfully so as people can get offended at the slightest of things. You've got to look big picture when talking about rights...if we allow someone to harm the person wearing the shirt in question we start down a slippery slope and where does it end? How can you validate who's properly offended enough to be allowed to react violently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

andre threads the thread that threaded the eye of the iris of the ball of the eyeball.

---

You needling me? :)

---

no but ıts easıer for a camel to pass through than Lyle.

It is a little naïve to believe that the concept often referred to as “Free Speech” is an absolute concept that can exist anywhere without exceptions. I believe I am right in asserting that in America it is not as many people refer to it “a Right “at all. This terminology could more correctly be used to describe the system enjoyed by British citizens under parliamentary law.

In the USA it can rightly be described as a negative right, or an immunity. That is the US government is forbidden by both law and tradition in acting to prevent the populaces expressions of free speech. Here in Great Britain Parliament may pass exceptions when deemed necessary. Two obvious examples are terrorism and hate speech. Don’t forget also that a lot of the UK’s anti terrorism laws were drafted in response to the IRA and long before 7/7 and 9/11.

We do not live in a constitutional republic and long may that may continue. We do though have a noble and long tradition of respecting civil rights and have used the Westminster system to respond to an evolving populace and the challenges that that presents. @TitoFan is right in asserting that one wearing such a T-Shirt should be aware that there are consequences to be faced for ones actions but I am not so sure about believing that the Guy acted thinking he was protected by freedom of speech laws. The guy in question was clearly trying to provoke a reaction even if that was because of his own grief and loss and in outraging public decency he invited the attention of the police.

Hate Speech is often a precursor to violence as the troubles in Ireland and Race riots in London have taught us, and so laws have long been in place to protect the individual from having their rights violated by hateful incitement that causes harm both physical and mental. You can not elevate the supposed right of one person to express hatred and incite violence against an individual or group whilst ignoring the targeted group or individuals right to exist and carry out their duties/day to day activities in a way that they do not feel threatened, intimidated or discriminated against. Hate Speech laws have also ensured that Racial, Homophobic and Disability based persecution has often been nipped in the bud before violence has occurred.


Incitement to violence is unlawful in the UK and the guys T-shirt could quite clearly be seen as advocating that in a court of law. Do we really want a society in which anything goes and an individuals freedom extends to promoting (after all that is what a t-shirt and a website advocating killing cops is worn for) the extinction of others?

I am not, contrary to what many may think, in any way advocating a politically correct totalitarian state, in which people's freedom to dissent and run against the tide of popular opinion is impinged upon. (In fact as an artist I often find myself torn between returning to tradition and elucidating the reasoning behind what many see as conservative or conventional techniques and the much easier and now mainstream practice of utilising post modernism and re breaking already long dismissed taboos.) I am just acting as Devil’s Advocate and suggesting a less obvious and reactionary viewpoint to Miles surprisingly conservative and American like perspective on what constitutes free speech here in England.

Yeah, intent has to come into free speech the same as hanging around in the wrong place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Perhaps you don't fully grasp the idea of free speech. The deal is you can say what you want so long as it's not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Being able to hit/punch/kick/strike a person is not "free speech". People are entitled to their rights until they violate someone else's and striking someone no matter how much of a dirtbag they are when it comes to free speech is against the law and rightfully so as people can get offended at the slightest of things. You've got to look big picture when talking about rights...if we allow someone to harm the person wearing the shirt in question we start down a slippery slope and where does it end? How can you validate who's properly offended enough to be allowed to react violently?

---

@El Kabong, I did not equate hitting or punching somebody with free speech... and if you would kindly go back and reread my post, you will clearly see that I did not. I am perfectly aware of what "free speech" entails. I'm merely saying that how ironic and how upsetting that, in our society, I can wear a hateful T-shirt saying how glad I am that a policewoman (or man) was blown away, and be protected by freedom of expression laws. But if a grieving relative of that victim were to punch me for doing that, he can be incarcerated for assault. That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Hate Speech is often a precursor to violence as the troubles in Ireland and Race riots in London have taught us, and so laws have long been in place to protect the individual from having their rights violated by hateful incitement that causes harm both physical and mental. You can not elevate the supposed right of one person to express hatred and incite violence against an individual or group whilst ignoring the targeted group or individuals right to exist and carry out their duties/day to day activities in a way that they do not feel threatened, intimidated or discriminated against. Hate Speech laws have also ensured that Racial, Homophobic and Disability based persecution has often been nipped in the bud before violence has occurred.


Incitement to violence is unlawful in the UK and the guys T-shirt could quite clearly be seen as advocating that in a court of law. Do we really want a society in which anything goes and an individuals freedom extends to promoting (after all that is what a t-shirt and a website advocating killing cops is worn for) the extinction of others?

---

@Greenbeanz, I like the Hate Speech laws as you've described them. Some purists may see it as undermining what is commonly known as freedom of expression... but I also think that laws need to include the leeway, provisions, loopholes... whatever anyone wants to call them... to exclude violence-inciting expression. As a matter of fact, as with other things, maybe this is one of those areas where the U.S. could consider, compare... and maybe enact some similar laws.

Quote:

---

How can you validate who's properly offended enough to be allowed to react violently?

---

Lyle ı have to say----

:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::a ppl::appl::appl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Quote:

---

How can you validate who's properly offended enough to be allowed to react violently?

---

Lyle ı have to say----

:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::a ppl::appl::appl:

---

Lyle ıt ıs worth ıt agaın ----

:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::a ppl::

there ıs no way to determıne how a "feeling" is hurt or not or to what degree such a subjective, non-material, hard-to-pin-down, dıfferent-wıth-each-ındıvıdual thıng ıs affected by words from another person's mouth.

makıng a law about that would be hysterıcal, totally arbıtrary, and ımpossıble to measure the results agaınst.

and now here's 1 for ME, Lyle:

:appl:

I am generally ok with limiting time and place of hate speech but I am strongly in support of of a broad protection of speech of any kind. If a city ordnance requires an application for rallies and prescribes the time and locations of such rallies then I think that is reasonable but I can't support incarcerating someone b/c their speech is abhorrent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I am generally ok with limiting time and place of hate speech but I am strongly in support of of a broad protection of speech of any kind. If a city ordnance requires an application for rallies and prescribes the time and locations of such rallies then I think that is reasonable but I can't support incarcerating someone b/c their speech is abhorrent.

---

I agree.
But on the other side if you turn up to a funeral in a clown suit telling jokes I think you need to be dealt with somehow, maybe sanctioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I am generally ok with limiting time and place of hate speech but I am strongly in support of of a broad protection of speech of any kind. If a city ordnance requires an application for rallies and prescribes the time and locations of such rallies then I think that is reasonable but I can't support incarcerating someone b/c their speech is abhorrent.

---

I agree.
But on the other side if you turn up to a funeral in a clown suit telling jokes I think you need to be dealt with somehow, maybe sanctioned.

---

The "Fashion Police" have arrived. :ghost:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I am generally ok with limiting time and place of hate speech but I am strongly in support of of a broad protection of speech of any kind. If a city ordnance requires an application for rallies and prescribes the time and locations of such rallies then I think that is reasonable but I can't support incarcerating someone b/c their speech is abhorrent.

---

I agree.
But on the other side if you turn up to a funeral in a clown suit telling jokes I think you need to be dealt with somehow, maybe sanctioned.

---

See to me this more than a freedom of speech scenario. Sure most cemetaries are public areas but like many public spots they are reserved for specific events. While you have the right to dress like a clown and tell offensive jokes you don't have the right to intrude in a private ceremony all though the scum of Westboro Baptist seem to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Fuck him Miles, lock him up.

Less than three-and-a-half hours earlier, Pc Nicola Hughes, 23, and Fiona Bone, 32, were shot dead in a gun and grenade attack as they responded to a reported burglary on the Hattersley estate in Mottram, Greater Manchester.


How can you allow your civil activism to out weigh his inhumanity in this act?

---

That can't be, guns are ILLEGAL in England!

---

UK firearm death rate - 0.4
US firearm death rate - 10.5


Yeah...

---

Yes, but guns are ILLEGAL in the UK so you shouldn't have ANY deaths from guns......yeah

---

Shit... I better go and tell that to my uncle, I wouldn't want him being unable to use his shotgun on his farm!

They're not illegal in the UK, just highly controlled and therfore not easily available to criminals and psychopaths.

(That's why your firearm homicides are TEN times higher than ours)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I am generally ok with limiting time and place of hate speech but I am strongly in support of of a broad protection of speech of any kind. If a city ordnance requires an application for rallies and prescribes the time and locations of such rallies then I think that is reasonable but I can't support incarcerating someone b/c their speech is abhorrent.

---

I agree.
But on the other side if you turn up to a funeral in a clown suit telling jokes I think you need to be dealt with somehow, maybe sanctioned.

---

See to me this more than a freedom of speech scenario. Sure most cemetaries are public areas but like many public spots they are reserved for specific events. While you have the right to dress like a clown and tell offensive jokes you don't have the right to intrude in a private ceremony all though the scum of Westboro Baptist seem to disagree.

---

Same, I recon the dude in the T shirt was more than a freedom of speech scenario too, more offensive slogan or offensive advertizing maybe. Dont know the whole story, but we may well feel the same if a cop shot one of our kids dead instead of through both knees.Happened out here,a kid with knife for fucks sake in an open park against two cops with guns, so they shot for the chest and killed him.

What have those baptists got up to now? Who're they hassling this time?
They should be sanctioned too. Rubber suits all round ;).

I was watching LA Confidential today and it reminded me why people hate the police. They are vindictive, manipulative and corrupt. You hurt one of them or insult one of them and they want to get you and the laws are on their side. Look at Hillborough, look at this story. Does anybody really trust the police? They are not on your side. They will beat if you protest. They will arrest you if you say a naughty word (heaven forbid). They are part of that gang. They look out for one another. They enforce the laws of those who want to oppress.

Why would you become a police officer? That statement can stand alone.

Of course you should be able to wear a shirt saying 'Fuck the police'. Of course you should be able to sing or rap about 'Fucking the police'. It is a noble gesture to say fuck the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Why would you become a police officer? That statement can stand alone.

---

Because you are addicted to power and maybe have been humiliated in the past or treated poorly and now you want revenge.

This is why people should own guns, the police have them, the Armed Forces have them, we should be able to protect ourselves against them overstepping their bounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Why would you become a police officer? That statement can stand alone.

---

Because you are addicted to power and maybe have been humiliated in the past or treated poorly and now you want revenge.

This is why people should own guns, the police have them, the Armed Forces have them, we should be able to protect ourselves against them overstepping their bounds.

---

How many people shoot an officer and get away with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

How many people shoot an officer and get away with it?

---

What do you mean "get away with it"? I'm sure a significant amount of people kill officers and don't got directly to jail or get shot in return.

My point is if we're all equal under the law then we should all be EQUAL under the law when it comes to gun ownership and right to protect yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

How many people shoot an officer and get away with it?

---

What do you mean "get away with it"? I'm sure a significant amount of people kill officers and don't got directly to jail or get shot in return.

My point is if we're all equal under the law then we should all be EQUAL under the law when it comes to gun ownership and right to protect yourself

---

If there are no guns then nobody is being shot, so I cannot agree. Any police officer beating up a person should be sacked and put in prison. Strong laws for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

If there are no guns then nobody is being shot, so I cannot agree. Any police officer beating up a person should be sacked and put in prison. Strong laws for all.

---

And then what? Knives are then the worst thing or bow & arrows and then how long before you ban ALL weapons? miles listen guns have been invented, you can't UNinvent them. If you scrounged up every last firearm ever made and destroyed them all then the very next day people would build more guns. Your idea that "if there are no guns" is just naive there will ALWAYS be guns until something else comes along like lazers or whatever, but there will ALWAYS be guns and that's why gun violence isn't 0% in England where guns are banned. Now is it worse in the US statistically, well gun for gun I would bet not but then again we've got a shit ton more guns than you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

How many people shoot an officer and get away with it?

---

What do you mean "get away with it"? I'm sure a significant amount of people kill officers and don't got directly to jail or get shot in return.

My point is if we're all equal under the law then we should all be EQUAL under the law when it comes to gun ownership and right to protect yourself

---

If there are no guns then nobody is being shot, so I cannot agree. Any police officer beating up a person should be sacked and put in prison. Strong laws for all.

---

Can see it now: police officer gets punched in the face and instead of hitting back, smiles and says, do it again, do it again, that felt so good, do it again. :ghost:

I don't think everyone is going to give up their guns just because you asked nicely. I think there is more chance they will simply ask people to stop shooting each other.

I wonder if in our lifetimes there will be laser weapons on the streets? Interesting thought.

There do seem to be a lot more random mass killings recently though. Last week in Wales some guy started running people over, in seperate attacks, reversed over a few people to get them a second time and hit other people with a wrench.

I can't imagine what makes someone think that is a good idea.