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

[Andre]

I think you have to be able to say what you want no matter what the cost. I have been abused a lot on here, but it is my choice to stay and ride it out. I complain about it and thankfully the good side in people realize it is just a cuntish thing to do. But at the end of the day you do have a choice. Stay or walk away.

In terms of tshirt man, when he gauges the reaction of the public, just maybe he will adjust his stance or maybe just ignore them. People can call him a dick for it, but it is only wrong when somebody then uses violence towards him. Nobody has to be his friend or pretend to smile.

In terms of social media. Again, I think your own idiocy should be punished by the verbal reaction alone. Governments should keep away. Only when you are threatening violence or murder upon someone is the government needed. If you cannot handle the site you are using then just stop. Suicide is a choice one makes, but there are typically alternatives to that.

I don't believe in governments trying to make us PC and controlled. Once you cut a tongue you have done something serious. You can barely protest freely anymore and when you can't even say that the Queen is a hideous dictator and that her offspring are all inbred, then the establishment have everything again.

Free speech at any cost! Thats a very tough call.

Too many people are lazy so they blame others for the state of all our being and hide behind the free speech banner. Its a right but you know it will lead into friction and then violence.

Free speech is fine if you are mature enough to except all points view as having their right to exist, as soon as you step out into self righteousness at others expense you are heading for trouble.

[Gandalf]

My stance on this is nothing new and I have made similar arguments in the past. People like Lyle like to try and paint me into what they want, but on many issues I am either conservative or else liberal. I don't like how the discourse is set by the media and how everyone is expected to hop in line. Saying what you want just means staying true to your principles. It doesn't necessarily needs to lead to violence, but unfortunately it can and will, because some people are primitive, base, and don't have the mental capacities to respond with a sharp one liner. You have to be careful of those people and always carry a knife in your pocket or use the ignore button like Mars does with me.

One should always be free to be provocative without fear of death. It is important to raise questions and act like sandpaper. Mind you this guy was probably just being a primitive plop head, but certainly not worth any time in a cell. The UK is a sad place. A bunch of serfs getting locked up, warned and everybody seemingly a nonce. Ridiculous.

[brocktonblockbust]

ıts hard to prove there ıs a "cost" of free speech. I understand what Andre ıs sayıng about the mental torture---but where do you then draw the lıne? how can you prove mental torture? what drıves 1 person to suıcıde may not affect another person at all. How could we then apply the law evenly?

[Andre]

ıts hard to prove there ıs a "cost" of free speech. I understand what Andre ıs sayıng about the mental torture---but where do you then draw the lıne? how can you prove mental torture? what drıves 1 person to suıcıde may not affect another person at all. How could we then apply the law evenly?

Judge Judy .

[Spicoli]

Not clear what the actual charge in regards to the shirt...disturbing the peace, in sighting a riot, threat, or just being a fucking idiot? If its percieved as a direct threat than I can't argue not to at least question him, and frankly I cannot stand Johnny Law. Considering it was only 3 hrs after the murders I doubt they had solved it or detained any suspects. The initial conviction is pretty iffy and raises big questions based on 'individual expression' but wonder how much pertained to his previous charges that were unrelated. They don't say what he was being sentenced to in conjunction with the follow up 4 months for this?

Emotions had to be at peak, I'm sure this ass has something lurking that would light a fire to lash out with that hate but also if being a complete fucktard was a crime jail over crowding would be at an all time high. He's actually lucky some plain cloths didn't take him to a back alley really...or vigilante or relatives didn't get a hold of him and use his head for a football.

[Beanz]

This is not a case about freedom of speech at all. We are not America. This is a case in which a person out on license with previous convictions clearly breached the conditions of his release. He was charged under the British Public Order Act. For displaying writing or other visible representation with intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress.Miles do you really think that there is no such thing as the offence of incitement? Surely you would agree that harassment exists? Is it fine to remove the word cop and wear a T Shirt saying "Kill a Homo for fun" or " Kill a Black man for Fun" or "Kill an Immigrant for fun..Ha ha"? Can you not see how that might precede a huge public order incident with punches being thrown or Riots starting?

Free speech is not an absolute right. If it were then somebody could constantly harass an ex partner by bombarding them with phone calls and messages to an unreasonable degree and one would be free to waste the emergency services time by ringing them and babbling on when no emergency had occurred. If I went on and on and on at you at the pub all night about punching that annoying guy in the corner who said you were that this and the other for night after night and year after year and eventually you snapped and smacked ME on the nose do you not think that I would be at least partially responsible for incitement by abusing my privilege of Free speech ?

Even if the intended victim of a threatening message does not feel intimidated if someone is likely to cause a disturbance of the peace by outraging or offending public decency so much that he himself may be assaulted then British law allows for him to be arrested to prevent this spiralling into a riot. The fact that people are outraged when this law was is not properly utilised to apprehend extremists protesting just proves that the majority of the population for whom this law was intended agree with it's sentiment.

[VictorCharlie]

I feel a little dirty saying this but I'm with Miles.

[Gandalf]

This is not a case about freedom of speech at all. We are not America. This is a case in which a person out on license with previous convictions clearly breached the conditions of his release. He was charged under the British Public Order Act. For displaying writing or other visible representation with intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress.Miles do you really think that there is no such thing as the offence of incitement? Surely you would agree that harassment exists? Is it fine to remove the word cop and wear a T Shirt saying "Kill a Homo for fun" or " Kill a Black man for Fun" or "Kill an Immigrant for fun..Ha ha"? Can you not see how that might precede a huge public order incident with punches being thrown or Riots starting?

Free speech is not an absolute right. If it were then somebody could constantly harass an ex partner by bombarding them with phone calls and messages to an unreasonable degree and one would be free to waste the emergency services time by ringing them and babbling on when no emergency had occurred. If I went on and on and on at you at the pub all night about punching that annoying guy in the corner who said you were that this and the other for night after night and year after year and eventually you snapped and smacked ME on the nose do you not think that I would be at least partially responsible for incitement by abusing my privilege of Free speech ?

Even if the intended victim of a threatening message does not feel intimidated if someone is likely to cause a disturbance of the peace by outraging or offending public decency so much that he himself may be assaulted then British law allows for him to be arrested to prevent this spiralling into a riot. The fact that people are outraged when this law was is not properly utilised to apprehend extremists protesting just proves that the majority of the population for whom this law was intended agree with it's sentiment.

I do believe incitement exists and I don't believe it should be an offense. If anybody wanted to wear a t shirt saying 'I hate miles because he's a twat', then I just have to grin and bear it. I might not like it, but nobody should be getting locked up for it. Missy even wished I had cancer the other day. That is a dreadful thing to say, almost as bad as you could ever get really, but I don't want to take away her voice. Let it be said. Likewise I say things that others find a bit much. Provocation is part of who we are as human beings and yes, sometimes it is hateful.

In the example of the guy in the pub, nobody is forcing you to listen to him and if enough people get annoyed with him then the pub loses customers and the guy ends up talking on his own. Nobody should punch him though and if he does punch the guy in the corner, then absolutely, you need to sock him with the law and harshly so.

Also I have no problems with idiots wanting to target particular groups with a t shirt. I don't think it matters. Now if you were knocking on doors and then berating them, then yes I am against that. But this guy didn't stalk the police, he just showed callous insensitivity and we all do that on occasions. We don't need to be locked up for 4 months for it.

Harassment does exist and stalking is a foul form of behaviour, but did this man stalk anyone? No, he just went out like a bell end wearing a retarded t-shirt. Stalking typically involves a physical act too. Someone will follow you, someone will call you when you have told them not to. That is an invasion of privacy and it is for that reason that I think stalking type behaviour is wrong. You can post on the internet that you hate Britney Spears, wear a tshirt saying likewise, but you shouldn't follow her personally. I think those are quite distinct things.

[Andre]

From a legal stand point I think we all are.

Morally that changes when others are hurt by it adding to their already heavy burden.

That the line right there.

Now we're thinking about the Muslim leaders and fanatics kicking up about cartoons etc and our freedom to continue to call them as we see fit.

[Gandalf]

Also I think for the vast majority of people, education is enough and beyond that people are generally able to get on with life and one another without too many problems. I had a student last year who was wearing a Hitler t-shirt done in a faux Warhol style. Personally I found it quite odd, but also rather funny and commented as much to the student. Apparently his Dad had told him to destroy it by the end of the day and in turn I was offered the t-shirt. I politely declined. It wasn't really my style and plus my student days of sartorial rebellion were long gone. And so the funky Hitler fad never really caught on.

Basically the point of that story is that through our social connections we typically know where the lines are. Personally, I think there should be no lines, but I wear nothing but jackets and button shirts which look very dull. My students Dad thinks there should be lines and told his son as much. The son despite his bravery was forced to compromise due to the expectations and demands of others. You don't really need laws telling you what to do as we all exist quite fine without them.

[Ghost]

Basically the point of that story is that through our social connections we typically know where the lines are. Personally, I think there should be no lines, but I wear nothing but jackets and button shirts which look very dull. My students Dad thinks there should be lines and told his son as much. The son despite his bravery was forced to compromise due to the expectations and demands of others. You don't really need laws telling you what to do as we all exist quite fine without them.

So, if some one was to destory your hard drive (Because they can) and kept doing it each time you replaced it. You would have no problem with this because the person doing it, "See's no lines".

Just asking.

[Gandalf]

Basically the point of that story is that through our social connections we typically know where the lines are. Personally, I think there should be no lines, but I wear nothing but jackets and button shirts which look very dull. My students Dad thinks there should be lines and told his son as much. The son despite his bravery was forced to compromise due to the expectations and demands of others. You don't really need laws telling you what to do as we all exist quite fine without them.

So, if some one was to destory your hard drive (Because they can) and kept doing it each time you replaced it. You would have no problem with this because the person doing it, "See's no lines".

Just asking.

That would be a physical act of aggression resulting in the damage to property. I don't believe any person has the right to destroy the property of another person (not even a rice cooker), not unless they were reacting to something that had been physically done to them. If you break my pencil you can be sure I will snap yours into one piece more. That is just. I don't believe in physical violence or property destruction without sufficient reason though.

I guess it shows how primitive people are if they cannot engage rhetorically without the need to physically hurt someone or destroy their property.

[Ghost]

Basically the point of that story is that through our social connections we typically know where the lines are. Personally, I think there should be no lines, but I wear nothing but jackets and button shirts which look very dull. My students Dad thinks there should be lines and told his son as much. The son despite his bravery was forced to compromise due to the expectations and demands of others. You don't really need laws telling you what to do as we all exist quite fine without them.

So, if some one was to destory your hard drive (Because they can) and kept doing it each time you replaced it. You would have no problem with this because the person doing it, "See's no lines".

Just asking.

That would be a physical act of aggression resulting in the damage to property. I don't believe any person has the right to destroy the property of another person (not even a rice cooker), not unless they were reacting to something that had been physically done to them. If you break my pencil you can be sure I will snap yours into one piece more. That is just. I don't believe in physical violence or property destruction without sufficient reason though.

I guess it shows how primitive people are if they cannot engage rhetorically without the need to physically hurt someone or destroy their property.

So there is a line you won't cross unless provoked. Correct?

[Gandalf]

Basically the point of that story is that through our social connections we typically know where the lines are. Personally, I think there should be no lines, but I wear nothing but jackets and button shirts which look very dull. My students Dad thinks there should be lines and told his son as much. The son despite his bravery was forced to compromise due to the expectations and demands of others. You don't really need laws telling you what to do as we all exist quite fine without them.

So, if some one was to destory your hard drive (Because they can) and kept doing it each time you replaced it. You would have no problem with this because the person doing it, "See's no lines".

Just asking.

That would be a physical act of aggression resulting in the damage to property. I don't believe any person has the right to destroy the property of another person (not even a rice cooker), not unless they were reacting to something that had been physically done to them. If you break my pencil you can be sure I will snap yours into one piece more. That is just. I don't believe in physical violence or property destruction without sufficient reason though.

I guess it shows how primitive people are if they cannot engage rhetorically without the need to physically hurt someone or destroy their property.

So there is a line you won't cross unless provoked. Correct?

Of course, I think most people have their own natural inclination to just want to get on with life without too much fuss. Most of us prefer to avoid confrontation in our daily lives. Like I say, the guy wearing that t-shirt is a complete twit and it is something I would never do myself. All I am arguing though is that people should have the right to express themselves in inflammatory ways. Few people would ever bother with doing it though as friends and family keep you in check. I dislike the law being involved in such instances as I believe it is a law that can be used for all the wrong reasons. Wearing a t-shirt saying 'The Queen needs a guillotine' should never be a crime, but me smashing up someones favorite Jubilee mug definitely should be.

[Ghost]

Of course, I think most people have their own natural inclination to just want to get on with life without too much fuss. Most of us prefer to avoid confrontation in our daily lives. Like I say, the guy wearing that t-shirt is a complete twit and it is something I would never do myself. All I am arguing though is that people should have the right to express themselves in inflammatory ways. Few people would ever bother with doing it though as friends and family keep you in check. I dislike the law being involved in such instances as I believe it is a law that can be used for all the wrong reasons. Wearing a t-shirt saying 'The Queen needs a guillotine' should never be a crime, but me smashing up someones favorite Jubilee mug definitely should be.

But with most of the thread you start on here about America and religion in general, would you not say that you come on here just for that purpose. To cause confrontation with some of the members on here.