Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' 🇺🇲 " We don’t live in the USA | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'We hold these truth to be self evident.' 🇺🇲👍"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others " People are always keen to promote their 'freedom' and 'rights', but seldom accept that these come with commensurate responsibilities. You can't have free rein to do one without the other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others People are always keen to promote their 'freedom' and 'rights', but seldom accept that these come with commensurate responsibilities. You can't have free rein to do one without the other." I agree, complete freedom of speech ( the freedom to say anything you want ) is a fallacy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves " True, but a conversation between 2 people is different that what is broadcasted online, you can say anything to a friend but rightly have to be more restricted when posting online to the public | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are " But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves True, but a conversation between 2 people is different that what is broadcasted online, you can say anything to a friend but rightly have to be more restricted when posting online to the public " I see your point absolutely Though online I'd more likely support people voicing their opinion and instead of having their voice restricted would rather see it argued with by others (community notes, fact checks etc) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves True, but a conversation between 2 people is different that what is broadcasted online, you can say anything to a friend but rightly have to be more restricted when posting online to the public I see your point absolutely Though online I'd more likely support people voicing their opinion and instead of having their voice restricted would rather see it argued with by others (community notes, fact checks etc) " That’s fair enough, but you have to draw the line somewhere ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? " Anything stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence They can either back it up or it's worthless | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves True, but a conversation between 2 people is different that what is broadcasted online, you can say anything to a friend but rightly have to be more restricted when posting online to the public I see your point absolutely Though online I'd more likely support people voicing their opinion and instead of having their voice restricted would rather see it argued with by others (community notes, fact checks etc) That’s fair enough, but you have to draw the line somewhere ? " It's a very difficult conversation, my main issue is who do we trust to enforce speech (and by extension thought)? It's a bugger of an issue | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? Anything stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence They can either back it up or it's worthless " Are you on Twitter, there are a lot of lies spread on there, nothing gets removed nothing gets checked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves True, but a conversation between 2 people is different that what is broadcasted online, you can say anything to a friend but rightly have to be more restricted when posting online to the public I see your point absolutely Though online I'd more likely support people voicing their opinion and instead of having their voice restricted would rather see it argued with by others (community notes, fact checks etc) That’s fair enough, but you have to draw the line somewhere ? It's a very difficult conversation, my main issue is who do we trust to enforce speech (and by extension thought)? It's a bugger of an issue " Not sure, the democratically elected government made these decisions, maybe they should create a special department to look into it , 99.99999 % of the population are abiding by the current laws | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? Anything stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence They can either back it up or it's worthless Are you on Twitter, there are a lot of lies spread on there, nothing gets removed nothing gets checked " It's been called X for well over a year so there's a lie right there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? Anything stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence They can either back it up or it's worthless Are you on Twitter, there are a lot of lies spread on there, nothing gets removed nothing gets checked It's been called X for well over a year so there's a lie right there." Twitter to me, I still send tweets | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? Anything stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence They can either back it up or it's worthless Are you on Twitter, there are a lot of lies spread on there, nothing gets removed nothing gets checked " God no, never been on twitter lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? Anything stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence They can either back it up or it's worthless Are you on Twitter, there are a lot of lies spread on there, nothing gets removed nothing gets checked It's been called X for well over a year so there's a lie right there. Twitter to me, I still send tweets " Calling x twitter is like calling the pub in town that changed it's name by the old name still lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are But what if they started posting untruths about you online ? Anything stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence They can either back it up or it's worthless Are you on Twitter, there are a lot of lies spread on there, nothing gets removed nothing gets checked God no, never been on twitter lol" Cess pit mate , too many idiots , but the block button helps, some good people on there though . It’s biggest problem is the lack of regulation now, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech." Absolutely correct, which is why the UK is now only a very partial democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech." You do have democracy, anyway, I would be free to say and post anything about you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech. Absolutely correct, which is why the UK is now only a very partial democracy." Name one country that has ‘pure’ freedom of speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information. This right also covers the freedom of the press. Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. The media require particular protection because they play a key role in defending freedom of expression. Article 10 protects, among others, the right to criticise, to make assumptions or value judgments and the right to have opinions. Such protection is not restricted to “true” statements; it applies in particular to political speech and debate on questions of public interest. Freedom of expression plays a key role in elections. Artistic expression is also protected by Article 10. 🇪🇺 "I would avoid quoting the ECHR when it comes to free speech. Here are the list of "exemptions" from the protection of free speech: - to protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety - to prevent disorder or crime - to protect health or morals - to protect the rights and reputations of other people - to prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence - to maintain the authority and impartiality of judges See the word "morals" in there? Tomorrow, if a thoroughly religious political party wins elections and passes a law that bans speech that they consider immoral, it's still permitted by ECHR. So in practice, it does nothing to protect free speech. The only thing that the ECHR does well is protecting murderers and r@pists from being deported. The best implementation of free speech by far is the first amendment. Its limitations are minimal and the line is clear. You don't have police arbitrarily making decisions on whether some speech is legal or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information. This right also covers the freedom of the press. Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. The media require particular protection because they play a key role in defending freedom of expression. Article 10 protects, among others, the right to criticise, to make assumptions or value judgments and the right to have opinions. Such protection is not restricted to “true” statements; it applies in particular to political speech and debate on questions of public interest. Freedom of expression plays a key role in elections. Artistic expression is also protected by Article 10. 🇪🇺
I would avoid quoting the ECHR when it comes to free speech. Here are the list of "exemptions" from the protection of free speech:
- to protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
- to prevent disorder or crime
- to protect health or morals
- to protect the rights and reputations of other people
- to prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
- to maintain the authority and impartiality of judges
See the word "morals" in there? Tomorrow, if a thoroughly religious political party wins elections and passes a law that bans speech that they consider immoral, it's still permitted by ECHR. So in practice, it does nothing to protect free speech. The only thing that the ECHR does well is protecting murderers and r@pists from being deported.
The best implementation of free speech by far is the first amendment. Its limitations are minimal and the line is clear. You don't have police arbitrarily making decisions on whether some speech is legal or not.
"It is certainly a far less robust protection than the peerless 1st Ammendment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech. You do have democracy, anyway, I would be free to say and post anything about you " Just because you can post anything you want doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak everything they want. Remember that line "I may hate what you say. But I will defend with my life your right to say so" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech. You do have democracy, anyway, I would be free to say and post anything about you Just because you can post anything you want doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak everything they want. Remember that line "I may hate what you say. But I will defend with my life your right to say so"" I see, so you agree that online content has to be restricted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech. You do have democracy, anyway, I would be free to say and post anything about you Just because you can post anything you want doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak everything they want. Remember that line "I may hate what you say. But I will defend with my life your right to say so" I see, so you agree that online content has to be restricted " I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Times reported that the police recorded a non-crime hate incident against a 9 year old who called a classmate a “retard”. The UK has ceased to be a serious functioning country."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Times reported that the police recorded a non-crime hate incident against a 9 year old who called a classmate a “retard”. The UK has ceased to be a serious functioning country." All because of some Blair era laws. People didn't know what they were signing up for then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Elon Musk is one of the great defenders of freedom of speech. Thank God for X !" You can’t say everything you want on Twitter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Times reported that the police recorded a non-crime hate incident against a 9 year old who called a classmate a “retard”. The UK has ceased to be a serious functioning country. All because of some Blair era laws. People didn't know what they were signing up for then." So, which country has ‘pure’ freedom of speach? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech. You do have democracy, anyway, I would be free to say and post anything about you Just because you can post anything you want doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak everything they want. Remember that line "I may hate what you say. But I will defend with my life your right to say so" I see, so you agree that online content has to be restricted I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels." Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech. You do have democracy, anyway, I would be free to say and post anything about you Just because you can post anything you want doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak everything they want. Remember that line "I may hate what you say. But I will defend with my life your right to say so" I see, so you agree that online content has to be restricted I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line " The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe in absolute free speech. But if there is a law, it must take a minimalist approach and the law must be clear. It must not be vague and stupid like "It's illegal to post anything grossly offensive" which is what the 2003 communication act says. Free speech is a fundamental pillar to democracy. You don't have democracy if you don't have free speech. You do have democracy, anyway, I would be free to say and post anything about you Just because you can post anything you want doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak everything they want. Remember that line "I may hate what you say. But I will defend with my life your right to say so" I see, so you agree that online content has to be restricted I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal" Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The offended party decide the line which makes freedom of speech a dangerous tightrope " No they don’t | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is " Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The offended party decide the line which makes freedom of speech a dangerous tightrope " Exactly. In Wakefield, they recorded a kid damaging Quran as hate incident. But the same doesn't happen with other religious books | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question?" By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question?" Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online " Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal?" We don’t live in the US and they don’t have pure freedom of speech? So who is deciding what are new freedom of speech laws are? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population " "I am not affected. So it's perfectly fine" is like men saying "I am not affected. So we can take away women's right to vote." "99.99999% of the people aren't affected. So it's a good law" is like saying "99.99% or people aren't affected. So let's just kill the people who are having prostate cancer" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population "I am not affected. So it's perfectly fine" is like men saying "I am not affected. So we can take away women's right to vote." "99.99999% of the people aren't affected. So it's a good law" is like saying "99.99% or people aren't affected. So let's just kill the people who are having prostate cancer"" You’re missing the point, 99.999999 % either don’t care or know the law, so why are we changing it? And who is making the decision | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal? We don’t live in the US and they don’t have pure freedom of speech? So who is deciding what are new freedom of speech laws are? " Who decided we need to have democracy? Who decided we need to vote? Voting is a part of democracy. So is free speech. It's not up for governments to decide. It's a fundamental absolute right if you really need democracy. Can you please answer my question before you ask me so many questions? Which of the ones I listed are illegal and which aren't? If you don't know, you agree that our current laws are free speech are vague and stupid. It's not really a "common sense" thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population " What were your thoughts on the Charlie Hedbo thing a while back, the drawings of Muhammad? Do you feel they should have the freedom to publish such imagery? If not I'm going to assume you believe the violence threatened against them was way too far, but what deterrent / punishment would you think fair? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal? We don’t live in the US and they don’t have pure freedom of speech? So who is deciding what are new freedom of speech laws are? Who decided we need to have democracy? Who decided we need to vote? Voting is a part of democracy. So is free speech. It's not up for governments to decide. It's a fundamental absolute right if you really need democracy. Can you please answer my question before you ask me so many questions? Which of the ones I listed are illegal and which aren't? If you don't know, you agree that our current laws are free speech are vague and stupid. It's not really a "common sense" thing." I don’t know which are illegal? Just like I don’t know all the tax laws, if in doubt i ask for advice , or don’t post , sensibly approach , ignorance is not a defence . So who are writting these new laws? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population "I am not affected. So it's perfectly fine" is like men saying "I am not affected. So we can take away women's right to vote." "99.99999% of the people aren't affected. So it's a good law" is like saying "99.99% or people aren't affected. So let's just kill the people who are having prostate cancer" You’re missing the point, 99.999999 % either don’t care or know the law, so why are we changing it? And who is making the decision " First of all, you pulled that number out of your ass. Just because people didn't get arrested, it doesn't mean people are fine with it. Just because women in Saudi aren't caught breaking dress code, it doesn't mean they are fine with it. Secondly, we are talking about taking away someone's right. Even if 99.99% or people aren't affected, it doesn't mean it's ok. According to you, if we ban native Americans living in UK from taking the public transport, you would be fine. You first argued that "It's just a law. Put up with it". Now you have moved on to "Most people aren't affected. Put up with it". Neither are clear arguments about pros and cons of the law itself. If I start applying your own arguments on so many other laws that I mentioned above, you most probably wouldn't support those laws. Do you think it's fine for Saudi to have dress code specific to women just because 99.999% of people don't get arrested? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population What were your thoughts on the Charlie Hedbo thing a while back, the drawings of Muhammad? Do you feel they should have the freedom to publish such imagery? If not I'm going to assume you believe the violence threatened against them was way too far, but what deterrent / punishment would you think fair? " In France? The violence against them was abhorrent, why did they publish the cartoon? Did they knowingly set out to offend? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population "I am not affected. So it's perfectly fine" is like men saying "I am not affected. So we can take away women's right to vote." "99.99999% of the people aren't affected. So it's a good law" is like saying "99.99% or people aren't affected. So let's just kill the people who are having prostate cancer" You’re missing the point, 99.999999 % either don’t care or know the law, so why are we changing it? And who is making the decision First of all, you pulled that number out of your ass. Just because people didn't get arrested, it doesn't mean people are fine with it. Just because women in Saudi aren't caught breaking dress code, it doesn't mean they are fine with it. Secondly, we are talking about taking away someone's right. Even if 99.99% or people aren't affected, it doesn't mean it's ok. According to you, if we ban native Americans living in UK from taking the public transport, you would be fine. You first argued that "It's just a law. Put up with it". Now you have moved on to "Most people aren't affected. Put up with it". Neither are clear arguments about pros and cons of the law itself. If I start applying your own arguments on so many other laws that I mentioned above, you most probably wouldn't support those laws. Do you think it's fine for Saudi to have dress code specific to women just because 99.999% of people don't get arrested?" You need to stick to the laws in the UK, there isn’t a democracy in Saudi or china | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal? We don’t live in the US and they don’t have pure freedom of speech? So who is deciding what are new freedom of speech laws are? Who decided we need to have democracy? Who decided we need to vote? Voting is a part of democracy. So is free speech. It's not up for governments to decide. It's a fundamental absolute right if you really need democracy. Can you please answer my question before you ask me so many questions? Which of the ones I listed are illegal and which aren't? If you don't know, you agree that our current laws are free speech are vague and stupid. It's not really a "common sense" thing. I don’t know which are illegal? Just like I don’t know all the tax laws, if in doubt i ask for advice , or don’t post , sensibly approach , ignorance is not a defence . So who are writting these new laws? " Surely if it's common sense, you must know? You told me it's such a simple common sense thing. The law states that you shouldn't post anything "grossly offensive". Which of the above are "grossly offensive"? Do you believe "grossly offensive" draws a clear line on what's legal and what's illegal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal? We don’t live in the US and they don’t have pure freedom of speech? So who is deciding what are new freedom of speech laws are? Who decided we need to have democracy? Who decided we need to vote? Voting is a part of democracy. So is free speech. It's not up for governments to decide. It's a fundamental absolute right if you really need democracy. Can you please answer my question before you ask me so many questions? Which of the ones I listed are illegal and which aren't? If you don't know, you agree that our current laws are free speech are vague and stupid. It's not really a "common sense" thing. I don’t know which are illegal? Just like I don’t know all the tax laws, if in doubt i ask for advice , or don’t post , sensibly approach , ignorance is not a defence . So who are writting these new laws? Surely if it's common sense, you must know? You told me it's such a simple common sense thing. The law states that you shouldn't post anything "grossly offensive". Which of the above are "grossly offensive"? Do you believe "grossly offensive" draws a clear line on what's legal and what's illegal?" I use common sense, if I don’t know for certain I seek advice or just don’t post, it really is that simple. I am not a tax expert but I have never commited tax fraud either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population "I am not affected. So it's perfectly fine" is like men saying "I am not affected. So we can take away women's right to vote." "99.99999% of the people aren't affected. So it's a good law" is like saying "99.99% or people aren't affected. So let's just kill the people who are having prostate cancer" You’re missing the point, 99.999999 % either don’t care or know the law, so why are we changing it? And who is making the decision First of all, you pulled that number out of your ass. Just because people didn't get arrested, it doesn't mean people are fine with it. Just because women in Saudi aren't caught breaking dress code, it doesn't mean they are fine with it. Secondly, we are talking about taking away someone's right. Even if 99.99% or people aren't affected, it doesn't mean it's ok. According to you, if we ban native Americans living in UK from taking the public transport, you would be fine. You first argued that "It's just a law. Put up with it". Now you have moved on to "Most people aren't affected. Put up with it". Neither are clear arguments about pros and cons of the law itself. If I start applying your own arguments on so many other laws that I mentioned above, you most probably wouldn't support those laws. Do you think it's fine for Saudi to have dress code specific to women just because 99.999% of people don't get arrested? You need to stick to the laws in the UK, there isn’t a democracy in Saudi or china " So you believe any law in a democratic country is good? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal? We don’t live in the US and they don’t have pure freedom of speech? So who is deciding what are new freedom of speech laws are? Who decided we need to have democracy? Who decided we need to vote? Voting is a part of democracy. So is free speech. It's not up for governments to decide. It's a fundamental absolute right if you really need democracy. Can you please answer my question before you ask me so many questions? Which of the ones I listed are illegal and which aren't? If you don't know, you agree that our current laws are free speech are vague and stupid. It's not really a "common sense" thing. I don’t know which are illegal? Just like I don’t know all the tax laws, if in doubt i ask for advice , or don’t post , sensibly approach , ignorance is not a defence . So who are writting these new laws? Surely if it's common sense, you must know? You told me it's such a simple common sense thing. The law states that you shouldn't post anything "grossly offensive". Which of the above are "grossly offensive"? Do you believe "grossly offensive" draws a clear line on what's legal and what's illegal? I use common sense, if I don’t know for certain I seek advice or just don’t post, it really is that simple. I am not a tax expert but I have never commited tax fraud either " I shared you a line from the law itself. It states that it's illegal to post anything grossly offensive, with no definition of grossly offensive. You don't need an expert to see if this is a clear law or not. With tax, it maybe simple for you. It's not for me. I have to hire a tax expert. If these laws don't affect you, it's fair enough. In that case, your stance on this should be that you have no opinion on it. Why do you feel strongly against people who believe the law should be changed to give them more free speech? It's not going to affect you negatively. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would be happy with something like the first amendment in the US. The restrictions are clear. You can't make direct calls for violence and there is also protection against libels. Ah, but that’s not pure freedom of speech, you can’t say anything you like, there is a line The line is minimal and clear. Not something arbitrary, vague and stupid like "grossly offensive" that gives the police power to randomly decide what's legal and what's illegal Who decides where this line is? Btw, 99.999999999% of the population know where the current line is Free speech should be hard written. It shouldn't be up to government to take away these rights. Unfortunately we don't have a constitution. As for your 99.999% comment, I am yet to receive an answer from you about which of this is illegal - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? Btw, I wouldn’t post any of them, if in doubt I use my common sense, just like 99.9999999 % of the population "I am not affected. So it's perfectly fine" is like men saying "I am not affected. So we can take away women's right to vote." "99.99999% of the people aren't affected. So it's a good law" is like saying "99.99% or people aren't affected. So let's just kill the people who are having prostate cancer" You’re missing the point, 99.999999 % either don’t care or know the law, so why are we changing it? And who is making the decision First of all, you pulled that number out of your ass. Just because people didn't get arrested, it doesn't mean people are fine with it. Just because women in Saudi aren't caught breaking dress code, it doesn't mean they are fine with it. Secondly, we are talking about taking away someone's right. Even if 99.99% or people aren't affected, it doesn't mean it's ok. According to you, if we ban native Americans living in UK from taking the public transport, you would be fine. You first argued that "It's just a law. Put up with it". Now you have moved on to "Most people aren't affected. Put up with it". Neither are clear arguments about pros and cons of the law itself. If I start applying your own arguments on so many other laws that I mentioned above, you most probably wouldn't support those laws. Do you think it's fine for Saudi to have dress code specific to women just because 99.999% of people don't get arrested? You need to stick to the laws in the UK, there isn’t a democracy in Saudi or china So you believe any law in a democratic country is good?" Define good? I don’t agree with some of them because personally they negatively affect me, but I don’t expect then to be changed because of me. However I respect that they have been written by a democratically elected government, who do you want writing out laws? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" - Drawing a picture that's considered blasphemous in some religion - Damaging a religious book If it is just "common sense", why are you struggling to answer this question? By who? Who decides? Common sense means that I (like 99.99999999 %) have never been arrested for posting illegal content online Who decided it in the US? Who decided that we should have democracy? Your statistics about number of people in being arrested is pretty much the same for China. Do you think they have free speech? It's such a ridiculous argument. Women don't get arrested as much in Saudi for not following dress code because they put up with it. Do you think it's good law? Just because people are following the rule, it doesn't make it good. And why are you running away my question about which of the ones I listed are illegal? We don’t live in the US and they don’t have pure freedom of speech? So who is deciding what are new freedom of speech laws are? Who decided we need to have democracy? Who decided we need to vote? Voting is a part of democracy. So is free speech. It's not up for governments to decide. It's a fundamental absolute right if you really need democracy. Can you please answer my question before you ask me so many questions? Which of the ones I listed are illegal and which aren't? If you don't know, you agree that our current laws are free speech are vague and stupid. It's not really a "common sense" thing. I don’t know which are illegal? Just like I don’t know all the tax laws, if in doubt i ask for advice , or don’t post , sensibly approach , ignorance is not a defence . So who are writting these new laws? Surely if it's common sense, you must know? You told me it's such a simple common sense thing. The law states that you shouldn't post anything "grossly offensive". Which of the above are "grossly offensive"? Do you believe "grossly offensive" draws a clear line on what's legal and what's illegal? I use common sense, if I don’t know for certain I seek advice or just don’t post, it really is that simple. I am not a tax expert but I have never commited tax fraud either I shared you a line from the law itself. It states that it's illegal to post anything grossly offensive, with no definition of grossly offensive. You don't need an expert to see if this is a clear law or not. With tax, it maybe simple for you. It's not for me. I have to hire a tax expert. If these laws don't affect you, it's fair enough. In that case, your stance on this should be that you have no opinion on it. Why do you feel strongly against people who believe the law should be changed to give them more free speech? It's not going to affect you negatively." My opinion is this, laws are democratic, just because an individual doesn’t like them doesn’t make the law undemocratuc , unless you know a fairer system to write all our laws, not just freedom of speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only speech that should be banned are any that incite actual physical violence to a person, threats to cause physical harm to a person, death/raxxpe threats ect " What about slander? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am constantly surprised the right to free speech is conflated with a right to broadcast. yes you have the freedom to think and say whatever comes to mind but being at liberty to broadcast those ideas and words -specifically to influence others - is an important difference that is too often ignored." Exactly, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to stick to the laws in the UK, there isn’t a democracy in Saudi or china So you believe any law in a democratic country is good? Define good? I don’t agree with some of them because personally they negatively affect me, but I don’t expect then to be changed because of me. However I respect that they have been written by a democratically elected government, who do you want writing out laws? " So you have personal opinion only on laws that personally affect you. That's fair. If there is some law that doesn't really affect you, you could just wave it off by saying you don't have a personal opinion. But instead you are here arguing against people who want a change in law? Why? We have a framework around free speech which some of us feel, is too authoritarian. You are fine with things the way they are. We on the other hand want to change them to increase our freedom. This doesn't affect you negatively. So why are you even bothered arguing against it? The question is do you have a personal opinion on the country increasing the freedom of speech? I am not asking about how democracy works. We all know that already. I am asking what's your opinion on making the change and why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am constantly surprised the right to free speech is conflated with a right to broadcast. yes you have the freedom to think and say whatever comes to mind but being at liberty to broadcast those ideas and words -specifically to influence others - is an important difference that is too often ignored." Freedom of speech includes rights to broadcast. You have the right to not listen to the broadcast. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only speech that should be banned are any that incite actual physical violence to a person, threats to cause physical harm to a person, death/raxxpe threats ect What about slander? " suppose providing you have evidence to back up what your saying then surely youre just speaking the truth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" My opinion is this, laws are democratic, just because an individual doesn’t like them doesn’t make the law undemocratuc , unless you know a fairer system to write all our laws, not just freedom of speech " Again, don't hide behind democracy. We all know how democracy works. Do you have a personal opinion on free speech or not? If a politician says that he wants to change the laws to something similar to the American first amendment, will you be supportive or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to stick to the laws in the UK, there isn’t a democracy in Saudi or china So you believe any law in a democratic country is good? Define good? I don’t agree with some of them because personally they negatively affect me, but I don’t expect then to be changed because of me. However I respect that they have been written by a democratically elected government, who do you want writing out laws? So you have personal opinion only on laws that personally affect you. That's fair. If there is some law that doesn't really affect you, you could just wave it off by saying you don't have a personal opinion. But instead you are here arguing against people who want a change in law? Why? We have a framework around free speech which some of us feel, is too authoritarian. You are fine with things the way they are. We on the other hand want to change them to increase our freedom. This doesn't affect you negatively. So why are you even bothered arguing against it? The question is do you have a personal opinion on the country increasing the freedom of speech? I am not asking about how democracy works. We all know that already. I am asking what's your opinion on making the change and why?" I am more than happy to follow the current laws on freedom of speech in this country? If for any reason I want to post something online I am u sure with I will do some research or won’t post, common sense, I apply these principles with all laws hence why I have never been in prison . You may want to change the law, but you don’t know how? Until you do that wet h it will never happen , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only speech that should be banned are any that incite actual physical violence to a person, threats to cause physical harm to a person, death/raxxpe threats ect What about slander? suppose providing you have evidence to back up what your saying then surely youre just speaking the truth? " But you stated that you only wanted anything that incites violence banning, that isn’t slander, so you want that banning aswell | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to stick to the laws in the UK, there isn’t a democracy in Saudi or china So you believe any law in a democratic country is good? Define good? I don’t agree with some of them because personally they negatively affect me, but I don’t expect then to be changed because of me. However I respect that they have been written by a democratically elected government, who do you want writing out laws? So you have personal opinion only on laws that personally affect you. That's fair. If there is some law that doesn't really affect you, you could just wave it off by saying you don't have a personal opinion. But instead you are here arguing against people who want a change in law? Why? We have a framework around free speech which some of us feel, is too authoritarian. You are fine with things the way they are. We on the other hand want to change them to increase our freedom. This doesn't affect you negatively. So why are you even bothered arguing against it? The question is do you have a personal opinion on the country increasing the freedom of speech? I am not asking about how democracy works. We all know that already. I am asking what's your opinion on making the change and why? I am more than happy to follow the current laws on freedom of speech in this country? If for any reason I want to post something online I am u sure with I will do some research or won’t post, common sense, I apply these principles with all laws hence why I have never been in prison . You may want to change the law, but you don’t know how? Until you do that wet h it will never happen ," We are all happy to follow the laws. But why are you even in a political forum? We are here to debate what laws are good and what laws are bad so that we can try to bring about change in the future. To do that, we need to have personal opinions on things. Hence, I am asking whether you even have a personal opinion on free speech laws here vs something like the first amendment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" My opinion is this, laws are democratic, just because an individual doesn’t like them doesn’t make the law undemocratuc , unless you know a fairer system to write all our laws, not just freedom of speech Again, don't hide behind democracy. We all know how democracy works. Do you have a personal opinion on free speech or not? If a politician says that he wants to change the laws to something similar to the American first amendment, will you be supportive or not?" No, but I will respect democracy and follow what is decided by the electorate, you can’t just change laws because the minority want to | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to stick to the laws in the UK, there isn’t a democracy in Saudi or china So you believe any law in a democratic country is good? Define good? I don’t agree with some of them because personally they negatively affect me, but I don’t expect then to be changed because of me. However I respect that they have been written by a democratically elected government, who do you want writing out laws? So you have personal opinion only on laws that personally affect you. That's fair. If there is some law that doesn't really affect you, you could just wave it off by saying you don't have a personal opinion. But instead you are here arguing against people who want a change in law? Why? We have a framework around free speech which some of us feel, is too authoritarian. You are fine with things the way they are. We on the other hand want to change them to increase our freedom. This doesn't affect you negatively. So why are you even bothered arguing against it? The question is do you have a personal opinion on the country increasing the freedom of speech? I am not asking about how democracy works. We all know that already. I am asking what's your opinion on making the change and why? I am more than happy to follow the current laws on freedom of speech in this country? If for any reason I want to post something online I am u sure with I will do some research or won’t post, common sense, I apply these principles with all laws hence why I have never been in prison . You may want to change the law, but you don’t know how? Until you do that wet h it will never happen , We are all happy to follow the laws. But why are you even in a political forum? We are here to debate what laws are good and what laws are bad so that we can try to bring about change in the future. To do that, we need to have personal opinions on things. Hence, I am asking whether you even have a personal opinion on free speech laws here vs something like the first amendment." I am happy with the current laws, I don’t want the first amendment, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" My opinion is this, laws are democratic, just because an individual doesn’t like them doesn’t make the law undemocratuc , unless you know a fairer system to write all our laws, not just freedom of speech Again, don't hide behind democracy. We all know how democracy works. Do you have a personal opinion on free speech or not? If a politician says that he wants to change the laws to something similar to the American first amendment, will you be supportive or not? No, but I will respect democracy and follow what is decided by the electorate, you can’t just change laws because the minority want to " We all respect democracy. We are here to debate if laws are good or not. Not to argue if we should follow democracy or not. Debating if laws are good or not is part of democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" My opinion is this, laws are democratic, just because an individual doesn’t like them doesn’t make the law undemocratuc , unless you know a fairer system to write all our laws, not just freedom of speech Again, don't hide behind democracy. We all know how democracy works. Do you have a personal opinion on free speech or not? If a politician says that he wants to change the laws to something similar to the American first amendment, will you be supportive or not? No, but I will respect democracy and follow what is decided by the electorate, you can’t just change laws because the minority want to We all respect democracy. We are here to debate if laws are good or not. Not to argue if we should follow democracy or not. Debating if laws are good or not is part of democracy. " Yes, think the current law is good | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only speech that should be banned are any that incite actual physical violence to a person, threats to cause physical harm to a person, death/raxxpe threats ect What about slander? suppose providing you have evidence to back up what your saying then surely youre just speaking the truth? But you stated that you only wanted anything that incites violence banning, that isn’t slander, so you want that banning aswell " i didnt say i wanted it banning | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am happy with the current laws, I don’t want the first amendment, " So you personally believe that the current UK laws are better than the first amendment. Why? My point is that the law is vague and up to interpretation to the point blasphemy can be considered hate crime. Do you have an argument against it? If you think it's not vague, why do you struggle to answer which of the ones in my list are legal/illegal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only speech that should be banned are any that incite actual physical violence to a person, threats to cause physical harm to a person, death/raxxpe threats ect What about slander? suppose providing you have evidence to back up what your saying then surely youre just speaking the truth? But you stated that you only wanted anything that incites violence banning, that isn’t slander, so you want that banning aswell i didnt say i wanted it banning " First sentence, the only free speech that should be banned | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am happy with the current laws, I don’t want the first amendment, So you personally believe that the current UK laws are better than the first amendment. Why? My point is that the law is vague and up to interpretation to the point blasphemy can be considered hate crime. Do you have an argument against it? If you think it's not vague, why do you struggle to answer which of the ones in my list are legal/illegal?" Yes I do, it is uk law, not us law, I have answered that 3 times, I could list swine tax laws and you round know which are real or not, it isn’t the gotcha job think it is | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am happy with the current laws, I don’t want the first amendment, So you personally believe that the current UK laws are better than the first amendment. Why? My point is that the law is vague and up to interpretation to the point blasphemy can be considered hate crime. Do you have an argument against it? If you think it's not vague, why do you struggle to answer which of the ones in my list are legal/illegal? Yes I do, it is uk law, not us law, I have answered that 3 times, I could list swine tax laws and you round know which are real or not, it isn’t the gotcha job think it is " Horrific typos there  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am happy with the current laws, I don’t want the first amendment, So you personally believe that the current UK laws are better than the first amendment. Why? My point is that the law is vague and up to interpretation to the point blasphemy can be considered hate crime. Do you have an argument against it? If you think it's not vague, why do you struggle to answer which of the ones in my list are legal/illegal? Yes I do, it is uk law, not us law, I have answered that 3 times, I could list swine tax laws and you round know which are real or not, it isn’t the gotcha job think it is " Again, we all know what law is there in each country. I asked you what is your personal opinion about each of the law and you said that you preferred the one we have in the UK. If you are happy with whatever laws are passed, irrespective of which government passes it, there is no point in you having a political debate. Your answer for everything thing is "Whatever is legal is good. Whatever is illegal is bad". We are debating whether the laws themselves are good or bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments and police love poorly defined laws because it enables them to interpet those laws to suit their politics. The beauty of the First Ammendment is its simplicity and clarity. It has also enabled the US to become the world leader in so many fields because the freedom to think and speak without state control is so strongly embedded in the culture. Look at how few Nobel Prize winners have come from China despite the huge economic and industrial growth there. In terms of innovation they are still a totalitarian state." Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. That's the thing with free speech. Whoever has achieved ideological majority would want to maintain the status quo by curtailing free speech, both left and right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am happy with the current laws, I don’t want the first amendment, So you personally believe that the current UK laws are better than the first amendment. Why? My point is that the law is vague and up to interpretation to the point blasphemy can be considered hate crime. Do you have an argument against it? If you think it's not vague, why do you struggle to answer which of the ones in my list are legal/illegal? Yes I do, it is uk law, not us law, I have answered that 3 times, I could list swine tax laws and you round know which are real or not, it isn’t the gotcha job think it is Again, we all know what law is there in each country. I asked you what is your personal opinion about each of the law and you said that you preferred the one we have in the UK. If you are happy with whatever laws are passed, irrespective of which government passes it, there is no point in you having a political debate. Your answer for everything thing is "Whatever is legal is good. Whatever is illegal is bad". We are debating whether the laws themselves are good or bad." Firstly you said you wanted pure free speech, then you want free speech with rules, then you want the first amendment? That’s fine, your opinion, I have a different opinion, but to say your version of free speech is the only true democracy is bollocks, our free speech has been decided by uk democracy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments and police love poorly defined laws because it enables them to interpet those laws to suit their politics. The beauty of the First Ammendment is its simplicity and clarity. It has also enabled the US to become the world leader in so many fields because the freedom to think and speak without state control is so strongly embedded in the culture. Look at how few Nobel Prize winners have come from China despite the huge economic and industrial growth there. In terms of innovation they are still a totalitarian state." Look over there, china 
Do we live in china? Does china have democracy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, hateful, divisive and warmongering religions are sitting pretty knowing that they have got the US constitution protecting them from all forms of criticism?" It looks like it, 1st amendment, say what you want apparently, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. " Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control." We don’t live in the US, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only speech that should be banned are any that incite actual physical violence to a person, threats to cause physical harm to a person, death/raxxpe threats ect What about slander? suppose providing you have evidence to back up what your saying then surely youre just speaking the truth? But you stated that you only wanted anything that incites violence banning, that isn’t slander, so you want that banning aswell i didnt say i wanted it banning First sentence, the only free speech that should be banned " yep thats what im saying, slander would then be a civil matter not criminal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am happy with the current laws, I don’t want the first amendment, So you personally believe that the current UK laws are better than the first amendment. Why? My point is that the law is vague and up to interpretation to the point blasphemy can be considered hate crime. Do you have an argument against it? If you think it's not vague, why do you struggle to answer which of the ones in my list are legal/illegal? Yes I do, it is uk law, not us law, I have answered that 3 times, I could list swine tax laws and you round know which are real or not, it isn’t the gotcha job think it is Again, we all know what law is there in each country. I asked you what is your personal opinion about each of the law and you said that you preferred the one we have in the UK. If you are happy with whatever laws are passed, irrespective of which government passes it, there is no point in you having a political debate. Your answer for everything thing is "Whatever is legal is good. Whatever is illegal is bad". We are debating whether the laws themselves are good or bad. Firstly you said you wanted pure free speech, then you want free speech with rules, then you want the first amendment? That’s fine, your opinion, I have a different opinion, but to say your version of free speech is the only true democracy is bollocks, our free speech has been decided by uk democracy" I said I personally want pure free speech. But something like the first amendment is a big progress over what we have in the UK and I am happy with that. In a democracy, people make choices based on the information they receive. By curtailing free speech, the government can control the flow of information. Hence, free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, " Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only speech that should be banned are any that incite actual physical violence to a person, threats to cause physical harm to a person, death/raxxpe threats ect What about slander? suppose providing you have evidence to back up what your saying then surely youre just speaking the truth? But you stated that you only wanted anything that incites violence banning, that isn’t slander, so you want that banning aswell i didnt say i wanted it banning First sentence, the only free speech that should be banned yep thats what im saying, slander would then be a civil matter not criminal " It’s still affects your freedom speech? You can’t say certain things due to slander , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US." You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, " Who is 'we'??? Fab has users from all over the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech " You're clearly in favour of freedom from punctuation or spelling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech You're clearly in favour of freedom from punctuation or spelling. "It’s atrocious | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech " We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Who is 'we'??? Fab has users from all over the world. " Me and you, and everyone else on this thread | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech " But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied" That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all." Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search "Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search
Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected."What about gender? Seems very liberal to me, and Trump can’t change any of it without democrats support | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search
Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected.
What about gender? Seems very liberal to me, and Trump can’t change any of it without democrats support "Not sure it gender is a matter of free speech. The only intersection that I see is using pronouns. People have the right to say what their preferred pronouns are and others have the right not to use it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search
Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected.
What about gender? Seems very liberal to me, and Trump can’t change any of it without democrats support
Not sure it gender is a matter of free speech. The only intersection that I see is using pronouns. People have the right to say what their preferred pronouns are and others have the right not to use it."It’s in the first amendment, and your wrong, Intentionally Refusing to use correct pronouns is a violation of their civil rights, protected by the first amendment | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search
Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected.
What about gender? Seems very liberal to me, and Trump can’t change any of it without democrats support
Not sure it gender is a matter of free speech. The only intersection that I see is using pronouns. People have the right to say what their preferred pronouns are and others have the right not to use it.
It’s in the first amendment, and your wrong,
Intentionally Refusing to use correct pronouns is a violation of their civil rights, protected by the first amendment
"No it's not. Where does it say so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search
Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected.
What about gender? Seems very liberal to me, and Trump can’t change any of it without democrats support
Not sure it gender is a matter of free speech. The only intersection that I see is using pronouns. People have the right to say what their preferred pronouns are and others have the right not to use it.
It’s in the first amendment, and your wrong,
Intentionally Refusing to use correct pronouns is a violation of their civil rights, protected by the first amendment
No it's not. Where does it say so?"Yes it is, the 1 st amendment is woke, and trump can’t change it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search
Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected.
What about gender? Seems very liberal to me, and Trump can’t change any of it without democrats support
Not sure it gender is a matter of free speech. The only intersection that I see is using pronouns. People have the right to say what their preferred pronouns are and others have the right not to use it.
It’s in the first amendment, and your wrong,
Intentionally Refusing to use correct pronouns is a violation of their civil rights, protected by the first amendment
No it's not. Where does it say so?
Yes it is, the 1 st amendment is woke, and trump can’t change it "Which line in the first amendment says that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly! The whole point of free speech is to take away the right of the politicians to make speech illegal. There was a time when left wingers were supporting free-speech while right wingers were against it. Now the times have changed. Before the recent US elections John Kerry actually described the 1st Ammendment as a 'problem' and several leading Democrats have questioned its scope. And of course they hate X under Musk as its an outlet they don't dominate or control. We don’t live in the US, Doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about US. You can have them, but I am taking about freedom of speech in that UK, and we have already found out that the US don’t have freedom of speech We have found that the two countries have different levels of free speech and US has a much higher level of free speech But not pure freedom of speech, rules are applied That's fine. We can always strive to be better than present. Rome wasn't built in one day and all. Indeed, are you happy with the 1st amendments rules on religion? Maybe you can tell me them without a google search
Yes. People can follow whatever religion they want. People don't realise that the first amendment was written to protect minorities. In a democracy, the majority ideology can easily vote to suppress minority opinions. The first amendment makes sure that minority opinions are protected.
What about gender? Seems very liberal to me, and Trump can’t change any of it without democrats support
Not sure it gender is a matter of free speech. The only intersection that I see is using pronouns. People have the right to say what their preferred pronouns are and others have the right not to use it.
It’s in the first amendment, and your wrong,
Intentionally Refusing to use correct pronouns is a violation of their civil rights, protected by the first amendment
No it's not. Where does it say so?
Yes it is, the 1 st amendment is woke, and trump can’t change it
Which line in the first amendment says that?"You should know, there are thousands of lines | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Misgendering Forcing people to use pronouns that don’t reflect their gender identity can be a form of discrimination, especially if done by employers or government officials, protected by the first amendment " So a person can choose their pronouns and the government cannot force them to not choose it. But others still can choose to use or not use the pronouns | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others " Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here. "Hi there, do you support the 1 st amendment | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"None of your business " Thanks for your input, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here. "Is that why you won't answer any questions about how you know the two brown people in your town are "illegals"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here.
Is that why you won't answer any questions about how you know the two brown people in your town are "illegals"?"Why not come visit and I will kindly explain directly over a beer or two.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here.
Is that why you won't answer any questions about how you know the two brown people in your town are "illegals"?
Why not come visit and I will kindly explain directly over a beer or two.
"No thanks, doesn't sound like a very friendly place, you said your town doesn't like strangers, people who sit down too much or people who aren't white. You can just answer here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others " No…. It’s a bit like falsely shouting fire in a crowded room… Its a bit like saying the freedom to your space ends at the point you touch my face | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here.
Is that why you won't answer any questions about how you know the two brown people in your town are "illegals"?
Why not come visit and I will kindly explain directly over a beer or two.
No thanks, doesn't sound like a very friendly place, you said your town doesn't like strangers, people who sit down too much or people who aren't white.
You can just answer here. "If I answer here, one in particular would report and try to silence me, so... because of some on here, I will keep quiet on this matter. But again the invitation remains open. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here.
Is that why you won't answer any questions about how you know the two brown people in your town are "illegals"?
Why not come visit and I will kindly explain directly over a beer or two.
No thanks, doesn't sound like a very friendly place, you said your town doesn't like strangers, people who sit down too much or people who aren't white.
You can just answer here.
If I answer here, one in particular would report and try to silence me, so... because of some on here, I will keep quiet on this matter. But again the invitation remains open."So you can't say why you think these two people are "illegals" without breaking forum rules? That, is really bizarre. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others Not on this forum No, as many cannot handle criticism and need to report even the slightest gentle criticism. School kids in the playground can take much more criticism than many cry babies here.
Is that why you won't answer any questions about how you know the two brown people in your town are "illegals"?
Why not come visit and I will kindly explain directly over a beer or two.
No thanks, doesn't sound like a very friendly place, you said your town doesn't like strangers, people who sit down too much or people who aren't white.
You can just answer here.
If I answer here, one in particular would report and try to silence me, so... because of some on here, I will keep quiet on this matter. But again the invitation remains open."Come on, don’t be scared, it’s a thread about freedom of speech, be brave | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just as bizarre as being reported for saying someone is "silly" wouldn't you agree "I have no comment or knowledge what you're talking about. I don't understand why you can't say why you think these two fellas are "illegal". You've already said they're not white, and they sit down. But that's hardly evidence. You've assured us you're not racist because you tolerate the people who run the local Chinese takeaway. So what's the beef? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just as bizarre as being reported for saying someone is "silly" wouldn't you agree "I think you need to stick to the thread and stop making baseless accusations, if you were banned it was your own fault, no one else’s | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech " Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just as bizarre as being reported for saying someone is "silly" wouldn't you agree
I have no comment or knowledge what you're talking about.
I don't understand why you can't say why you think these two fellas are "illegal".
You've already said they're not white, and they sit down. But that's hardly evidence.
You've assured us you're not racist because you tolerate the people who run the local Chinese takeaway. So what's the beef?"Already told you the beef... If I say on this forum, your friend will report me, simple as that. I suspect you are both trying to entice me and then report me, so I will not say anymore on this Matter as there's far too many snitches on here. Have a nice day now, I will not be replying to any more of your comments but the invitation still stands if you ever want to meet up for a few beers and friendly chat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs " How? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. " Keep going, plenty more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more " What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK" Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just as bizarre as being reported for saying someone is "silly" wouldn't you agree
I have no comment or knowledge what you're talking about.
I don't understand why you can't say why you think these two fellas are "illegal".
You've already said they're not white, and they sit down. But that's hardly evidence.
You've assured us you're not racist because you tolerate the people who run the local Chinese takeaway. So what's the beef?
Already told you the beef...
"Okay so I'm just going to assume you judge brown people who sit down to be "illegals". Which is clearly completely ridiculous. " If I say on this forum, your friend will report me, simple as that." Well just say it without breaking forum rules. Should be easy. " I suspect you are both trying to entice me and then report me, so I will not say anymore on this Matter as there's far too many snitches on here. " Just trying to find out if you judge any brown people who sit down to be "illegals". " Have a nice day now, I will not be replying to any more of your comments but the invitation still stands if you ever want to meet up for a few beers and friendly chat. " Honestly your town sounds hostile and uninviting to strangers. So I'll keep well clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence " Obscenity is vague? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just as bizarre as being reported for saying someone is "silly" wouldn't you agree
I have no comment or knowledge what you're talking about.
I don't understand why you can't say why you think these two fellas are "illegal".
You've already said they're not white, and they sit down. But that's hardly evidence.
You've assured us you're not racist because you tolerate the people who run the local Chinese takeaway. So what's the beef?
Already told you the beef...
If I say on this forum, your friend will report me, simple as that.
I suspect you are both trying to entice me and then report me, so I will not say anymore on this Matter as there's far too many snitches on here.
Have a nice day now, I will not be replying to any more of your comments but the invitation still stands if you ever want to meet up for a few beers and friendly chat. "Thanks, let me know when your next in Manchester | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence " * Inciting violence is same as direct call for violence. If you see the way it's written, it's a direct call for violence that will get you. If you mock a religion and people of that religion get violent, you won't be arrested. Here you will be. Same with fighting words and "true threats" Defamation is covered by libel and slander. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence * Inciting violence is same as direct call for violence. If you see the way it's written, it's a direct call for violence that will get you. If you mock a religion and people of that religion get violent, you won't be arrested. Here you will be. Same with fighting words and "true threats" Defamation is covered by libel and slander. " Obscenity? Who decides what is obscene? Is there a list of words? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence Obscenity is vague? " It's vague only if you don't read the details. It's petty similar to nudity related laws we have | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence Obscenity is vague? It's vague only if you don't read the details. It's petty similar to nudity related laws we have" What words are obscene | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence Obscenity is vague? It's vague only if you don't read the details. It's petty similar to nudity related laws we have What words are obscene " Or is it the act not the words? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs " Again? How? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs " How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' 🇺🇲 " God bless America, shame the UK is loosing all freedoms of speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see." he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru " Only "illegals" drink Rubican Mango? This gets more ridiculous by the post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK" Had child pornography even been dreamed about when the constitution was first amended? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru " I love Rubicon Mango | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' 🇺🇲 God bless America, shame the UK is loosing all freedoms of speech " Are you another expert on that 1st amendment, I had a look through it, it’s a bit woke (using your definition of woke ), and Trump can’t change it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves " One thing for certain, you can't speak freely on here due to a certain "clipe" (Scottish slang) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves One thing for certain, you can't speak freely on here due to a certain "clipe" (Scottish slang)" Follow the rules, they are there for everyone | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves One thing for certain, you can't speak freely on here due to a certain "clipe" (Scottish slang) Follow the rules, they are there for everyone "and what are the forum rules? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care what people say to me (I wouldn't want their freedom restricted) because I don't really care what the vast majority or people think Their opinion is as worthless (or worthwhile) to me as they are " I suspect you would take a bad comment on the chin, rather and report to mummy and daddy like some on here who simply want to stir the pot. It's far better to ignore idiots than respond directly to them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves One thing for certain, you can't speak freely on here due to a certain "clipe" (Scottish slang) Follow the rules, they are there for everyone and what are the forum rules? ""Apparently you are not allowed to call someone foolish even though it's obvious" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves One thing for certain, you can't speak freely on here due to a certain "clipe" (Scottish slang) Follow the rules, they are there for everyone and what are the forum rules?
"Apparently you are not allowed to call someone foolish even though it's obvious""O dear, that’s a shame, like I keep saying, no such thing as freedom of speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves One thing for certain, you can't speak freely on here due to a certain "clipe" (Scottish slang) Follow the rules, they are there for everyone and what are the forum rules? "Mainly common sense, don’t insult anyone is a good start | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru I love Rubicon Mango " How often do you sit down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru I love Rubicon Mango How often do you sit down?" 20-30 times a day, not sure if that is good or bad or makes me an illegal though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru I love Rubicon Mango How often do you sit down? 20-30 times a day, not sure if that is good or bad or makes me an illegal though " if you two need a guidebook of how to indentify an illegal then im sure your pal starmer will soon have one out while hes smashing them 👌 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru I love Rubicon Mango How often do you sit down? 20-30 times a day, not sure if that is good or bad or makes me an illegal though if you two need a guidebook of how to indentify an illegal then im sure your pal starmer will soon have one out while hes smashing them 👌" Thanks, but if you don’t know how either I guess no one does | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru I love Rubicon Mango How often do you sit down? 20-30 times a day, not sure if that is good or bad or makes me an illegal though if you two need a guidebook of how to indentify an illegal then im sure your pal starmer will soon have one out while hes smashing them 👌 Thanks, but if you don’t know how either I guess no one does " im not daft enough to give my verdict online, i own what ever "ist" u may label me and im not foolish enough to give you a breakdown on fab 😂but it would be the same way i would describe them to a police officer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru I love Rubicon Mango How often do you sit down? 20-30 times a day, not sure if that is good or bad or makes me an illegal though if you two need a guidebook of how to indentify an illegal then im sure your pal starmer will soon have one out while hes smashing them 👌" Don't need a guidebook. Just tell us, is it as ridiculous as the other chap? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even stevie wonder could identify a couple of illegals in scotland ffs How could he do that? The Scottish fella seems to have not white + sitting down. Neither of which Stevie Wonder could see.he could tell by smell they were drinking rubican mango and not irn bru I love Rubicon Mango How often do you sit down? 20-30 times a day, not sure if that is good or bad or makes me an illegal though if you two need a guidebook of how to indentify an illegal then im sure your pal starmer will soon have one out while hes smashing them 👌 Thanks, but if you don’t know how either I guess no one does im not daft enough to give my verdict online, i own what ever "ist" u may label me and im not foolish enough to give you a breakdown on fab 😂but it would be the same way i would describe them to a police officer " Confusedist maybe? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech Direct calls for violence Child pornography Libel and slander Less protection for commercial speech too, to make businesses responsible for what they promise customers. Keep going, plenty more What more? Either way, as I said before, it's not perfect. But it's at a much higher level compared to the ones in the UK Obscenity National security Defamation Fighting words True threats Speech that incites violence Obscenity is vague? It's vague only if you don't read the details. It's petty similar to nudity related laws we have What words are obscene Or is it the act not the words? " Nah my bad. It's related to pornography, especially with children and also sharing pornography to Children. These are exceptions to the first amendment, meaning governments can pass laws to control these. Check out the Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition case. Any attempts by the government to get anywhere close to stop adults from enjoying porn gets stuck down by the supreme court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there such a thing as freedom of speech? should you be allowed to say anything without consequences? Even if it leads to harming others " Yes. No. Not if the harm is direct result of the speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue with restricting speech is that you must be able to trust the government in charge to make such decisions I can't think of any government I trust that much Restriction does little to alter behaviour, otherwise there would be no one breaking current restrictions put in place by governments (such as laws broken regularly) I prefer people to speak their mind so I can make an accurate judge of their character How can I tell if someone is a complete cunt if they won't out themselves " That's true. One question I ask any leftie that thinks government controlling speech is totally fine is whether they are happy with reform controlling what they speak. It's all fun when their favourite party is in power. But not so when some other party is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are the exceptions to the first amendment on free speech " There are no constitutional exceptions. The Constitution clearly intends the right to free speech to be as widely available as possible. Individual case law has constructed Individual exceptions such as those listed but these are not enshrined in the constitution. They can be reversed or expanded by future cases. What cannot change is the constitutional right to freedom speech.🇺🇲 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
