Free Speech

[Carbonox]

They're within their rights to say and do what they like, and as far as I know they haven't done anything which warrants being arrested. If we just ignore them they'll eventually go away.

Do we want them to go away? I've said this before, but they give the anti-gay crowd a face ugly enough to drive people away from it.

 

[Imari]

Do we want them to go away? I've said this before, but they give the anti-gay crowd a face ugly enough to drive people away from it.

I think the world would be a better place without them, but that applies to all :censored:holes.

 

[PeterJB]

Do we want them to go away? I've said this before, but they give the anti-gay crowd a face ugly enough to drive people away from it.

Getting rid of them won't make much difference. There are plenty of groups like them, they just get by far the most media coverage.

 

[Carbonox]

Getting rid of them won't make much difference. There are plenty of groups like them, they just get by far the most media coverage.

Well, the aforementioned media coverage is the precise reason why WBC of all groups is giving the anti-gay crowd that unappealing face, though.

 

[mistersafeway]

Damn, I knew I should have gone with plan a (a post three times as long), that came out all wrong.

At least I have a clearer head now, so this should make a lot more sense.

I don't like the WBC because I don't like groups who celebrate the murder of children and picket outside soldiers' funerals saying that they're happy about the death, which is more than enough to be getting on with without their views on homosexuality... and nobody is allowed to respond! The police allow these people to say hateful things, even intruding on grief, and counter protests are not allowed. So, my post was intended more to say that I disagree with their constant protection by the US constitution. And also that eventually someone will snap and go after them with weapons when they aren't being babysat.

 

[FoolKiller]

and nobody is allowed to respond! The police allow these people to say hateful things, even intruding on grief, and counter protests are not allowed.

Um...not true.

Heck, even the KKK has been allowed to counter protest.





What is not allowed is this. But if it makes you feel better, the soldier that attacked them was released without charges.

 

[mistersafeway]

Um...not true.

If those protests are in the same location then I apologise for my confusion.

What is not allowed is this. But if it makes you feel better, the soldier that attacked them was released without charges.

It doesn't really, because I don't think they should have been allowed there at all. There's freedom of speech and there's harassment, and I feel that what they do is firmly in the latter.

 

[FoolKiller]

If those protests are in the same location then I apologise for my confusion.

The two videos show that it is.

It doesn't really, because I don't think they should have been allowed there at all. There's freedom of speech and there's harassment, and I feel that what they do is firmly in the latter.

They are not allowed to interrupt the service or enter the premises. They have to stand on the street outside in a public place that does not actually disrupt services. They are not allowed to follow the families home.


Where do you draw the line between free speech and harassment?

 

[mistersafeway]

Where do you draw the line between free speech and harassment?

Does it really matter to you how I answer? Serious question, no anger or insult intended.

I don't, if you must know, because I don't think about the specifics that much. Although I'd say standing outside buildings shouting the same nonsense at blameless people must at least come close.

Edit: I feel I should point out that, as you likely already figured out, I'm not such a fan of completely free speech, as I feel it leads to situations like the WBC, where there is always the possibility of violence (whether justified or not), meaning the government either has to protect them from others or remove the WBC's right to not be physically attacked. Despite how I come across, I don't actually want to see them harmed for their views, just that I disagree with their expressing them where they do and feel no sympathy when they get physically attacked for the combination of view and location. God hates gays? Fine, it's biblically accurate after all. Saying soldiers die because they help defend gays? Bat:censored: crazy, but whatever. Doing so at a soldier's funeral...? I find that behaviour disgusting, let people grieve if they feel the need, rather than infringing upon their rights. What's wrong with protesting outside military bases exclusively when they want to protest against the military? Scared that soldiers would just respond by beating them senseless is my guess, especially if the bases are away from the police forces who have to defend them.

 

[squadops]

We have to put up with the bad in order to insure the right is there for the rest, almost a free speech champion would be Larry Flint, who must have disgusted many.

The west whatever church is seriously out of line showing up at funerals with that garbage, I honestly think taking the high ground with conviction and patience can sway our society as a whole in a better direction. Retaliation is just lowering to their level and setting an example that sways others the same way.

They know all the rules btw, how many people show up, how close they get, what is said etc., trained cockroaches.

 

[FoolKiller]

Does it really matter to you how I answer? Serious question, no anger or insult intended.

I'm curious. It doesn't matter as you don't affect our laws or my life.

I'd say standing outside buildings shouting the same nonsense at blameless people must at least come close.

Is it only if it is speech that you disagree with?


The powers that be disagreed with this group of people standing outside their place of work and shouting what the establishment believed to be nonsense.

To be 100% clear; I am not comparing MLK and the civil rights movement to Westboro Baptist Church.

I am showing that the right of WBC to do what they do is the same right that allowed MLK and other civil rights leaders to draw attention to their cause. To allow one you must allow the other or you do not have free speech. At the time MLK was suggesting major changes to society. Their ideas were disruptive and offensive to the majority and how the society worked. It was such a drastic change that MLK was killed for it.

If it worked so that yelling perceived nonsense at blameless people was banned then MLK would have spent his life in a jail cell. They marched through the streets shouting and chanting their message long before getting to the Lincoln Memorial. There is even a movie nominated for awards about one of his marches, and the walk from Selma to Montgomery is not a small jaunt from one building to another. It is many miles filled with blameless people working and living.

 

[Imari]

What's wrong with protesting outside military bases exclusively when they want to protest against the military? Scared that soldiers would just respond by beating them senseless is my guess, especially if the bases are away from the police forces who have to defend them.

No, the point of protesting is to raise public visibility of an issue. Protesting outside a military base does stuff all. Protesting in an urban area, and announcing it so that the maximum media coverage is available, does a lot.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the WBC are idiots. They may have some totally messed up views on how to treat people, but that doesn't mean that they're also totally incompetent in every other endeavour they attempt.



Personally, I read in your posts the struggle to continue to be politically correct ("I don't actually want to see them harmed") against your hatred and views that they should somehow be exempt from the protections offered to other citizens ("remove their right not to be physically attacked").

I read that you'd be willing to throw away the rules to deal with this particular group, but that the rules should continue to protect everyone else. I don't think it works like that.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

There's a reason that the Voltaire "quote" is so well known, it's because a lot of people agree with it or at least think that it's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, it's rather easy to agree in principle, and rather harder when faced with something that you actually disagree with.

It shouldn't be surprising that many people find that they actually can't do it in practise, but it doesn't mean that we should all stop trying. The WBC are just a bunch of :censored:holes with nothing better to do than stand on street corners hating on people. If that's what they want to do, and they do it within the rules designed to ensure that no protesters inconvenience others, then fine.

They win by winding you up. The correct response is to give them the finger and carry on. It can be hard, but it's the right thing, and it means that you're better than they are.

 

[mistersafeway]

I am showing that the right of WBC to do what they do is the same right that allowed MLK and other civil rights leaders to draw attention to their cause.

A very good point, although also a very different time, when the US government was a lot closer to being the WBC than the protesters.

Personally, I read in your posts the struggle to continue to be politically correct ("I don't actually want to see them harmed") against your hatred and views that they should somehow be exempt from the protections offered to other citizens ("remove their right not to be physically attacked").

It's unfortunate that I have such a problem explaining myself... no, I really don't want to see them harmed, because it could raise support for them, especially if martyred. And the part about exempting them from protection was more to say that either they're allowed to provoke the grieving (unfair) or have their right to protection removed (also unfair). Still, seeing as nothing is likely to change I look forward to future gay protests outside WBC members' funerals assuming, of course, that there isn't something preventing it on the grounds of freedom of religion.

 

[FoolKiller]

A very good point, although also a very different time, when the US government was a lot closer to being the WBC than the protesters.

Do you believe the government can't go back to that? All it takes is a crisis and a charismatic leader to change what the majority is willing to accept.

Stopping WBC today sets a precedent to stop something you agree with in the future.


Actually, with the NSA and domestic spying in the US you can see cases where the government still does act poorly to certain individuals, including acting in ways toward them that would be considered torture if it were a POW. They accuse people who speak about liberty and limited government as being extremists, and then our president recently held a conference to discuss dealing with extremism, and went out of his way to say that he means all forms of extremists, not just groups like ISIS. Someone leaks all their dirty secrets and rights violations: Extremist.

An extremist is considered to be anyone who challenges the current worldview and government-approved way things function, for good or bad.

You stop the bad and you stop the good.

 

[mistersafeway]

Do you believe the government can't go back to that?

No.

All it takes is a crisis and a charismatic leader to change what the majority is willing to accept.

Definitely.

Stopping WBC today sets a precedent to stop something you agree with in the future.

Unfortunately I do have to concede that point, although it won't make me stop thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to protest at funerals or celebrate child murder, even if I know that's not likely to change without the risk of wholesale limitation.

Actually, with the NSA and domestic spying in the US you can see cases where the government still does act poorly to certain individuals, including acting in ways toward them that would be considered torture if it were a POW. They accuse people who speak about liberty and limited government as being extremists, and then our president recently held a conference to discuss dealing with extremism, and went out of his way to say that he means all forms of extremists, not just groups like ISIS. Someone leaks all their dirty secrets and rights violations: Extremist.

Yes, most governments do similar things, as I'm sure we all know. That's unlikely to change as well, at least anytime soon.

An extremist is considered to be anyone who challenges the current worldview and government-approved way things function, for good or bad.

I guess that is how governments define extremism, huh? Hadn't really thought about it.

You stop the bad and you stop the good.

Probably true, and the risk is too high to attempt any change in the present political climate.

I'm feeling much better now I've vented and had an opportunity to discuss this stuff, thanks, FoolKiller and Imari, especially for actually attempting to understand me rather than writing off what I was saying straight away. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Unfortunately I do have to concede that point, although it won't make me stop thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to protest at funerals or celebrate child murder, even if I know that's not likely to change without the risk of wholesale limitation.

A social ban is perfectly allowed. The best way to make them go away is to ignore them. Their power comes from their media attention.

I personally like the idea of socially sunning people that we don't agree with. If someone does or says something that you don't like and it is clear that they just become more empowered the more you argue with them, then just ignore them. Pretend they don't exist. Every time you give them attention you feed the beast.

 

[justin credible]

It's nothing to do with 'the PC brigade' or people not liking what you say. Freedom of expression is the freedom from government censure for expressing yourself - and we do not have that in the UK. The four links I posted show that - people put in prison following criminal prosecution for nothing more than things they have said.

Liquid posted some guy on Twitter jailed for harassing and threatening to rape a woman. Him being jailed isn't a breach of his free speech it is because he broke the law by being a vile human being threatening to cause harm to another person, big difference in threats and free speech.

Free speech to me is if I want to say the royal family are a waste of time and money I can do, If I want to say our prime minister is a total prat I can do and not expect anything from the royals or the pm in return for the simple reason they have there argument as why they don't agree with me and I have an argument why I am right in my opinion and it is my freedom of speech to say such in a constructive manner and not expect any police putting me in cuffs for saying my opinion, the beauty of free speech.
If I said the leader of the country is a prat when in some other countries I could be shot beheaded or if there is worse then worse, The UK isn't an agree with the dictator in charge or go to jail or be shot country we have the right to voice our opinions and as long as there not threatening racist or homophobic we can say what we want, I do regularly.
In the UK there is to many people who hear the Kofi Annan/Mrs World kind of speeches on tv spoken by our MP's and the Brussels brown nosers and take it as golden and it is correct no matter what. These are the people I refer to as the PC Brigade and when ever someone has the audacity to say I don't agree they jump on them with "Your Wrong Label Label Label" without even listening to the debate of why someone thinks there wrong. This in the UK makes people I know myself to suppress there views and think I can't say what I believe I have lost free speech. I think free speech is there and open for me to use when ever I want to.
I think Famine it is free speech is there and useable but the argument is how far a line can be crossed before it is not classed as free speech, a tricky one which a lot will have different opinions on.

 

[Famine]

Liquid posted some guy on Twitter jailed for harassing and threatening to rape a woman. Him being jailed isn't a breach of his free speech it is because he broke the law by being a vile human being threatening to cause harm to another person, big difference in threats and free speech.

If the difference is big, explain it.

I think Famine it is free speech is there and useable but the argument is how far a line can be crossed before it is not classed as free speech, a tricky one which a lot will have different opinions on.

If there are things you cannot say because you will be gaoled for it, there is no freedom of speech.

 

[justin credible]

If the difference is big, explain it.If there are things you cannot say because you will be gaoled for it, there is no freedom of speech.

On the threat of raping the woman it is not free speech as it is a direct threat to one certain individual made to cause the woman fear and threatening to do her harm in a way which he states is the most vile thing any human can be subjected to.
Free Speech is not free speech when it is words spoken to deliberate cause harm that is bullying and only done to cause offence and to satisfy a sick individuals needs.

Freedom of speech is there but like everything it has limits. It is there to a point so I can see when you say there is no freedom of speech where you are coming from, I suppose it is like sex the foreplay and getting down to business is great but when she says no and you carry on it becomes rape it changes from sex to over powering for your own greed. The limit of sex has been passed the same as getting jailed for what you say is beyond the limit of free speech when it is threatening or seriously abusive.
I am not the best at explaining things I am trying to say is I see if you cannot say anything you want without facing the law then freedom of speech does not exist. But I think freedom of speech is there as long as you don't abuse it............catch 22.

 

[Famine]

On the threat of raping the woman it is not free speech as it is a direct threat to one certain individual made to cause the woman fear and threatening to do her harm in a way which he states is the most vile thing any human can be subjected to.

Are you suggesting that things that can be threatening are not free speech?

What about when people have different limits on what they find threatening? I'm sure you find comments about rape or murder to be threatening, but what about comments about punching or nicking your things? Kids find the big bad wolf and the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk threatening (fee, fi, fo, fum etc) - should fairy tales be restricted? I'm sure we're all familiar with the feminazis who are "triggered" by certain phrases that they find threatening, such as gender specific pronouns... should they be restricted?

I find comments about preventing me from saying certain things threatening...

Free Speech is not free speech when it is words spoken to deliberate cause harm

I wonder if, like me, you learned the rhyme "Sticks and Stones" aged 4?

Freedom of speech is there but like everything it has limits.

Limits aren't freedom, they're limits.

I think freedom of speech is there as long as you don't abuse it............catch 22.

Who defines what abusing it is?

As I linked previously, a man was put into prison for the joke he told on Twitter about a man who murdered a child in North Wales - the sort of joke kids tell each other in the school yard (I've told far sicker jokes than that in that setting). No threats, no harm, no abuse... and he got put in prison.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wait, are fightin' words not protected by free speech? Yosemite Sam is going to be very upset.


But seriously, where is the threatening line? Can I not get in an argument and tell the guy to come with me to parking lot so we can settle it like men? What if on the way out I say I will smear his 🤬 all over the concrete. What if I just said, "Bring it bro?"

Can a sports player say that he is going to crush, or even kill his opponent?

 

[KSaiyu]

When did political correctness take over? At what stage did we care more about this than confronting problems head on and protecting our most vulnerable?

I say this because of the latest revelations of operations around the country after the fallout from Rotherham

We are disbelieving child abuse victims in fear of coming across as racist. Actually scrap that. We are believing them and then choosing to stay silent for fear of being called a racist.

Is it time for a British version of the Bill of Rights?

 

[Liquid]

Is it time for a British version of the Bill of Rights?

There is an English Bill of Rights. The American Constitution was partially based off it. But, the protection of rights it offers is not, uh... exhaustive.

Spoiler

• laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament;
• no taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;
• the right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;
• no standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament;[note 1]
• Protestant subjects may have arms for their defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law;
• the election of members of Parliament should be free;
• the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
• excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;
• jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason trials should be freeholders;
• promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
• Parliaments should be held frequently.

It dealt more with taking away royal prerogative and civil rights in that the people govern moreso than the civil rights we would think of today.

I don't think anyone who knows their stuff would say that, legally and de jure speaking, the British constitutions protect the rights of their citizens as much as they should.

 

[KSaiyu]

So you're saying we need amendments. Kind of like the Bill of Rights.

 

[Liquid]

So you're saying we need amendments.

Seeing as you asked, yes.

Kind of like the Bill of Rights.

No. Britain could do with consolidation. A consolidated and expanded constitution instead of lots of individual documents like the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights scattered across various centuries and pre-Union legal systems. Whether that can be done is another matter. Trouble with it is that the 'unwritten' aspect of the United Kingdom constitution is simply updated with every new Act of Parliament. Take our actual civil liberties; Human Rights Act 1998 covers a lot of them but all that could be wiped tomorrow with a 2015 act.

In principle though? Yeah, we could do with updating things. To keep it on topic, for example, free speech for all citizens and denizens definitely ought to be codified in the UK. Currently only MPs have it under strict parliamentary privilege.

 

[FoolKiller]

When did political correctness take over? At what stage did we care more about this than confronting problems head on and protecting our most vulnerable?

I say this because of the latest revelations of operations around the country after the fallout from Rotherham

We are disbelieving child abuse victims in fear of coming across as racist. Actually scrap that. We are believing them and then choosing to stay silent for fear of being called a racist.

Is it time for a British version of the Bill of Rights?

The same thing happens here in the US. No one disagrees that a child who has had at least on of their parents abandon them struggles more than children who have a stable family life. But many people are afraid to tackle the issue head-on because there is a clear demographic breakdown when you look at the number of kids with one or both parent not in the picture.

Child abuse isn't an issue here though because that seems to trend primarily toward old, white men, and as we all know, they are fair game.

 

[KSaiyu]

Old (and young) white men make up the bulk here too I imagine but it was easier to talk about them. Grooming gangs have long plagued the Muslim population and our refusal to face the problem nationally is disgusting.

Perhaps in talking frankly about all the different races propensity towards certain crimes we can make progress to a freer society. To be honest I have little problem with police stopping and searching me because my colour suggests I am more likely to commit crime. I blame the British Caribbean community for that, and their laziness for dealing with its young male members.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I grew up in Louisville Kentucky the 1970's. At that time the a federal judge (James Gordon) was starting to integrate the school system. Back then most of the black people lived in the urban west end near downtown.

He wanted to bus white kids from the suburbs to the black schools in the inner city and vise versa. This caused riots in the streets.

The KKK took advantage of this and did lots of marches.

All of my friends parents were against the "forced busing", but they were also against the KKK. But back then no one had a real problem with the KKK expressing their opinion, they just ignored it.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This is what I was taught.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You'll never be in a position to defend someone's right to free speech with your life. The sentiment is ultimately hollow, automatically handing the moral high ground to whoever invokes it.

 

[Imari]

You'll never be in a position to defend someone's right to free speech with your life. The sentiment is ultimately hollow, automatically handing the moral high ground to whoever invokes it.

That's what you think, and that's why you'll never be the sort of person to support the free expression of someone you disagree with. But you're not everyone.

The likelihood of having to physically defend someone whose speech one disagrees with is low, but it exists. Ask any member of the military. They choose to serve, knowing that they will be required to defend and protect ALL members of the country, no matter how much they may disagree with them.

I think that whatever someone chooses to say are only words, no matter how abhorrent they may be. Others have an opportunity to consider them, and respond as they see fit. I think it's important for a civilised society that people be able to express opinions that are radical or even objectionable without fear of physical retaliation.

If you want to accept that physical violence is a valid response to verbal critique, then stand back and watch. If you want a world where people can hold opinions and debate without fear of death, then you have to at least be prepared to have to back it up.

Still, you've made it clear from your past posts that you're fine with physical violence against people holding certain opinions, so I have severe doubts that you can even comprehend the idea that someone would actually hold the structure of society above the outcome of a personal debate.