So Britain doesn't actually have freedom of speech then?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
As I said a few threads back.. and my American missus says regularly. Somewhere in the middle of where Britain and America currently stand, would result in the best place to be, not so jingoistic and desperate to be top cat all the time, not so dour, filled with pessimism, and a contentment with always being the underdog.

Your use of facts, logic, and considered moderation have no place in this forum!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:The U.S doesnt have free speech. Look at the FCC. there existence violates the first amendment.
The Brits are doing the same thing. Just with hate crimes.

Thats so wrong its not funny. The FCC regulates radio frequencies only. You can't go to jail.

And TV. They regulate what you can put through the air waves. They impose fines, y'know punishment. Punishment for doing something that is guranteed by the first amendment.

See what happens when you don't have free speech? *
*outside of 3 minutes in the morning to check on traffic I haven't atched network TV in years.

Then, MAybe we shouldnt point fingers and look internally at america. As much as the right wing love to say this is a perfect country its not. It is still very much " Land of the FREEE, to do i want you to"

Not seeing where the3 fact I can't stand network TV matters other than...I have taste.

**hotsauceman1**

SO everyone has to conform to your taste then frazzled?

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:SO everyone has to conform to your taste then frazzled?

Non sequitor. It has no relation to the issue, whatsoever.

But yes, now that you mention it. Everyone must confirm to a strict diet of Tex Mex; telenovellas, True Blood, and Walking Dead; and dark rum.

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:SO everyone has to conform to your taste then frazzled?

Non sequitor. It has no relation to the issue, whatsoever.

But yes, now that you mention it. Everyone must confirm to a strict diet of Tex Mex; telenovellas, True Blood, and Walking Dead; and dark rum.

And Dachshunds.

**Grakmar**

mwnciboo wrote:I would point out the poor kid that the US president named after being shot by someone in Self-Defence (Stand your ground law?) not even being arrested. As a neutral party, that Trayvonne deserves justice.

This wouldn't happen in the UK, if you killed someone even inself defence (even if an Armed Police Officer) you will be arrested pending investigation.

Fellow Americans, ignore this post! It's a British plot to weaken our unity and divide us before they swoop in to conquer us.

Stay strong! Stay on the topic of the Freedom of Speech. Do not let them derail us by bringing up gun control a totally reasonable and responsible issue.

**purplefood**

Concerning freedom of speech...
We do have freedom of speech but if someone goes out of their way to spread vile and hateful messages about a certain ethnic or racial group that is illegal. Especially so if it starts causing violence.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:SO everyone has to conform to your taste then frazzled?

Non sequitor. It has no relation to the issue, whatsoever.

But yes, now that you mention it. Everyone must confirm to a strict diet of Tex Mex; telenovellas, True Blood, and Walking Dead; and dark rum.

And Dachshunds.

Mmm...who can forget the awesome might of the wiener legions?

**A Town Called Malus**

purplefood wrote:Concerning freedom of speech...
We do have freedom of speech but if someone goes out of their way to spread vile and hateful messages about a certain ethnic or racial group that is illegal. Especially so if it starts causing violence.

It's pretty much this. Plus to the Americans saying that they have more freedom of speech than us, try standing outside the white house with a beard and turban and shout "allahu ackbar!" and "death to the infidels!"

See how long it takes before you're arrested.

**notprop**

So Spike Lee eh, must be nice for that elderly couple (chased out by weiners?) that he enjoys his free speach so much.

And who said American don't enjoy irony.

**Orlanth**

Is widely propogated misinformation from a clearly defined source that can get someone killed 'free speech'?

**AustonT**

mattyrm wrote:
AustonT wrote:
A lot of comics steal jokes. Dane Cooks routine is very reminiscent of Louis K, Joe Rogan called him on it and drama ensued. I happen to like mind of Mencia. I could do without his actual comedy sets.

Mate Dane Cook is fething awful as well.. and Joe Rogan! They are both worse than Mencia, your correct and I take it back.

Well TBH I like both Mencia and Cook...I guess that says something about my standards. I also have LPs of Bill Cosby from my youth.
You don't and shouldn't take it back, it's just part of the stand up scene that jokes are frequently lifted or "shared".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw KilKrazy...well played in the Spike Lee thread. Well played.

**Grakmar**

Orlanth wrote:Is widely propogated misinformation from a clearly defined source that can get someone killed 'free speech'?

You are certainly allowed to tell lies to a wide audience. However, you cannot incite anyone to violence.

So, if he said "This is where this guy lives. I think he deserves to be killed." That protected.

But, if he said "This is where this guy lives. You, angry armed citizen listening to me speak, should go shoot him." That is illegal.

**notprop**

So you know that there is an angry mob out there but think the way you reveal the address will have some bearing on their reaction. It is reasonable to presume that an angry mob will react angrily in a mob-type fashion.

In this case I think Spike would have to prove medically he was that stupid to avoid censure no mater what country.

**purplefood**

He could at least say sorry...

**Albatross**

Seaward wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Sturmtruppen wrote:Maybe what you Americans don't understand is that here in the UK, we have the EDL and Combat 18.

There are white power movements in the US, too. In fact, you may have heard of one of them. They wear white hoods.

I also find it very ironic that you Americans have the audacity to preach 'freedom' to the rest of the world. America, the country that still has executions, Guantanamo Bay, and the Republican party that by our standards are, frankly, fascists.

That's nonsense. The Republicans are not fascists by any stretch of the imagination - it's just name-calling, pure and simple.

It IS name-calling, isn't it? And name-calling simply on the basis of who someone is! He didn't take into account what kind of emotional state Republicans who read that might have been in, or how the normal response among freedom-loving people to fascism is to go to war to end it. By Jove, I think he just incited to violence based on identity! Someone get the British police to put on those cute round hats and go lock him up.

You are terrible at sarcasm. I mean, let's just get that out of the way first.

Race and political affilition are not even remotely the same thing. You are free to attack a person's political choices, you can't choose to be a particular skin colour, and that skin colour doesn't really say anything about what type of person you are, what choices you make, or what you believe in.

I said it was 'just name-calling' because the person I quoted was using the word 'fascist' euphemistically to mean 'something I don't like'. The Republican party is not a fascist organsation. That is just a false statement.

**purplefood**

Seaward you might wanna pick up a napkin 'cos you just got served...

**Frazzled**

Nah just mention Ireland and Albatross will go into a flaming tizzy. Its fun to watch, like TBone getting wound up about squirrel just out of his reach.

**Albatross**

mattyrm wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?

I told you, I've lived in both, and I understand both extremely well. Britain loves a loser. Tim Henman would have been a bus boy if he was American!

It think its due to many things, partially because of the war and a lingering paranoia, also an enforced feeling of unity taken after the collapse of the USSR. I also once saw a programme about it that said Britian and America are inherently the way they are because the people that had that entrepreneurial spirit and get up and go and positive outlook buggerd off to the US in search of their fortune. The "Its never gonna work" crowd stayed home.

And proceeded to create the largest empire the world has ever seen. Yeah, gonna have to disagree most strongly with that. You're talking about people who built a railway across India, for feth's sake! That takes get-up-and-go. Hell, the Empire only existed because millions of Brits 'got up and went' to all four corners of the globe.

It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."

America is a nation with a winners, Britain is a nation of whiners. These might be hard things for people of both countries to hear, but trust me on this...

You're wrong Matt. It's just a massive generalisation. How many Americans use therapists compared to here? And I disagree that we're a nation of losers - British culture isn't about winning OR losing, it's about doing both with elan. It's about how you play the game, and how you conduct yourself at the outcome. People always bang on about us loving a 'valiant loser', but it's the 'valiant' part that counts, because that's the measure of a man, not 'WOOO!! YEAH!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!! IN YOUR FACE!!! I would much rather see us lose with dignity than win like that. It's crass and boorish. Of course winning valiantly is preferable, but as we say, 'you can't win 'em all'. You can always conduct yourself with decorum, however. This is often misinterpreted, particularly by our American cousins.

I think Kipling puts it best:

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Damn right.

**Frazzled**

I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.

In regards to "losing.'

Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi

**dogma**

mattyrm wrote:It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."

Well, the American alternative is to cling to the notion that this country is exceptional, the best, or some other nonsense. Plus we have our fair share of people hearkening for the days of the Founders, or the days before the 60's, or some other crap they idealize.

Oh, and the "I'm awesome!" syndrome is perhaps more prevalent here than anywhere else.

Frazzled wrote:
Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi

Of course when you lose, and you will, the ego doesn't take it well.

**Casey's Law**

You guys have got to stop, this thread is so funny it's killing me!

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.

In regards to "losing.'

Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi

The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest

As for that "winning isn't everything" thing, how was Vietnam?

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:

Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Actually, they kind of make sense taken in the context of what you posted - the whole 'well, we could win, easily, but if we give up and go home we haven't 'lost'...' thing. And that's basically a manifestation of the problem dogma highlighted.

**Joey**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.

In regards to "losing.'

Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi

The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest

The British Empire was a sham. It was colour on a map. The only places it had success was where the inhabitants were primative and the climate was tolerable to Europeans, i.e. The Americas, South-East Australia. Any country can be successful if it has a quarter of the globe in its trading sphere.

**purplefood**

Wikipedia wrote:The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom. It originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

The British Empire.
Read the bold bit.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Meh, free speech is overated. We don't got it in Canada and we're doing fine.

**Seaward**

Albatross wrote:Race and political affilition are not even remotely the same thing. You are free to attack a person's political choices, you can't choose to be a particular skin colour, and that skin colour doesn't really say anything about what type of person you are, what choices you make, or what you believe in.

They don't, that's correct. I think it's extremely naive to believe you can pick and choose what makes up an individual's identity, however. By your logic, I should be perfectly free to head across the pond and say exactly the same thing this kid said, only about Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, and I'd be perfectly fine, right? After all, someone's not inherently Christian, and if the characteristics you're born with are the ONLY ones that are protected under this law of Great Britain's, then I can be as much of a douchebag as I want to Catholics without fear of getting thrown in jail. If I can attack their political choices, I should be free to attack their religious choices, because they're both choices.

And now you're going to assure me that it does, in fact, work that way.

**purplefood**

It does...
The law regarding the spread of racial hatred doesn't cover spreading hatred against religion...
Though you may be charged with other things...

**Seaward**

purplefood wrote:It does...
The law regarding the spread of racial hatred doesn't cover spreading hatred against religion...
Though you may be charged with other things...

Such as?

**AustonT**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.

In regards to "losing.'

Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi

The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest

As for that "winning isn't everything" thing, how was Vietnam?

I'm sorry, come again? Is that figure in land mass or counting all the ground between the various Britannic possessions?