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.

I draw the line at when people say things I don't agree with. If they say something I don't like, they get 10 days in jail. 20 for rolling better in the assault phase.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8438852.stm

So how about that freedom of speech?

Kanluwen wrote:It's creating a dangerous situation, and it's a PR move all in one. Who cares if a few of your followers get the crap beat out of them when you get to make the Other Side look like a bunch of violent neanderthals?

It's even worse than that. Westboro does it purely for the settlement money.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240518/Muslim-protesters-branded-British-soldiers-rapists-baby-killers-homecoming-parade.html

So much for peaceable assembly.

If you read the article, Fateweaver, it did say that those troublemakers had split off from where the main group of anti-war protesters had organized thier rally with police.

It didn't seem as though the Muslim protesters acted violently.

There were only six of these pillocks? It must have been a slow news day at the Daily Mail. Fortunately The Mail also reported some important news.

Not violent as in kicking and maiming but the one group got kinda nasty with throwing stuff.

I read that CE but it still ended not being peaceable even if only a splinter cell had started getting rowdy.

I didn't see report of any violent action on behalf of the Muslims. It appeared all the violence originated in the crowd supporting the military.

A group of Muslim protesters shouted 'murderers', 'rapists', 'baby killers' and chanted 'burn in hell' at soldiers on a homecoming parade from Iraq, a court heard today. (...)

Today seven Muslim men appeared at Luton Magistrates Court charged with using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour which was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others.

Nice freedom of speech, guys.

Fateweaver wrote:So much for peaceable assembly.

Please see:

Albatross wrote:There will be blood.

If not now, then soon - mark my words. Tolerance only stretches so far.

See also:

Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.

As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt. The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.

Funny really, since the benefits given to them by this country also paid for the clothes they wear.

To be 100% honest about the march: Let them, with a ticket back to the middle east waiting for them afterwards.
They seem to hate this country, yet still take all the free hand-outs and ask for more.

Failing that, shoot the fethers.
If i walked around with a sign with something aimed at a muslim on it, i would lose my job, and be branded a racist.
Yet for them its fine?
feth off to another country, they arent needed or wanted here.




So whats next? Letting the rapist go to the funeral of a young girl he has raped and killed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt. The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.

What they believe over-rules our legal system.
If she said something she too would be branded a "racist"


You cant win.

The Green Git wrote:Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.

Yes it is, at least insofar as the administrator of those consequences is the state. Obviously anyone who chose to create a set of consequences for those speaking would also be bound by any laws intended to govern their activity.

That being said, 'freedom of speech' is not true freedom of speech. Its a guideline more than an absolute, logical statement.

The Green Git wrote:Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.

It is (significant) freedom from government created consequences of speaking. Otherwise it would mean nothing.

As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt.

They weren't disrupting the legal process by refusing to stand; do you think the government should force people into submissive actions just to display their power?

The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.

Possibly, but it's hardly a scathing insult coming from the people who call returning soldiers "baby killers". I'd consider the view that I'm inferior by them to be a compliment, if anything.

JD21290 wrote:
What they believe over-rules our legal system.
If she said something she too would be branded a "racist"


You cant win.

Oh noes! You don't get to maintain dominant, masculine imagery throughout a legal case! How ever will you maintain your manliness?

dogma wrote:

JD21290 wrote:
What they believe over-rules our legal system.
If she said something she too would be branded a "racist"


You cant win.

Oh noes! You don't get to maintain dominant, masculine imagery throughout a legal case! How ever will you maintain your manliness?

One word. Thundercougerfalconbird.

It makes John Holmes blush.

dogma wrote:

It makes John Holmes blush.

So what will it take for you to take this thudercougerfalconbird home with you?

Even so, these men stepped over the line when they promised that the soldiers would pay and threatened use of violence. While they may not have said that they themselves were planning to do so, it seems obvious that they were advocating any attacks on these soldiers.

The Green Git wrote:Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.

As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt. The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.

The article did mention that one of them has had their house attacked and car firebombed... I'd say that guy wasn't free from consequence of his words.

Isn't there a law in Britain and Commonwealth countries where people can't be targeted with hate speech?
I mention this because I read of some Canadian law that possibly leaves preachers and such open to prosecution for talking against homosexuality from the pulpit.

http://narth.com/docs/trumps.html

My understanding is that hate speech is prohibited under old British law, but I admit I could use a serious education on this.
If this is in fact the case though, could not the British soldiers coming home be protected under the British version of this law?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Even so, these men stepped over the line when they promised that the soldiers would pay and threatened use of violence. While they may not have said that they themselves were planning to do so, it seems obvious that they were advocating any attacks on these soldiers.

A legal line, or a moral one? Most people don't appreciate the difference, but its obviously an important one.

As far as I know nothing they did was illegal in the United States (the KKK can legally march), though obviously the same is not true of England.

Can the KKK openly state that thier opponents 'will pay?' I'm not sure, but it sounds a lot like advocating violence to me.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Even so, these men stepped over the line when they promised that the soldiers would pay and threatened use of violence. While they may not have said that they themselves were planning to do so, it seems obvious that they were advocating any attacks on these soldiers.

A legal line, or a moral one? Most people don't appreciate the difference, but its obviously an important one.

As far as I know nothing they did was illegal in the United States (the KKK can legally march), though obviously the same is not true of England.

The KKK can legally march, but they cannot do it in a way so as to provoke a reaction from the community(insofar as I remember. I'd have to dig through the law texts to find it, but I remember there was a case where the KKK or the American Nazi Party tried to protest the fact that they were forced to alter the planned route of their march to keep them from a low income black neighborhood).

Kanluwen wrote:
The KKK can legally march, but they cannot do it in a way so as to provoke a reaction from the community

Ah, yeah, I forgot about the fighting words doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Can the KKK openly state that thier opponents 'will pay?' I'm not sure, but it sounds a lot like advocating violence to me.

I think that insofar as the target it a general category, and not a specific individual it would fall under protected speech.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

A group of Muslim protesters shouted 'murderers', 'rapists', 'baby killers' and chanted 'burn in hell' at soldiers on a homecoming parade from Iraq, a court heard today. (...)

Today seven Muslim men appeared at Luton Magistrates Court charged with using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour which was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others.

Nice freedom of speech, guys.

FTFY.

JD21290 wrote:


Funny really, since the benefits given to them by this country also paid for the clothes they wear.

To be 100% honest about the march: Let them, with a ticket back to the middle east waiting for them afterwards.
They seem to hate this country, yet still take all the free hand-outs and ask for more.

Failing that, shoot the fethers.
If i walked around with a sign with something aimed at a muslim on it, i would lose my job, and be branded a racist.
Yet for them its fine?
feth off to another country, they arent needed or wanted here.

I remember years ago reading about a protest against the Lybian embassy in Britain during the course of which the Lybians shot and killed a police woman and injured several other people. I think there are some people in Britain with as long a memory as I have and just might get more than a bit violent against these protesters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher

Does this mean I can punch this lady in the face now?

NSFW... ewww....

I am also reminded of this pic, not sure why really... Maybe because of the hockey being a ''fightin' sport'', and this guy just making me laugh.