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 wrote:Tottenham? Death Ham? Do the Brits seriously have a town named that? Thats hardcore. respect!

You've never heard of Tottenham before now?

I...agree...with...Frazz....Nooooooooooooo!!!

The horror!

It's west hamn, not death ham. And yes, there is an East ham.

It's part of a general crackdown on misuse of the internet.

There have been various cases in the past year -- jurors tweeting defendants, people promoting riot online, that sort of thing.

Exemplary sentences are being handed out to remind the population that the law applies online as well as IRL.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I...agree...with...Frazz....Nooooooooooooo!!!

The horror!

It's west hamn, not death ham. And yes, there is an East ham.

You have to respect a country so serious about ham, they had to break up into sections.

Life here in the UK is truly terrible, why just this morning i was stopped by the roving death squads, after the mind reading spy cameras picked up my one slightly prejudice thought of the day. Oh it's truly terrible here, everyone is so patriotic and no-one dares question the government, I am constantly beeing taught about creation in school, also never to question my Country, and if i do i must be an evil commy. We're also not big on sarcasm.

Wait, I may be getting confused here......

Yeah the spy cameras can't read you minds, not through the tinfoil anyway...

An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...

The internet brings out the worst in people. If you're not accountable for your words, you think less about what you say: it's science.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...

Well when the First Amendment reared its ugly head, there was plenty of yellow journalism and bad press. After all how do you think they stirred up people enough to start taking potshots at those jive talking friendly neighborhood redcoats?

Frazzled wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...

Well when the First Amendment reared its ugly head, there was plenty of yellow journalism and bad press. After all how do you think they stirred up people enough to start taking potshots at those jive talking friendly neighborhood redcoats?

Frazz, ive mentioned this before, but seriously.. its 2012, why do a small percentage of Americans (You being one of them) still act like its 1775?

Whilst the British have long forgotten they had a war with their American cousins, I don't quite understand why you seem to think that we are still obsessed with invading the Americas?

notprop wrote:Yeah the spy cameras can't read you minds, not through the tinfoil anyway...

That doesn't make any difference when the Bottom Inspectors arrive.

Kilkrazy wrote:

notprop wrote:Yeah the spy cameras can't read you minds, not through the tinfoil anyway...

That doesn't make any difference when the Bottom Inspectors arrive.

I now know what job to aim for. Finally this thread has provided something useful.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...

Well when the First Amendment reared its ugly head, there was plenty of yellow journalism and bad press. After all how do you think they stirred up people enough to start taking potshots at those jive talking friendly neighborhood redcoats?

Frazz, ive mentioned this before, but seriously.. its 2012, why do a small percentage of Americans (You being one of them) still act like its 1775?

Whilst the British have long forgotten they had a war with their American cousins, I don't quite understand why you seem to think that we are still obsessed with invading the Americas?

Its a direct response to the quote. He said it wasn't the intent of the originators of the concept, when you can bet your ass that was the intent. The guys were calling for tarring and feathering people they disagreed with. Thats hardcore.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else.

I've noticed in the US that people who never want to say anything nasty are still pretty committed to other people not being put in jail for saying nasty things.

Agreed. Im all for free speech in America. Id fight for it tooth and nail, same with the 2nd amendment. But I dont go around saying horrible things to people nor am I a racist. So......your point was what again?

Kilkrazy wrote:

notprop wrote:Yeah the spy cameras can't read you minds, not through the tinfoil anyway...

That doesn't make any difference when the Bottom Inspectors arrive.

That's why I wear bacon trousers as well.

Pro tip: let them cool before you put them on!

Frazzled wrote:
So...I'm right. You don't have freedom of speech, only freedom of approved speech.
The founding fadas were right. We needed the First Amendment.

Offensiveness is in the eye of the beerholder.

And look what you did with it.



Wallow in your freedom.

Which is ironic, what with God being an Englishman and all.

He wouldn't get away with it at home!

KingCracker wrote:So......your point was what again?

That free speech is much more than an excuse to be an donkey-cave.

KingCracker wrote:Agreed. Im all for free speech in America. Id fight for it tooth and nail, same with the 2nd amendment. But I dont go around saying horrible things to people nor am I a racist. So......your point was what again?

That you seem to be ignoring the point that your defending people's right in the US to be offensive to people where none is due. Your saying that you should be allowed to be abusive to someone just because of the colour of their skin or some other stupid reason and get away with it under your laws of freedom of speech. Admitedly I thought these types of things were hate crimes in the US, but nonetheless I don't think someone should have any sort of government backed right to be able to say such things to someone and get away with it. Your coming across as defending these types of rubbish just because the catch all right of freedom of speech that the US has. and your blinding patriotism towards it. I donno, maybe its just us that are wierd, youknow not wanting scum like that in our society. =/

It's not like we ban/block/censor everything...
If someone is creating racist material then they get fined/imprisoned...
IIRC the BNP got into a lot of trouble a while back for this...

I think the sentence is over the top. Surely Twitter could have just closed his account or whatever.

It's not a fair application of the law, and that rankles a bit. There seems to be a lot of grandstanding by judges in the UK.

No it isn't a fair application...
Twitter could have closed his account and the Uni were within their rights in booting him but after that...

Americans seem to forget, when banging on about how much more 'free' they are than us, that the state in the US has the legal ability to take away your most fundamental right - the right to life. But hey, as least you're all free to say n***er as much as you like. I don't think that's much of a trade-off, to be honest.

The government's taking a hard stance against people breaking the law over the internet right now. I guess its to send out a message that it doesn't give people so much animnimoty any more (or at least make it so people percieve it as such). Meh, honestly if some people's heads have to be cracked to get it done and to make people a little less childish then I couldn't care less. Sure that's a pretty hardline view, and I don't totally agree with it, but I really can't be fecked with idiots that think they can be so flippant with racist speech. =/

Manchu wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else.

I've noticed in the US that people who never want to say anything nasty are still pretty committed to other people not being put in jail for saying nasty things.

Its a lovely principle..in principle...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards. The problem is to create a balance. IMO the American principle tips it too far in the direction of allowing abuse to flow freely. At the moment there is a tendency in the UK to go too far in the opposite direction. Somewhere between the two should be a position where you have the right to state your opinion about me, but without being rude or abusive. Something like that.

Answers on the back of a stamped, self-addressed postcard...

ArbeitsSchu wrote:...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards.

W're not convinced that being offended is enough of a harm to pack someone of to jail for inflicting.

Well, I think we should be allowed to be rude to each other, and we are. However, that rudeness shouldn't extend to abusing people based on the colour of their skin. There's absolutely no justification for it, and as a nation we can come together and agree a position on the matter that is in the best interests of the public. That's what nations do. That's what nations are for. We agree to restrict the rights of people to steal from one another, or defraud each other - that's based upon a national consensus on what we, as a people, consider to be undesirable behaviour. There is almost universal agreement that subjecting someone to racial abuse is undesirable, so we're entitled to take steps that curb such behaviour. Anything else is just wishy-washy idealism. There is no legitimate reason to racially abuse someone, there are legitimate reasons to criticise the government. There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.

Sadly, Tottenham doesn't mean Death town.
Nor does Gravesend actually refer to Black Death burial pits.
Nor does Black Heath refer to Black Death burial pits.

I was quite impressed by a road around the corner from me called Ripon Close. I realised at quite an early age that it is an anagram of Necropolis. I am pretty much certain it was not built over an old burial site though. :-(