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.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

For a German to converse with his equal he is forced to fill out these forms in triplicate.

]

For a Frenchman to converse with his equal he must look in the mirror.

we need to keep this going!

Should we start a separate thread?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

we need to keep this going!

No, we need to seal it with lead and fire it into the sun.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats ok. You're British. You literally just wouldn't understand.

Scottish actually and we do have the same rights that you do, at least the ones that we actually think are useful anyway.

You don't have the right to free speech (see regulation announced of your newspapers), defend yourself (firearms), the right to boogie, the right to party, the right to feign ignorance by speaking spanish, the right to Star Trek, the right to barbeque, pants if your Scottish, or the right to lead a ragtag fleet on lonely quest for a place called earth.

PLus we don't have VAT taxes.

or the right to lead a ragtag fleet on lonely quest for a place called earth.

...but we did have a rag tag fleet that brought the boys home in 39. Oh and few toy ships that left this shore set in motion the creation of the US.

the right to feign ignorance by speaking spanish

We don't need to feign ignorance, we just talk slower and louder.

the right to barbeque

BBQ's are a British males born right and kingdom.

the right to boogie, the right to party

Have not ever been to any of the popular Spanish & Greece holiday resorts?

the right to Star Trek

Dr. Who, Thunderbirds, Stingray, Space 1999

You don't have the right to free speech (see regulation announced of your newspapers),

Not been actioned yet

defend yourself (firearms)

Cos, contrary to the images put on TV, most Brits don't usually encounter villains with guns. Plus Dave says it's ok to smack down the burglars now.

PLus we don't have VAT taxes

State taxes?

 Frazzled wrote:


You're a subject, not a citizen.

No we're not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4191613.stm

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

" From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her Crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). "

.. which has had almost no meaning whatsoever as we had plenty of rights prior to this naming convention, it's kind of why we chopped a persons head off and all that bother back in the day.

Plus we don't have VAT taxes.

And we don't have sales taxes.

Our country has a policy of saying you can say ANYTHING YOU WANT.

Oh really ? hmm... tell you what next time you're privy to some information about a forthcoming merger or information that'll have an impact on a companies stockmarket value , you mouth off and tell people about it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.

My current personal favourite is shouting racist everytime there is a discussion about immigration and ignoring actual arguments put forward.

Hordini wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.

Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?

Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.

It would illustrate clearly to the entire community what complete scumbags the people who distribute those pamphlets and erect those billboards really are. Although I don't see a lot of those kinds of billboards, to be honest, so I'm not sure going out of our way to make it illegal would do anything than provide those kind of hate groups with an excuse to start claiming that their rights are being infringed upon. I doubt there are many billboard companies who would agree to put up that kind of sign, and if someone wants to erect a sign on their own property, that's their business. It just let's everyone else know how much of a jerk they are.

This statement reeks of being the equivalent to "Well, anyone that beats you to death certainly isn't your friend!"

Hordini wrote:That's why it's illegal for a mentally incompetent person to purchase a firearm, and it's also illegal for someone to purchase a firearm for someone who is mentally incompetent. Whether or not the area is populated has nothing to do with it. Either someone is competent enough to handle a firearm, or they aren't.

So what you're saying is the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a right, then? A person has to be determined to be mentally competent in order to legally purchase firearms?

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Breotan wrote:Still, we have this from Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/27/hate_speech_ruling_antigay_pamphlets_broke_law_supreme_court_of_canada_says.html

I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.

I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.

Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.

hate is a point of view.

It's a point of view that's been determined to infringe on others' right not to live in fear. In other words, be hateful in your own home. In a public forum, it's in the same category as inciting violence.

By banning hatespeech you're just banning speech that is not PC.

Only if the legal system was full of people lacking in basic sense, who were only capable of literal readings of black letter law. Fortunately, in Canada we operate under the "reasonable person" standard for most interpretive matters, wherein we consider what a reasonable person would conclude. It really does save us from embarassing outcomes in the legal system that pop up in yours all the time. So no, banning hatespeech is not banning non-PC speech. I can call anyone I want a commie; but I cannot launch a campaign suggesting that we kill all the short people.

captain collius wrote:Not exactly it is probably poor worded. I can say that anyone who says anything good about communism is hateful because my Family lost at least 10 cousin to Stalins purges.

you can say that, but you'd be wrong both logically and legally. You cannot conflate the abstract idea of Communism with the actions of one person that ascribes to it and more than you can say that Jesus is hateful because of the Crusades. And, even if you came up with a logically sound pairing of speech to action like that, it still doesn't necessarily make it hate speech. Hate speech is an actual legal designation, it's not merely a synonym for unpleasant language.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.

But it's not arbitary. There are actual standards to determine what is and is not hate speech. In that orginally-linked article, the pamphlets containing hate speech were found to only contain a few elements that were considered to qualify as such.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.

My current personal favourite is shouting racist everytime there is a discussion about immigration and ignoring actual arguments put forward.

Racist!!!

 azazel the cat wrote:

So what you're saying is the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a right, then? A person has to be determined to be mentally competent in order to legally purchase firearms?

You have that backwards, its a Right that can be revoked if you are mentally unstable.

If there is no evidence you are unstable, you can purchase firearms. If there is evidence, the right is suspended.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

So what you're saying is the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a right, then? A person has to be determined to be mentally competent in order to legally purchase firearms?

You have that backwards, its a Right that can be revoked if you are mentally unstable.

If there is no evidence you are unstable, you can purchase firearms. If there is evidence, the right is suspended.

Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.

Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?

Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.

It would illustrate clearly to the entire community what complete scumbags the people who distribute those pamphlets and erect those billboards really are. Although I don't see a lot of those kinds of billboards, to be honest, so I'm not sure going out of our way to make it illegal would do anything than provide those kind of hate groups with an excuse to start claiming that their rights are being infringed upon. I doubt there are many billboard companies who would agree to put up that kind of sign, and if someone wants to erect a sign on their own property, that's their business. It just let's everyone else know how much of a jerk they are.

This statement reeks of being the equivalent to "Well, anyone that beats you to death certainly isn't your friend!"

Well, it's true isn't it? And someone distributing flyers or erecting a billboard is not the same thing as beating someone to death.

The best way to discredit a hate group is to let people see what they're really about. If the government censors them, it only allows them to develop an oppression complex which is probably more likely to increase their numbers rather than decrease them. Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?

Freedom of speech isn't needed to protect speech that is polite, pleasant, and popular. The whole point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot just decide that discourse is "damaging" and then do away with it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Racist!!!

I hate everyone equally, without passion or prejudice

 MrMoustaffa wrote:


You're not an American, and have not had the same rights we do. When we say you literally cannot understand our arguments, there is a reason. It'd be like you trying to explain to us why Britain still has a Queen. We're entirely different cultures.

Although, attitudes towards the Queen might be a little different if she was responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year or whatever the figure is (OK.. she might have been responsible for that at one time.. but not so much these days )

 Pacific wrote:
Although, attitudes towards the Queen might be a little different if she was responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year or whatever the figure is (OK.. she might have been responsible for that at one time.. but not so much these days )

I doubt it. You guys like cars and alcohol still, after all.

 Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.

England has had a Bill of Rights for almost a hundred years prior to the USA being a noun.

Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.

Do you like to pretend that your government has no control over the press? Aww. Cute.

Do you even know literally anything about the new Royal Charter and what involves? Wait, look at who I'm asking. Of course you don't. You're just doing your usual act of putting on your 'USA!! No. 1!!' beer-hat and stomping around bellowing half-understood nationalist slogans like a mouth-breather with crisps all over his face. I mean, you thought that the USA was first country to have a Bill of Rights, ferchristsakes.

 Albatross wrote:
Of course you don't. You're just doing your usual act of putting on your 'USA!! No. 1!!' beer-hat and stomping around bellowing half-understood nationalist slogans like a mouth-breather with crisps all over his face. I mean, you thought that the USA was first country to have a Bill of Rights, ferchristsakes.

It's still nowhere as weird as the thread in which Fraz, who if I recall correctly has told us he's a lawyer who works in a bank, seemed to have no idea that companies could be criminally prosecuted, with the sentence imposed in a fine rather than jail time.

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.

England has had a Bill of Rights for almost a hundred years prior to the USA being a noun.

Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.

crisps

Hey listen here ya fancy speakin feller, they be called chips.

Hordini wrote:Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.

And you don't find it depressing how ass-backwards that is?

Hordini wrote:Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?

Actually, that's exactly how hate groups propagate. Repeat a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth (and yes I recognize the irony of that quote).

Hordini wrote:Freedom of speech isn't needed to protect speech that is polite, pleasant, and popular. The whole point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot just decide that discourse is "damaging" and then do away with it.

Not the government... the standard is upheld by the courts. They are independent from the government, and all justices are appointed for life, so that there is never a need to campaign and thus compromise the court system.

Who appoints the justices? and how do you get rid of gak justices? (honestly asking)

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.

And you don't find it depressing how ass-backwards that is?

If the government wants to restrict someone's rights, the burden of proof should be in the government. Similar to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. Assuming they haven't been convicted of a crime or been found mentally incompetent, an individual doesn't have to prove something to receive their constitutional rights.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?

Actually, that's exactly how hate groups propagate. Repeat a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth (and yes I recognize the irony of that quote).

And yet, the KKK and other hate groups are a mere shadow of what they used to be in the US. Somehow allowing them the right to free expression as we do everyone else hasn't caused an explosion of power or numbers for these groups. If anything, it allows us to keep tabs on them even more easily.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Freedom of speech isn't needed to protect speech that is polite, pleasant, and popular. The whole point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot just decide that discourse is "damaging" and then do away with it.

Not the government... the standard is upheld by the courts. They are independent from the government, and all justices are appointed for life, so that there is never a need to campaign and thus compromise the court system.

The judicial branch is still part of the government.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Who appoints the justices? and how do you get rid of gak justices? (honestly asking)

They're appointed by the sitting government; so they may have similar political leanings at the time of appointment. However, they could easily give that government the finger if they wanted to, as they are no longer accountable to that government after their appointment. However, it makes little difference, as our entire multi-party political spectrum is far less polarized than yours is.

Hordini wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.

And you don't find it depressing how ass-backwards that is?

If the government wants to restrict someone's rights, the burden of proof should be in the government. Similar to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. Assuming they haven't been convicted of a crime or been found mentally incompetent, an individual doesn't have to prove something to receive their constitutional rights.

Kinda like operating a motor vehicle, right? The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified., and the damage that could be done by firearms was minimal. Unless it was a rell-regulated militia, the muzzle-loading muskets weren't going to do much harm. In my opinion, the 2nd amendment is a ridiculous piece of legistlation that has been immunized from the idea of the Constitution being a "living document" that evolves over time; yet applies directly to a technology that has. A more reasonable way to see it would either make the concession that the 2nd amendment can be updated to accomodate for much more advanced technology than was ever conceived at the time of its drafting, or else to read it as though it is not a living document, and thus interpret the 2nd amendment to only apply to your right to have as many muzzle-loading firearms as you like.

Hordini wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?

Actually, that's exactly how hate groups propagate. Repeat a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth (and yes I recognize the irony of that quote).

And yet, the KKK and other hate groups are a mere shadow of what they used to be in the US. Somehow allowing them the right to free expression as we do everyone else hasn't caused an explosion of power or numbers for these groups. If anything, it allows us to keep tabs on them even more easily.

The KKK doesn't have the right to absolute expression in the US, since the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Their speech, which doubled as voter intimidation, was listed as a federal crime.

Hordini wrote:The judicial branch is still part of the government.

Fair enough. But in this case it's an apolitical government branch, and thus does not suffer from the conflict of interest that you are concerned with.

Wait now your saying judges aren't part of the government. Thats cute.

 azazel the cat wrote:

The KKK doesn't have the right to absolute expression in the US, since the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Their speech, which doubled as voter intimidation, was listed as a federal crime.

That act doesn't apply to just the KKK. The KKK and other hate groups are still permitted to exist and to demonstrate, as long as they demonstrate peacefully, just like everyone else.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Kinda like operating a motor vehicle, right? The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified., and the damage that could be done by firearms was minimal. Unless it was a rell-regulated militia, the muzzle-loading muskets weren't going to do much harm. In my opinion, the 2nd amendment is a ridiculous piece of legistlation that has been immunized from the idea of the Constitution being a "living document" that evolves over time; yet applies directly to a technology that has. A more reasonable way to see it would either make the concession that the 2nd amendment can be updated to accomodate for much more advanced technology than was ever conceived at the time of its drafting, or else to read it as though it is not a living document, and thus interpret the 2nd amendment to only apply to your right to have as many muzzle-loading firearms as you like.

The Second Amendment can be updated or repealed at any time. There's even a process in place for it. Not nearly enough Americans want it to happen, though, no matter how much Canadians do, so I'm afraid you're SOL.

As far as the "living document" BS goes, the notion is that the Constitution can be updated, not that its plain language interpretation should change. For that, we have that handy repeal/addition mechanism.

The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified.

Much like the first amendment does not apply to the internet or radio, seeing as they didn't exist back then, nor is my hard drive, phone line, or vehicle protected under the fourth, seeing as those didn't exist either.

...Except that's wrong. Quickly, I must inform the world!...but only using the spoken word or a hand operated printing press.

 SOFDC wrote:

The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified.

Much like the first amendment does not apply to the internet or radio, seeing as they didn't exist back then, nor is my hard drive, phone line, or vehicle protected under the fourth, seeing as those didn't exist either.

...Except that's wrong. Quickly, I must inform the world!...but only using the spoken word or a hand operated printing press.

So... how is it that we have the Air Force? I seem to miss that in the Constituion....

As part of a well regulated militia, can I get an f-15?

I wanna fly D:

As part of a well regulated militia, can I get an f-15?

Yes and no. Can you legally obtain the weaponry? Sure, with the right paperwork (Except the autocannon(s). Them's evilbadfun and verboten. The bombs can be OK though.). Can you obtain the airframe and powerplant? Sure, with the right paperwork.Do you have to be rich as heck to do it? Yeap.

But hey, the rich and politically connected can be trusted with weapons! It's just them poor folk you don't want getting ahold of them!

 Alfndrate wrote:
As part of a well regulated militia, can I get an f-15?

I wanna fly D:

If you can afford it you probably could buy one. I'm not sure about F-15s specifically, but there are older fighter jets owned by civilians at least. Just like you can own a tank, if you can pay for it.

Getting missiles and bombs for them would be a lot more difficult.

I don't want ammo, just wanna fly to work

 Alfndrate wrote:
I don't want ammo, just wanna fly to work

I wanted that Harrier Jet that Pepsi was offering a couple of years ago.

They weren't offering it. Someone actually got the points, tried to get it, had to sue,and still didn't get it.