|
British Party Leader Arrested for “Inciting Hate”. Free Speech Surrenders … (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
Occrider,
Forget about it, free-speech in Europe is A-OK.
Its the patriot act thats the one stripping precious rights away from the people remember?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Occrider,
Forget about it, free-speech in Europe is A-OK.
Its the patriot act thats the one stripping precious rights away from the people remember?:rolleyes: |
So in your honest opinion, you think that it was ok for Hitler to spout the that he did, create a political party to carry out what he did and incite others to his point of view? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
All news sources state that he was arrested for what he said on the documentary ... these news sources than subsequentely quote that particular passage. I would love to see the documentary but unfortunately I live in teh US. Did you see you the documentary? Can you point out what he specifically said that was "arrestable"? However, even if he said something that can in no way be misconstrued as anything but racial hatred, I would still view that as protected free speech under the presumption that we have a natural right to speak our minds regardless of content and how that may influence others. I'm going to put you in jail for robbing a bank, not for talking about robbing a bank and telling all your friends that it could feasibly get you and them rich. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...2/15/nbnp15.xml
| quote: | | The leader of the British National Party was released on bail last night after being arrested on suspicion of incitement to racial hatred |
Its not what he says, its what effect him saying that to the people (ing racist thugs) he said it too will have (and as you have no ing clue as to what members of the BNP get up to I'll tell you that involves assault and criminal damage to different races) |
|
|
| razmataz |
Incitement for hatred and abuse is different than freedom of speech. I strongly believe in independent views but if these views include encouraging people to go out and abuse others or cause damage to property/terrorize than one has to put down a set of priorities. It realy pisses me off seeing racist idiots protecting themselves with such a flimsy excuse as "my freedom to speak".
The same applies to other political and/or religious parties (e.g. Islamic radical clerics). I don't see why we are debating this- its common sense really.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm going to put you in jail for robbing a bank, not for talking about robbing a bank and telling all your friends that it could feasibly get you and them rich. |
And what about the person who actually encourages his friends to go out and rob banks, in fact saying that its okay to steal other people's money. All the more troublesome if that person is someone of inflence. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| I totally understand what your saying Occrider. And it is a hard balance to make but I personnaly think it's a posative law (the comming religious laws I'll need to get more info though). But like you say we are in a way giving up a slight amount of freedom. |
|
|
| occrider |
Thanks for the link. So the reason he was arrested is for saying:
"This wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it is now sweeping country after country," he said.
"[If you get a copy of the Koran] you will find verse after verse after verse which says that you can take any woman you want as long as they are not Muslim women; any woman that your right arm can own - that is the sword arm, the fighting arm, the arm you hit a white lad with a baseball bat. Any woman they can take by force or by guile is theirs."
Ummm ok so according to this charge, MisterOpus and I would probably be arrested for saying time and time again how Christianity is chocked full of violence, murdering, raping, and pillaging dating back to the crusades, and furthermore the bible (in particular Leviticus) advocates enslaving people, killing gays, raping women, etc.
| quote: |
Its not what he says, its what effect him saying that to the people (ing racist thugs) he said it too will have (and as you have no ing clue as to what members of the BNP get up to I'll tell you that involves assault and criminal damage to different races) |
Oh ok, so if the people in the polit forum read some of my posts or MisterOpus’s posts that were harshly critical of Christianity, and were affected so much that some of you go out and commit violence against Christians we should be arrested for practicing our freedom of speech and professing our beliefs or opinions??? Hmmm kind of reminds me of how the FBI bugged and coerced civil rights groups in the 60’s that had some tangible connections to violence (while others had none) into staying silent or were coerced from assembling out of fear of being arrested. It doesn’t matter if the BNP has a history of assault and criminal damage. The KKK has a history of lynching black people and firebombing churches yet they still have the right to assemble, march on the streets, and practice their right to express their own opinions. If they are guilty of a crime than the police have every right to arrest them. If they are guilty of speech … well what the hell is guilty speech and who has the moral authority to make that determination anyway? Who’s inalienable rights are you violating by speaking your mind? If you don’t like what someone has to say than don’t listen. If you think that people should be thrown in jail for speech that “incites” others than you might as well be against violent video games and tv because it “incites” youths to commit crimes. Furthermore you might as well be for media censorship of "offensive" content and legislating morality to the public based upon what those moral issues “incite” others to do.
| quote: |
Incitement for hatred and abuse is different than freedom of speech. I strongly believe in independent views but if these views include encouraging people to go out and abuse others or cause damage to property/terrorize than one has to put down a set of priorities. It realy pisses me off seeing racist idiots protecting themselves with such a flimsy excuse as "my freedom to speak".
The same applies to other political and/or religious parties (e.g. Islamic radical clerics). I don't see why we are debating this- its common sense really. |
It’s common sense to legislate what people can and cannot say? I can arrest you for saying “nig*er”? “Spic”? “Wop”? “Cracker”? “Chink”? “Fag”? Those are all racial terms that could “incite” hate and abuse. Why yes it’s common sense! We can create a whole Politically Correct police force to roam the streets to ensure there’s no incitement of hate! And all along I thought that the founding fathers were practicing common sense when they protected all speech as free and criminalized [b]acts[b/] that were actually criminal.
| quote: |
And what about the person who actually encourages his friends to go out and rob banks, in fact saying that its okay to steal other people's money. All the more troublesome if that person is someone of inflence. |
If I go tell you to rob a bank and help you plan it out it’s aiding and abetting a crime. Similarly if I want you to kill my wife and convince you to do it than I’d be conspiring to commit murder. If I say I think banks steal from us so we should steal from them, and say that they’re corrupt institutions that shouldn’t exist, and that somebody should do something about it, and your dumbass decides to independently plan out a bank robbery than I’m not guilty of “inciting” you to rob that bank. I’m simply voicing my opinion, you’re the one who’s actually committing a criminal act.
| quote: |
I totally understand what your saying Occrider. And it is a hard balance to make but I personnaly think it's a posative law (the comming religious laws I'll need to get more info though). But like you say we are in a way giving up a slight amount of freedom.
|
Well you’re entitled to your opinion, but personally, I hold free speech as one of our principal freedoms. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So in your honest opinion, you think that it was ok for Hitler to spout the that he did, create a political party to carry out what he did and incite others to his point of view? |
well, as long as he didnt kill anyone (or directly ordered) that would be perfectly fine with me :) |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| I think you should be able to say (almost) anything you'd want to. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Thanks for the link. So the reason he was arrested is for saying:
"This wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it is now sweeping country after country," he said.
"[If you get a copy of the Koran] you will find verse after verse after verse which says that you can take any woman you want as long as they are not Muslim women; any woman that your right arm can own - that is the sword arm, the fighting arm, the arm you hit a white lad with a baseball bat. Any woman they can take by force or by guile is theirs."
Ummm ok so according to this charge, MisterOpus and I would probably be arrested for saying time and time again how Christianity is chocked full of violence, murdering, raping, and pillaging dating back to the crusades, and furthermore the bible (in particular Leviticus) advocates enslaving people, killing gays, raping women, etc.
Oh ok, so if the people in the polit forum read some of my posts or MisterOpus’s posts that were harshly critical of Christianity, and were affected so much that some of you go out and commit violence against Christians we should be arrested for practicing our freedom of speech and professing our beliefs or opinions??? Hmmm kind of reminds me of how the FBI bugged and coerced civil rights groups in the 60’s that had some tangible connections to violence (while others had none) into staying silent or were coerced from assembling out of fear of being arrested. It doesn’t matter if the BNP has a history of assault and criminal damage. The KKK has a history of lynching black people and firebombing churches yet they still have the right to assemble, march on the streets, and practice their right to express their own opinions. If they are guilty of a crime than the police have every right to arrest them. If they are guilty of speech … well what the hell is guilty speech and who has the moral authority to make that determination anyway? Who’s inalienable rights are you violating by speaking your mind? If you don’t like what someone has to say than don’t listen. If you think that people should be thrown in jail for speech that “incites” others than you might as well be against violent video games and tv because it “incites” youths to commit crimes. Furthermore you might as well be for media censorship of "offensive" content and legislating morality to the public based upon what those moral issues “incite” others to do.
It’s common sense to legislate what people can and cannot say? I can arrest you for saying “nig*er”? “Spic”? “Wop”? “Cracker”? “Chink”? “Fag”? Those are all racial terms that could “incite” hate and abuse. Why yes it’s common sense! We can create a whole Politically Correct police force to roam the streets to ensure there’s no incitement of hate! And all along I thought that the founding fathers were practicing common sense when they protected all speech as free and criminalized [b]acts[b/] that were actually criminal.
If I go tell you to rob a bank and help you plan it out it’s aiding and abetting a crime. Similarly if I want you to kill my wife and convince you to do it than I’d be conspiring to commit murder. If I say I think banks steal from us so we should steal from them, and say that they’re corrupt institutions that shouldn’t exist, and that somebody should do something about it, and your dumbass decides to independently plan out a bank robbery than I’m not guilty of “inciting” you to rob that bank. I’m simply voicing my opinion, you’re the one who’s actually committing a criminal act.
Well you’re entitled to your opinion, but personally, I hold free speech as one of our principal freedoms. |
Tell ya what Occrider, if that is your real name, when I'm not pissed out of my ing little head,I will answer thatb drivle you have just wasted your time posting
(and by which time, I fully expect you to have done your home work on the ing c.u.n.t.s that are the BNP...) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So in your honest opinion, you think that it was ok for Hitler to spout the that he did, create a political party to carry out what he did and incite others to his point of view? |
Geez, why do you always have to bring hitler into the picture?
But since you did, Hitler wasn't only spewing propoganda - this has been done since people couldn't read... He banned the very FREE PRESS.
NO OPPOSITION PAPERS EXISTED IN NAZI GERMANY.:eyes:
Ya real shocker:rolleyes:
Anyhoo, thats the point Occrider is trying to make - Free Speech is best. When you restrict it, even a little it actually endangers your society very much. If Germany had a Free Press under Nazism you could be sure that it wouldn't have commited atrocities to the extent that it did. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Tell ya what Occrider, if that is your real name, when I'm not pissed out of my ing little head, I will answer thatb drivle you have just wasted your time posting
(and by which time, I fully expect you to have done your home work on the ing c.u.n.t.s that are the BNP...) |
And this is the end product of your comprehensive expertise in maximizing time and cerebral stimulation? Wow, I've never been so incredibly humbled before in my entire life. A pulitzer, sir, would do you dishonor.
And yes, in a cruel twist of fate, my mom named me Occrider (Oak-see-ride-deer) at birth. Unfortunately I guess George Smiley and all the other good names were already taken ... |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I'm totally with Occrider and St. Andrew on these matters. In fact I think that it is perfectly ok for a private company to refuse to hire people because of their skin colour, religion, or political affiliation. It would probably be stupid, considering the negative press such moves would make, but it should definately not be a topic of legislation. When it comes to government owned companies, the principle of equal opportunity takes effect, though.
For those of you who somehow manages to distinguish between exercising free speech and inciting to hatred, could you please define *exactly* how the two differs? Say, if I utter "those Harry Potter books are really overrated" is that an incitement to hatred agains Rowlings? What if some lunatic reads it, thinks "he got a point", and subsequently kills Rowling to stop further output of Harry Potter books? How much stupidity on behalf of the listener can we disregard before we start talking about inciting to hate?
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Forget about it, free-speech in Europe is A-OK.
|
There you go with your generalizations again. You're quite the expert in that field :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Tell ya what Occrider, if that is your real name, when I'm not pissed out of my ing little head,I will answer thatb drivle you have just wasted your time posting
(and by which time, I fully expect you to have done your home work on the ing c.u.n.t.s that are the BNP...) |
It's really sad that you cannot see how much you violate your own socialistic principles by being extremely intolerant. It may be that the BNP is hating others because of their religion - but you clearly hate others because of their opinions. Do we choose our opinions any more than our religion? |
|
|
|
|
