Skyrad 0 #51 October 23, 2009 QuoteOf course they should be allowed, just as people who tan easily can rag on and on and on about all the blondes and pasty white northern Europeans who moved to the small country at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean who want all of the people who don’t tan to go home. I guess you've never met black jews before.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #52 October 23, 2009 QuoteYes. Mind you, I'm using American standards. In the US, even hate speech and slander (lies) are protected by our Constitution's freedom of speech guarantees. (In the US, you can be sued civilly for slander, but you may not be prosecuted criminally for it.) This case is in the UK, where, along with the rest of Western Europe (but unlike the US), hate speech and slander are restricted, to one degree or another, by criminal laws. This sort of debate dates back at least to Socrates and Plato discussing the proper definition of "justice". In a healthy and robust democratic society, the most just society is achieved by allowing truth to collide with error (including virulent and repugnant hate speech) in the free marketplace of ideas and expression. You can say that you hate someone or a group of people however you can't incite hatred or violence, there is a difference.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #53 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteVery interesting programe. Jack Straw was very strong on the attack, very weal in defence. Baroness Warsi was great. Nick Griffen did proberbly more to loose votes for the BNP tonight than at any time upto now. He came over as insincere, untrustworthy, creepy and a total liar. I had expected him to be more personable actually. Undoubtedly letting him on the show was the right thing to do. The far right can (and do) hold rallys and make speechs in the UK too. Yes, it was. Here in the US, groups such as the KKK are allowed to hold rallies and make speeches (we had one where they spoke from the steps of the Capitol building in Madison). That's what freedom of speech really means. That you let even the ones you hate express their views. The really ugly ones usually just shoot themselves in the foot with their own mouth (mixed metaphor, but you know what I mean). Bring them out into the light and show the world what they are really about.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #54 October 23, 2009 This is a thread Hijack. What’s the climate like in the UK right now? I speak to a few guys from the UK. One who drives a cab and is tan. He has told me that he gets fucked with every day. Now I don’t know if he is exaggerating or is the tension that high in the UK right now? He was so surprised that I did not have the same experience in the US. Another one who is also TAN said the same thing. Does this sound accurate to you? I know you do not know them personally but is the climate such that this could be the norm? Edit to add. I voted Yes. i am all for free speach and i like the guide lines you have in the UK.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 144 #55 October 23, 2009 Quote The fucker Nick Griffin is going to be allowed to be on the BBC Question Time program tonight. He is the leader of the Whites Only BNP.... should freedom of speach be extended to anyone, no matter what their views? .... one funny story came out this week though... apparently, they are not allowed to restrict membership to Whites only... so some have suggested thet All Non-White folks in the U.K join the party and thus be in the majority and would be able to vote out all of the crazies and change the party line I think that in the UK we have a problem where we tend towards "thought police" and shy away from true debate. I think "we the public" are treated as ignorant plebs incapable of making informed decisions. Parties like the BNP etc are LEGAL they should not be treated as though they are illegal, simply because people find their views offensive. To be honest the anti-BNP views give the BNP more airtime than if they were simply ignored and left to make fools of themselves. But I do think the problem is broader unlike the US, here people are not allowed to have true "free speech" as if your view is not politically correct you are muzzled - which is wrong. If I don't like gays, whites, blacks, christians, jews or muslims I should have the freedom to say so.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #56 October 23, 2009 Quote As a Muslim darkie who grew up in London during the hight of the NF and copped shit for decades from the far right, I voted Yes. The BNP should be allowed to be represented on the BBC so long as their views expressed do not in anyway break the law. If however they make statements that incite racial hatred or incite violence, then they and the BBC should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We live in a democracy and so long as people abide by the law they should have full entitlements to the right that the law gives them. I don't like or agree with the BNP but support the right to freedom of speech. To many of our rights and civil liberties have been erroded, people died and still are, to give us and defend those rights. They should not be given up lightly. So you want to force the Beeb to give the BNP airtime, then prosecute them (the BBC) when they (the BNP) say things that break the law? How does this make sense to you? How do you solve that problem for live shows (I can see how you solve it for canned ones) ? Even on canned shows, I say let them hang themselves; air it after 9 so the kids should be in bed but can watch it anyway, put a disclaimer on it and get everyone to talk about it the next day. I voted yes on principle, but am somewhat serious on airing it later at night.Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #57 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteOf course they should be allowed, just as people who tan easily can rag on and on and on about all the blondes and pasty white northern Europeans who moved to the small country at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean who want all of the people who don’t tan to go home. I guess you've never met black jews before. You would be wrong on that guess. I was referring to certain people around here who tan easily who wish to drive all jews into the sea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #58 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteYes. Mind you, I'm using American standards. In the US, even hate speech and slander (lies) are protected by our Constitution's freedom of speech guarantees. (In the US, you can be sued civilly for slander, but you may not be prosecuted criminally for it.) This case is in the UK, where, along with the rest of Western Europe (but unlike the US), hate speech and slander are restricted, to one degree or another, by criminal laws. This sort of debate dates back at least to Socrates and Plato discussing the proper definition of "justice". In a healthy and robust democratic society, the most just society is achieved by allowing truth to collide with error (including virulent and repugnant hate speech) in the free marketplace of ideas and expression. You can say that you hate someone or a group of people however you can't incite hatred or violence, there is a difference. Under the US Constitution, yes you can incite hatred; it's protected speech. As for "inciting violence"..... mmmm, that's a tough grey area. US courts have come down on both side of the issue. My viewpoint (and legal opinion) is, adults are responsible for their own actions. If I have a one-to-one conversation with you, and urge you to punch your asshole neighbor, and you do so, it's unlikely that I could be successfully prosecuted in the US for inciting your violence. Why? Because you're an adult, and you had the option (in fact, a legal duty) to just say no. Well, I think the same thing applies to urging a group of people to be violent. It's no more, or less, than making a fiery speech urging a group of people to vote a certain way. If they're adults, and thus responsible for their own actions, they always have the option to say No. Thus, at least under an American standard of law, I should not be held legally accountable for someone else's act, even if I "urged" (but did not coerce) them to do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #59 October 23, 2009 QuoteThis is a thread Hijack. What’s the climate like in the UK right now? I speak to a few guys from the UK. One who drives a cab and is tan. He has told me that he gets fucked with every day. Now I don’t know if he is exaggerating or is the tension that high in the UK right now? He was so surprised that I did not have the same experience in the US. Another one who is also TAN said the same thing. Does this sound accurate to you? I know you do not know them personally but is the climate such that this could be the norm? Edit to add. I voted Yes. i am all for free speach and i like the guide lines you have in the UK. Tension is elevated for Tan people for sure. I now spend a lot of time in Ireland where there isn't a problem (Until I open my gob and they hear a English accent) It depends in the UK where you are and what is going on but I put it like this I sure as hell wouldn't run in an airport carrying a backpack if you know what I mean.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #60 October 23, 2009 I was talking about in the UK not the USWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #61 October 23, 2009 QuoteTension is elevated for Tan people for sure That sucks. All that brings is more separation. Thats what he was saying to he has just stopped hanging around with anyone else. Just because who wants to be fucked with all the time.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #62 October 23, 2009 QuoteI was talking about in the UK not the US Well, I know that, I was just explaining that my perspective has an American influence, just as a person's perspective on life often has a built-in bias from the breeding he received from his parents. In any event, I don't think censorship of outrageous and repugnant hate speech is consistent with a confident, healthy and robust democracy - in my own view of the ideal, ANY democracy, regardless of in which particular nation-state it might be situated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #63 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteTension is elevated for Tan people for sure That sucks. All that brings is more separation. Thats what he was saying to he has just stopped hanging around with anyone else. Just because who wants to be fucked with all the time. I wouldn't say it was that bad.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #64 October 24, 2009 The fall out http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091023/video/vuk-bnp-leader-nick-griffin-blasts-bbc-o-49bfa63.html http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091023/video/vuk-nick-griffin-makes-controversial-que-49bfa63.html http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091022/video/vuk-question-time-angry-audience-members-49bfa63.html http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091023/tuk-bnp-leader-to-launch-bbc-complaint-dba1618.html Nick Griffen is complaining that he was ambushed. "London is no longer a British city" When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #65 October 24, 2009 Quote "London is no longer a British city" In the US, many Anglos say that kind of thing about the Hispanics. The Chiricahua (those that are left) find it pretty funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #66 October 24, 2009 All in all .... a lot more people in the country think that he's a Knob now .... and that's a good thing. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #67 October 24, 2009 Yep! When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #68 October 24, 2009 I voted yes for the selfish reason that more people can hear how delusional and disgusting their ideas are and take my lead in bashing them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #69 October 24, 2009 Hi, I've been brought around to that way of thinking too. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #70 October 24, 2009 Quote Quote What are your laws about freedom of speech? about speech in public venues (like on air)? One can not incite racial or religious hatered, one can not incite violence. Quote What are the fines/penalties for breaking those laws? How enforceable are those laws? Incitement to violence, incitment of racial and religious hatred are arrestable offences and on conviction are punishable by imprisonment. The BBC would be punished by OFCOM their regulatory body and would have sever fines. I was thinking about this post and wondering about something. That law seems to be based on SOMEONE ELSES RESPONSE to your words or actions. So it seems, from an outsiders perspective looking in, that you then become responsible for the actions of others. Kind of like allowing people to blame the Beatles for murder or using the "violent video game" excuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #71 October 24, 2009 QuoteI was thinking about this post and wondering about something. That law seems to be based on SOMEONE ELSES RESPONSE to your words or actions. So it seems, from an outsiders perspective looking in, that you then become responsible for the actions of others. Kind of like allowing people to blame the Beatles for murder or using the "violent video game" excuse. Falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre is still illegal regardless of weather anyone runs out screaming. Same shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #72 October 24, 2009 I think they left it delibratly vaugeWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #73 October 24, 2009 Thanks for the starting the thread. Interesting to observe another country's domestic politics. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #74 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI was thinking about this post and wondering about something. That law seems to be based on SOMEONE ELSES RESPONSE to your words or actions. So it seems, from an outsiders perspective looking in, that you then become responsible for the actions of others. Kind of like allowing people to blame the Beatles for murder or using the "violent video game" excuse. Falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre is still illegal regardless of weather anyone runs out screaming. Same shit. But the difference that I see is that the one ("yellin fire") focuses on your actions, whereas the other focused on the act of others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #75 October 24, 2009 QuoteFalsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre is still illegal regardless of weather anyone runs out screaming. Same shit. It is? Do you have a reference to the law about that? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
