|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 23 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
I am a massive believer in freedom of speech, more than you know, so i could do without the straw man Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
At the very least, be banned from preaching his bullshit. Seems to me a lot like you're a fan of freedom of speech you agree with which isn't actually the same thing as freedom of speech. Unfortunately the speech that is most important to be allowed in a functioning democracy is speech you disagree with.
So you suggest we should allow speech that can radicialise people into hurting others?
I disagree with a hell of a lot of people on a wide range of things, however i have always accepted that as their opinion and would never dream of "banning" it. There is a line though when u start talking about killing people or slavery.
If we were talking about Richard Spencer would you be so sympathetic?
Edit: it could be the guy we are talking about didn't even do it, and thats my mistake, however i still think its an interesting discussion that got brought up.
|
On March 23 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:
What if he was referred to a prosecutor and they decided that the case wasn't strong enough?
EDIT: The last time the US responded to terrorism, we passed this nightmare law call the Patriot Act and created a nightmare agency that we are still trying to get a handle on. Be careful what you wish for.
You're right and there is a fine line when it comes to stuff like this, its very hard to do it properly without making things worse, but as i keep saying we already actually have laws in place for stuff like this in Europe.
|
Looks like we're all safer following the banning of laptops from planes then. All we need now is to ban muslims from driving or owning kitchen equipment and we're set.
|
Several sources are saying that it wasn't him now. As per what you should do about people like him, isn't he in and out of prison already? It's not like you let him get away with it.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:04 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
I am a massive believer in freedom of speech, more than you know, so i could do without the straw man On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
At the very least, be banned from preaching his bullshit. Seems to me a lot like you're a fan of freedom of speech you agree with which isn't actually the same thing as freedom of speech. Unfortunately the speech that is most important to be allowed in a functioning democracy is speech you disagree with. So you suggest we should allow speech that can radicialise people into hurting others? I disagree with a hell of a lot of people on a wide range of things, however i have always accepted that as their opinion and would never dream of "banning" it. There is a line though when u start talking about killing people or slavery. If we were talking about Richard Spencer would you be so sympathetic? Edit: it could be the guy we are talking about didn't even do it, and thats my mistake, however i still think its an interesting discussion that got brought up.
Oddly enough I'm actually against the whole punching neo-Nazis for what they say thing.
Regarding the line between political speech and illegal speech, it's a tough one. If I'm getting a mob together and chanting "kill the gays" then I'm trying to incite a lynching. But if I'm saying that "gays are undermining society, destroying public morals and molesting our kids", well, I'm just an American Republican candidate for office. If I change the first one to "stop the gays" but keep the mob, still should be illegal. If I change the second one to include "and only 2nd amendment folks can protect our kids", suddenly we're in a grey area.
There are things which are obviously over the line but the line itself isn't so easily drawn.
|
On March 23 2017 05:07 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:
What if he was referred to a prosecutor and they decided that the case wasn't strong enough?
EDIT: The last time the US responded to terrorism, we passed this nightmare law call the Patriot Act and created a nightmare agency that we are still trying to get a handle on. Be careful what you wish for. You're right and there is a fine line when it comes to stuff like this, its very hard to do it properly without making things worse, but as i keep saying we already actually have laws in place for stuff like this in Europe.
I work in the legal field. We based our legal system on yours. Laws are complex and most claims of “that is illegal” are more complicated than people think. I don’t know a lot about your hate speech laws except that they have a pretty high threshold before a case is viable.
It makes us feel in control to think we could have done something, but we might not have been able to. It is harder to accept that we might have done the best and that was never going to be enough.
|
On March 23 2017 05:04 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
I am a massive believer in freedom of speech, more than you know, so i could do without the straw man On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
At the very least, be banned from preaching his bullshit. Seems to me a lot like you're a fan of freedom of speech you agree with which isn't actually the same thing as freedom of speech. Unfortunately the speech that is most important to be allowed in a functioning democracy is speech you disagree with. So you suggest we should allow speech that can radicialise people into hurting others? I disagree with a hell of a lot of people on a wide range of things, however i have always accepted that as their opinion and would never dream of "banning" it. There is a line though when u start talking about killing people or slavery. If we were talking about Richard Spencer would you be so sympathetic? Edit: it could be the guy we are talking about didn't even do it, and thats my mistake, however i still think its an interesting discussion that got brought up.
The problem with hate speech laws is that the definition of hate speech changes depending on who (specifically the political ideology of) you talk to about it.
Some people think using the wrong gender pronoun is hate speech. Some people think Trump is guilty of hate speech. Some people think those people are guilty of hate speech.
Its very hard law to get rid of once its there, and the power of these laws tends to expand, not stay specific.
|
On March 23 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:04 Reaps wrote:On March 23 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
I am a massive believer in freedom of speech, more than you know, so i could do without the straw man On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
At the very least, be banned from preaching his bullshit. Seems to me a lot like you're a fan of freedom of speech you agree with which isn't actually the same thing as freedom of speech. Unfortunately the speech that is most important to be allowed in a functioning democracy is speech you disagree with. So you suggest we should allow speech that can radicialise people into hurting others? I disagree with a hell of a lot of people on a wide range of things, however i have always accepted that as their opinion and would never dream of "banning" it. There is a line though when u start talking about killing people or slavery. If we were talking about Richard Spencer would you be so sympathetic? Edit: it could be the guy we are talking about didn't even do it, and thats my mistake, however i still think its an interesting discussion that got brought up. Oddly enough I'm actually against the whole punching neo-Nazis for what they say thing.
Regarding the line between political speech and illegal speech, it's a tough one. If I'm getting a mob together and chanting "kill the gays" then I'm trying to incite a lynching. But if I'm saying that "gays are undermining society, destroying public morals and molesting our kids", well, I'm just an American Republican candidate for office. If I change the first one to "stop the gays" but keep the mob, still should be illegal. If I change the second one to include "and only 2nd amendment folks can protect our kids", suddenly we're in a grey area. There are things which are obviously over the line but the line itself isn't so easily drawn.
Then i don't see how we disagreed maybe i should of made myself clearer but the bold part was the point i was trying to make.
If any of you have seen some of this mans speeches its pretty clear hes more of the former type of preacher than the latter.
|
Wow, Kwark. You really crossed the line there. Condoning hate speech by ISIS to pretend we are educated, politically correct gentlemen who would never give up on 'free' speech?
|
Police scramble to south London tube station as capital is placed on high terror alert
Police have rushed to Kennington Underground station in force tonight
Witnesses say a dozen police cars are at the scene alongside ambulances
It is unknown whether the incident is linked to the terror attack in Westminster
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4340000/Police-scramble-south-London-tube-station.html#ixzz4c5W7glnx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Possibly taking more forward action against other suspects rather than risking anything else today.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:14 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 Reaps wrote:On March 23 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
I am a massive believer in freedom of speech, more than you know, so i could do without the straw man On March 23 2017 04:54 Reaps wrote:
At the very least, be banned from preaching his bullshit. Seems to me a lot like you're a fan of freedom of speech you agree with which isn't actually the same thing as freedom of speech. Unfortunately the speech that is most important to be allowed in a functioning democracy is speech you disagree with. So you suggest we should allow speech that can radicialise people into hurting others? I disagree with a hell of a lot of people on a wide range of things, however i have always accepted that as their opinion and would never dream of "banning" it. There is a line though when u start talking about killing people or slavery. If we were talking about Richard Spencer would you be so sympathetic? Edit: it could be the guy we are talking about didn't even do it, and thats my mistake, however i still think its an interesting discussion that got brought up. Oddly enough I'm actually against the whole punching neo-Nazis for what they say thing.
Regarding the line between political speech and illegal speech, it's a tough one. If I'm getting a mob together and chanting "kill the gays" then I'm trying to incite a lynching. But if I'm saying that "gays are undermining society, destroying public morals and molesting our kids", well, I'm just an American Republican candidate for office. If I change the first one to "stop the gays" but keep the mob, still should be illegal. If I change the second one to include "and only 2nd amendment folks can protect our kids", suddenly we're in a grey area. There are things which are obviously over the line but the line itself isn't so easily drawn. Then i don't see how we disagreed maybe i should of made myself clearer but the bold part was the point i was trying to make.
My point is that as abhorrent as Islamic hate speech is unless it's a direct call to violence (deliberately excluding indirect calls to violence here) then we should err on the side of allowing it. I don't distinguish much between "drive the colonial oppressors out of Ireland" and "stop the immoral women tempting us with their clothing". If you're saying either as part of a recruiting campaign for a terror cell, illegal. If you're shouting it on a street corner at passersby, regrettable freedom.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:18 SoSexy wrote:
Wow, Kwark. You really crossed the line there. Condoning hate speech by ISIS to pretend we are educated, politically correct gentlemen who would never give up on 'free' speech?
Clearly anyone who believes in free speech is a supporter of anything that can be said. Glad we have you here to help us all with that. And at least you're not making any attempt to pretend to be educated. I applaud your honesty.
|
On March 23 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:18 SoSexy wrote:
Wow, Kwark. You really crossed the line there. Condoning hate speech by ISIS to pretend we are educated, politically correct gentlemen who would never give up on 'free' speech? Clearly anyone who believes in free speech is a supporter of anything that can be said. Glad we have you here to help us all with that.
There is difference between a guy shouting bullshit and a guy on a terrorist alert list shouting bullshit, don't you think there could have been a stronger prevention net? If you say no: then what is the point of making those lists if the individuals on them are not to be approachable in any different way than a normal citizen? That's exactly what they are supposed to do - profile individuals who should be monitored in a more sensitive way.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:18 SoSexy wrote:
Wow, Kwark. You really crossed the line there. Condoning hate speech by ISIS to pretend we are educated, politically correct gentlemen who would never give up on 'free' speech? Clearly anyone who believes in free speech is a supporter of anything that can be said. Glad we have you here to help us all with that. There is difference between a guy shouting bullshit and a guy on a terrorist alert list shouting bullshit, don't you think there could have been a stronger prevention net?
Okay, imagine I'm on a terror watch list and I spend my weekends handing out leaflets calling upon young Muslims to "fight for Islam" and "resist the modern crusaders". How do you stop me from killing someone with a car?
|
On March 23 2017 05:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:18 SoSexy wrote:
Wow, Kwark. You really crossed the line there. Condoning hate speech by ISIS to pretend we are educated, politically correct gentlemen who would never give up on 'free' speech? Clearly anyone who believes in free speech is a supporter of anything that can be said. Glad we have you here to help us all with that. There is difference between a guy shouting bullshit and a guy on a terrorist alert list shouting bullshit, don't you think there could have been a stronger prevention net? Okay, imagine I'm on a terror watch list and I spend my weekends handing out leaflets calling upon young Muslims to "fight for Islam" and "resist the modern crusaders". How do you stop me from killing someone with a car?
If someone is really doing so, I hope that after the first weekend someone's gonna knock at his house.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:18 SoSexy wrote:
Wow, Kwark. You really crossed the line there. Condoning hate speech by ISIS to pretend we are educated, politically correct gentlemen who would never give up on 'free' speech? Clearly anyone who believes in free speech is a supporter of anything that can be said. Glad we have you here to help us all with that. There is difference between a guy shouting bullshit and a guy on a terrorist alert list shouting bullshit, don't you think there could have been a stronger prevention net? If you say no: then what is the point of making those lists if the individuals on them are not to be approachable in any different way than a normal citizen? That's exactly what they are supposed to do - profile individuals who should be monitored in a more sensitive way.
Yeah, and if the guy had bought ammonium nitrate fertilizer with a credit card and he was on the watchlist then I would absolutely expect that to get flagged and for police to be bashing his door down that night. But he got into a car.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:30 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:18 SoSexy wrote:
Wow, Kwark. You really crossed the line there. Condoning hate speech by ISIS to pretend we are educated, politically correct gentlemen who would never give up on 'free' speech? Clearly anyone who believes in free speech is a supporter of anything that can be said. Glad we have you here to help us all with that. There is difference between a guy shouting bullshit and a guy on a terrorist alert list shouting bullshit, don't you think there could have been a stronger prevention net? Okay, imagine I'm on a terror watch list and I spend my weekends handing out leaflets calling upon young Muslims to "fight for Islam" and "resist the modern crusaders". How do you stop me from killing someone with a car? If someone is really doing so, I hope that after the first weekend someone's gonna knock at his house.
And says what? Fighting for something is a common expression, crusaders is a clear example of hyperbole. You can't outlaw that without outlawing republicanism in Northern Ireland.
|
Following your example, I really don't know what to reply to someone who believes that, in the current historical situation, an individual already on a terrorist watch list who hands out similar fliers poses no problem.
Edit: removed tongue in cheek introduction
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:35 SoSexy wrote:
Either you are 10 years old or you are an adult who believes the world is made of gummy bears and cotton candy. Following your example, I really don't know what to reply to someone who believes that, in the current historical situation, an individual already on a terrorist watch list who hands out similar fliers poses no problem.
You haven't answered the question beyond "send the police to his house". Okay, the police are at his house. What do they say? How do we get from there to this individual never again being allowed kitchenware or to be behind the wheel of a car?
110% serious. What do the police arrest him for after he hands out the leaflets? What do they charge him with? How do you get him found guilty of that? And what's the sentence for it?
|
On March 23 2017 05:35 SoSexy wrote:
Either you are 10 years old or you are an adult who believes the world is made of gummy bears and cotton candy. Following your example, I really don't know what to reply to someone who believes that, in the current historical situation, an individual already on a terrorist watch list who hands out similar fliers poses no problem.
What on Earth are you on about?
There has to be a law, even for the security services. They don't just have discretion to go around arresting people for handing out flyers with vaguely anti-western language on them, regardless of whether or not they are on a watchlist. That would give you the Patriot Act, whereby the biggest threat to your freedom is your government, something I wouldn't put past May actually.
Besides, do you really think a terrorist is going to plan a low tech terror attack in a car, and then go and do some public flyering the week before or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
