No more freedom of speech in the UK

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Is racist comments allowed by your religion (Christianity) or in your country ?

No, racist comments aren't allowed in the UK. But that's irrelevant here because the comment made by this man wasn't racist.

In France if you deny the Holocaust , you will pay taxe for that , what do you think ?

There's a very good historical reason for laws against Holocaust denial in Europe.

As you see they posted a lot of his personal information, so that now any Jihad fighter can go there and kill him and all his family. Way to go The Guardian! You have reached a whole new level of infamy.

Where did they post it? I'm looking at the article in question right now and none of his personal information is there.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-tweet-confront-muslim-woman-brussels-attacks

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

don't you dare to answser ?
Why you reply to my questions by questions ?
This is had nothing to do with my direct questions !

Crypto's not answering your questions because your questions are based off a false premise - e.g. that the tweet made by this man was actually racist. It wasn't.

 

[George-ananda]

Too bad the OP didn't give examples of these illegal tweets. I'm curious now.

But anyway I believe the 'Politically Correct Left' does not really want freedom of speech for the Right. You can take political correctness to the point of incorrectness and a thought-police dictatorship..

 

[icehorse]

Too bad the OP didn't give examples of these illegal tweets. I'm curious now.

But anyway I believe the 'Politically Correct Left' does not really want freedom of speech for the Right. You can take political correctness to the point of incorrectness and a thought-police dictatorship..

Which ties into another thread - the authoritarian left.

 

[YmirGF]

Would you be arrested if you tweeted that David Cameron was a poopy-head?

I don't think you can be arrested for telling the truth... as far as I am aware... unless it's a state secret, which this one is not, obviously...

 

[Godobeyer]

I'm not an expert in Christianity, but as far as I know racist comments are not illegal in the US. But please remember that your question appears to be off-topic because Islam is not a race.

As far as the few countries in Europe that make holocaust denial a crime, that's a mistake. Holocaust denial is horrible, but it should be protected speech.

Sorry I mixed up the context it's about bigotry not race .

do you considere hatefull speech of Hilter against other races , as freedom of speech ?

 

[icehorse]

Sorry I mixed up the context it's about bigotry not race .

do you considere hatefull speech of Hilter against other races , as freedom of speech ?

Now you're starting to get into interesting territory! In the US (and most of this is true in secular countries), there ARE limits to speech. The famous (although poor), example is that: "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." The unfortunately subjective rule is something like "you can't say things publicly that are likely to inspire violence". Of course, not everyone agrees on what's likely to inspire violence. (Should a cartoon inspire violence? I say no, others say yes.)

The "pretty good, but not perfect" rule I use is that you can attack ideas freely, but you need to be careful attacking people. A person cannot change the color of her skin or where she was born or her gender. Those things should not be attacked. But a person CAN change what they believe, any idea or belief should be attackable.

 

[Laika]

It seems that the UK is no longer a free country. At least it is fair to say that there is no freedom of speech there any more. The terrorist sympathizers from The Guardian, have published this article today, on the front page:

Man charged after tweet 'confronting Muslim woman' on Brussels attacks

A man who allegedly claimed on Twitter that he had confronted a Muslim woman to ask her to “explain Brussels” has been charged under the Public Order Act.

Matthew Doyle is accused of posting allegedly racist comments.

A statement from the Metropolitan police issued in the early hours of Friday morning said Doyle, 46, “has been charged under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986; publishing or distributing written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, likely or intended to stir up racial hatred.

“This follows an investigation by officers at Croydon police community safety unit.”

The statement said he would appear in court on Saturday.

Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, was arrested in Croydon on Wednesday after allegedly posting a number of tweets.

As you see they posted a lot of his personal information, so that now any Jihad fighter can go there and kill him and all his family. Way to go The Guardian! You have reached a whole new level of infamy.

The Public Order Act of 1936 are partly a legacy of the Oswald Mosely's "New Party" and the Black Shirts in the 1930's. This was after periodic riots/street battles between the Black Shirts and Socialists and Communists (such as the Battle of Cable Street). So this isn't something that "suddenly" happened to stop the UK from being a free country- its very well established limits on speech and will be classed as "incitement to public disorder". These laws have been added to over time such as in the 1980's, so this is not a "free speech" issue, nor is it a conspiracy by the "authoritarian left" (whom such legislation was also directed against such as making it illegal to incite mutiny in the armed forces).

 

[Godobeyer]

Now you're starting to get into interesting territory! In the US (and most of this is true in secular countries), there ARE limits to speech. The famous (although poor), example is that: "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." The unfortunately subjective rule is something like "you can't say things publicly that are likely to inspire violence". Of course, not everyone agrees on what's likely to inspire violence. (Should a cartoon inspire violence? I say no, others say yes.)

The "pretty good, but not perfect" rule I use is that you can attack ideas freely, but you need to be careful attacking people. A person cannot change the color of her skin or where she was born or her gender. Those things should not be attacked. But a person CAN change what they believe, any idea or belief should be attackable.

I agree with you !

of course suppose to be limited , especially which creat the hate and distinction .
same if some one shout in NY , that "VIVA BIN LADEN" , he will be lucky if he did not get be beaten.
So freedom of speech sometimes could be hurt (community or the individuals) when it's apply without limites/rules.

 

[icehorse]

I agree with you !

of course suppose to be limited , especially which creat the hate and distinction .
same if some one shout in NY , that "VIVA BIN LADEN" , he will be lucky if he did not get be beaten.
So freedom of speech sometimes could be hurt (community or the individuals) when it's apply without limites/rules.

"VIVA BIN LADEN" is a great example! That's one that a judge might decide is likely to incite violence.

On the other hand, if a newspaper published an article claiming that Bin Laden was right, it would be horrible, but as a free speech advocate, I'd have to defend it. (I would have to defend it, even though I would disagree with it.)

 

[Kori]

Freedom of speech we all have it. Always have always will. The attack was done by the Eurasian Government to stir up hatred within Airstrip One.

 

[Crypto2015]

No, racist comments aren't allowed in the UK. But that's irrelevant here because the comment made by this man wasn't racist.




There's a very good historical reason for laws against Holocaust denial in Europe.




Where did they post it? I'm looking at the article in question right now and none of his personal information is there.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-tweet-confront-muslim-woman-brussels-attacks

Well, they posted a picture of his face, his full name, the city in which he lives, and his occupation. I think that is enough for someone to find him.

 

[Crypto2015]

The Public Order Act of 1936 are partly a legacy of the Oswald Mosely's "New Party" and the Black Shirts in the 1930's. This was after periodic riots/street battles between the Black Shirts and Socialists and Communists (such as the Battle of Cable Street). So this isn't something that "suddenly" happened to stop the UK from being a free country- its very well established limits on speech and will be classed as "incitement to public disorder". These laws have been added to over time such as in the 1980's, so this is not a "free speech" issue, nor is it a conspiracy by the "authoritarian left" (whom such legislation was also directed against such as making it illegal to incite mutiny in the armed forces).

Amazing. The UK should get rid of these laws. However, posting the picture of a guy that hasn't even been found guilty yet on the front page of a newspaper, for everyone to hate him and even hurt him, this is hate speech. If there is someone or something that encourages hatred and violence, it is The Guardian. They are trying to destroy this guy's life just because he made a question on twitter. It is shameful. Also, the media normally posts the tweet when something like this happens. Perhaps the twitter account of the woman that was "insulted" is full of jihad flags.

 

[Crypto2015]

I agree with you !

of course suppose to be limited , especially which creat the hate and distinction .
same if some one shout in NY , that "VIVA BIN LADEN" , he will be lucky if he did not get be beaten.
So freedom of speech sometimes could be hurt (community or the individuals) when it's apply without limites/rules.

The limit is clear. If someone says: "let's go and kill all the Gypsies", it is a crime because you are actually organizing a crime. Shouting: "I love Bin Laden" is not a crime. Nobody should go to jail for that. So, freedom of speech should NEVER be curtailed. Islam and all religions and ideologies must be scrutinized and criticized. If Islam is really a religion of peace, why are you so afraid of criticisms?

 

[Godobeyer]

The limit is clear. Is someone says: "let's go and kill all the Gypsies", it is a crime because you are actually organizing a crime. Shouting: "I love Bin Laden" is not a crime. Nobody should go to jail for that. So, freedom of speech should NEVER be curtailed. Islam and all religions and ideologies must be scrutinized and criticized. If Islam is really a religion of peace, why are you so afraid of criticisms?

Go and shout "I love Bin Laden" , then you would know what is the freedom of speech lol

For my experience (5 years) in RF the easiest religion to be criticize is Christianity, so be patient about criticize and don't lose your faith .

I make distinction between disagreement and lies about my religion (Islam), disagree as you want , but don't put lie then accuse us by .

few people here 100% of their thread or posts are anti-Muslims and generalizing!
and also I hate the generalizing, and make the Muslims as target all time is ridiculous.

 

[Crypto2015]

Go and shout "I love Bin Laden" , then you would know what is the freedom of speech lol

For my experience (5 years) in RF the easiest religion to be criticize is Christianity, so be patient about criticize and don't lose your faith .

I make distinction between disagreement and lies about my religion (Islam), disagree as you want , but don't put lie then accuse us by .

few people here 100% of their thread or posts are anti-Muslims and generalizing!
and also I hate the generalizing, and make the Muslims as target all time is ridiculous.

If I go to NY and shout "I love Bin Laden" and then someone kills me, the criminal will be the guy who killed me, not me. There is something you Muslims have to understand: you cannot kill or beat someone just because he said something that you didn't like or simply drew a cartoon of Muhammad. If you do it, you are the criminals, not the guy who drew the cartoon. By the way, you are not offended by lies, but by the truth. For example, if I said that Muhammad sexually abused a nine-year-old girl, I would be telling the truth. However, if I said this in a Muslim country not only I would be killed, but my murderers would claim that the fault was on me because I offended them. This is unacceptable. You cannot behave as if you were animals. If someone insults you, you can control yourselves. If you cannot control yourselves, you are the criminals.

 

[Godobeyer]

If I go to NY and shout "I love Bin Laden" and then someone kills me, the criminal will be the guy who killed me, not me. There is something you Muslims have to understand: you cannot kill or beat someone just because he said something that you didn't like or simply drew a cartoon of Muhammad. If you do it, you are the criminals, not the guy who drew the cartoon. By the way, you are not offended by lies, but by the truth. For example, if I said that Muhammad sexually abused a nine-year-old girl, I would be telling the truth. However, if I said this in a Muslim country not only I would be killed, but my murderers would claim that the fault was on me because I offended them. This is unacceptable. You cannot behave as if you were animals. If someone insults you, you can control yourselves. If you cannot control yourselves, you are the criminals.

You made a limites for freedom of speech "let's go and kill all the Gypsies" , why you don't consider it as freedom of speech too, why you consider it as crime ?

What you wait from people in NY,you come by provoke them by shout " I love Bin Laden" ? if they beat your *** , I believe it's your fault not their.

Who told you that Muhammad (pbuh) make sexual relation , she felt that she abused?

My grandmother married as 13 years old , and my mom married as 15 years old , they don't said they abused btw .










.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

There is something you Muslims have to understand: you cannot kill or beat someone just because he said something that you didn't like or simply drew a cartoon of Muhammad.

But of course they can. Let's say some idiot journalist of some British tabloid newspaper cracks a joke about Muhammad and the terrorists as a revenge plant some bombs in London which kill over a hundred of people. It's a hypothetical scenario but as a prime minister, a deputy or a cop, would you care more about the potential victims or this one idiot journalist's "freedom of speech"? Those anti-racist laws suck but they are necessary in the multi-cultural country. The remedy would be not to accept so many immigrants but it's too late for that. Add to this paranoia after the attacks first in Paris, then in Brussels and you have the police state. The societies which were so open to multi-culturalism now have to suck up the consequences.

That being said, this whole issue seems to be a hoax, the bull**** journalists pulled out of their a**es. I don't negate that the guy was arrested but it was probably something else he wrote or did that got him into legal troubles, not this specific tweet. Take this:

Police would not confirm whether the arrest relates to the tweet which went viral or to other statements on social media posted by the same user.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35888748

So we don't really know what he was arrested for.

Some British laws and the recent measures taken by Cameron are downright ridiculous but this thing looks like a village rumor. I have several British buddies on Facebook who belong to the nationalist organizations in Britain, take part in rallies and regularly express anti-Muslim sentiments, yet none of them sits in jail.

 

[David1967]

That's a pet peeve of mine; people's inability to differentiate between race, religion, and nationality.

Very true. I've never heard of anyone being called a racist for being anti Christian (for example). Religion is religion, whether it inspires its followers to do good or evil is outside the realm of race. IMHO. If a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu etc. Is inspired by their faith to do good to his fellow human being , then good for them. If they do evil, then they are a shame to their religion and humanity.

 

[Useless2015]

The question here should be: is there any kind of evidence of this woman's involvement in the battle of Brussels? If not, this does not fall under freedom of speech but hatespeech, defamation and discrimination.