Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

or a former Chancellor of Germany, I suppose.

the_syco wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"ASBO" type laws like these are also a massive assault on civil liberties.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not only can the laws be used as described in Permabear's post but can also criminalise people (as young as 10 under the UK law) without the state having to bear the burden of proving criminal behaviour.

National Council for Civil Liberties wrote:

Civil orders can be imposed on a person who has never been found guilty of any offence, and can be imposed for behaviour that is not criminal, but breach of the order becomes a criminal offence.

20Cent wrote: »

If he's left when asked to he wouldn't have been arreseted.
He was released without charge anyway so saying quoting Churchill is now illegal is not true.

Hampshire Police has now communicated to Mr Weston:

"You were bailed on 26th April 2014, under the provision of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in connection with an allegation of a breach of a S27 dispersal notice and a Racial/ Religious Aggravated Section 4 Public Order Offence. Police enquiries have now been completed and after careful consideration of all the circumstances, it has been decided that no further police action will be taken.

Ireland, the UK, Canada most of Europe have laws against hate speech and they are countries considered to be very free.

Those laws are too loose and open to abuse of interpretation and used as a tool to silence people who might for example hold the view that there are only two genders, white privilege does not exist, intersectionality is a racist concept and ideas of that nature that do not go along with leftist world view, I am sure these people dont feel very free, at least when it comes to speaking their mind.

20Cent wrote: »

Who would they be?
I recall during the same sex marriage referendum there was robust debate about gender, religion, sexual orientation etc and no one got dragged away to the gulag.

I know lots of people that held beliefs that were in opposition to that referendum but never spoke out for fear of being penalised socially and in that kind of environment it would not take much for something to be interpreted as hate speech.

An example would be the Scottish youtube comedian who taught his girlfriends pug to do the nazi salute as a joke and he ended up in court for his video under hate speech laws. His life is basically ruined.
Here he is talking about his trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy64xTwjZMk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Released without charge again.
So no it's not illegal.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who's not getting the point? You're making a sweeping generalisation over the one moronic policeman making a moronic decision. Obviously it's not illegal when there was no prosecution and resulted in a release.

20Cent wrote: »

It has nothing to do with money and then proceeds to explain why because of money🀔

I think you've missed the underlying point there vis-a-vis public funding.

20Cent wrote: »

Is this freedom of speech?


https://twitter.com/rufarochisango_/status/971452205181161472



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-43328566

Looking at things objectively and without emotion.
There is not very much information on why this happened or what lead up to this, why was this woman targeted?

It is good that these guys got arrested as goonish behavior is unacceptable but I have seen here in Ireland when low intelligent people get into an insult match they will usually attack something about you that is different, like for example if you had red hair or if you wore glasses, if you were fat or if you were really thin or even the colour of your skin would be used as weapons against you. Was she targeted because she was Black or was she just targeted?
We are living in the least racist time in the western world that we have ever lived and I hope isolated incidents like this one remain the exception.

johnp001 wrote: »

"ASBO" type laws like these are also a massive assault on civil liberties.

that's the whole point of them IMO. of course in relation to a number of crimes they don't actually work, but i suppose in relation to "crimes" it's a long game and eventually they may begin to work once there are enough of them in place and people begin to "fall in line"

johnp001 wrote: »

"Not only can the laws be used as described in Permabear's post but can also criminalise people (as young as 10 under the UK law) without the state having to bear the burden of proving criminal behaviour.

jesus that is seriously scarey stuff.

20Cent wrote: »

If he's left when asked to he wouldn't have been arreseted.
He was released without charge anyway so saying quoting Churchill is now illegal is not true.

Hampshire Police has now communicated to Mr Weston:

"You were bailed on 26th April 2014, under the provision of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in connection with an allegation of a breach of a S27 dispersal notice and a Racial/ Religious Aggravated Section 4 Public Order Offence. Police enquiries have now been completed and after careful consideration of all the circumstances, it has been decided that no further police action will be taken.

Ireland, the UK, Canada most of Europe have laws against hate speech and they are countries considered to be very free.

lets be honest, they were ultimately going to arrest him for reading from that book. someone apparently complained so that was more ammunition. asking him to leave knowing he wouldn't comply, was the only way they could arrest him, so they did that. you are correct that it's not specifically illegal to quote somebody, or read quotes from a book. but other laws can be used to indirectly deal with something that the state or police find unacceptible and that is what happened and is happening in the uk.
look as you know i don't have time for hate speach myself, but i'm not naive to the fact that the uk police, either of their own accord or at the dictat of the state, are involved in using other laws as an indirect way to try to silence views that don't specifically breach any law and which, while i wouldn't agree with said views, don't constitute hate speach.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

People should be afraid to express certain views.

If you were to shout something like the two twats in the video earlier, in front of me, then you are getting violently attacked.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where's this happening?

So the guys singing we hate blacks outside a black girls dormroom are just expressing an unpopular opinion but should be allowed do so? What about the girl terrified? Tough luck.