Tommy Robinson jailed

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well you did say

You admit that he broke the law, what is your issue with him being convicted?

I've explained this already.

I believe in free speech. And by this I mean anything should be fair game, although I agree with the US restriction on a call to violence.

So I think Tommy should be allowed talk about the things he wants to talk about, even if I don't agree with him.

I do not think it is good to live in a society where (for example, in the UK) you can be convicted for saying something which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

I think Tommy should be allowed say the things he wants to say, and people can debate him if they disagree with him.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've explained this already.

I believe in free speech. And by this I mean anything should be fair game, although I agree with the US restriction on a call to violence.

So I think Tommy should be allowed talk about the things he wants to talk about, even if I don't agree with him.

I do not think it is good to live in a society where (for example, in the UK) you can be convicted for saying something which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

I think Tommy should be allowed say the things he wants to say, and people can debate him if they disagree with him.

so you think Tommy should be free to jeopardise a trial? you dont see the issue with that?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you think Tommy should be free to jeopardise a trial? you dont see the issue with that?

Why do you get so emotional when talking on this subject? You have a terrible attitude.

Grayson

OMM 0000 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

It includes restrictions on things which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

That alone is anti-free speech, as what the hell is the definition of offensive or indecent?

So wait, you want hate speech to be legal? You want the right to scream the N word at someone? You want the right to stand up in front of a crowd and tell them that jews are evil and controlling the world?

You've said already that speech has consequences. When those consequences affect innocent people, then it should be wrong.

I shouldn't for example be allowed post leaflets through your neighbours door accusing you of being a child abuser. Likewise you shouldn't be allowed to claim that jews are evil and control the world because it's a lie and it affects innocent people.

Additionally, the legal system should be protected so everyone gets a fair trial and victims are protected. These are pretty basic restrictions. they don't stop politics, they don't stifle debate.

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Why do you get so emotional when talking on this subject? You have a terrible attitude.

Why do you post such stupid things?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Why do you post such stupid things?

So it's people posting "stupid" things that bothers you?

Yeah you should probably spend your time somewhere else other than boards.ie if so.

What happend to you that has you so angry?

Cienciano

OMM 0000 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

It includes restrictions on things which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

That alone is anti-free speech, as what the hell is the definition of offensive or indecent?

Pretty much every country has restrictions on free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech

Grayson wrote: »

So wait, you want hate speech to be legal? You want the right to scream the N word at someone? You want the right to stand up in front of a crowd and tell them that jews are evil and controlling the world?

You've said already that speech has consequences. When those consequences affect innocent people, then it should be wrong.

I shouldn't for example be allowed post leaflets through your neighbours door accusing you of being a child abuser. Likewise you shouldn't be allowed to claim that jews are evil and control the world because it's a lie and it affects innocent people.

Additionally, the legal system should be protected so everyone gets a fair trial and victims are protected. These are pretty basic restrictions. they don't stop politics, they don't stifle debate.

Yes, hate speech, which is incredibly rare, should be legal. But of course there can be consequences - you're fired, someone gets pissed off and punches you, etc.

The reason I believe this is because how do you define hate speech? It's not as simple as you think.

Here's an example: someone from D4 could think the Ross O'Carroll-Kelly books are offensive, and a form of hate speech. Are they wrong? Where do you draw the line?

GinAndBitter wrote: »

So it's people posting "stupid" things that bothers you?

Yeah you should probably spend your time somewhere else other than boards.ie if so.

What happend to you that has you so angry?

sure thing boss.

Timberrrrrrrr

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've explained this already.

I believe in free speech. And by this I mean anything should be fair game, although I agree with the US restriction on a call to violence.

So you would have no issue with someone walking around your neighbourhood telling all and sundry that you are a rapist?

So I think Tommy should be allowed talk about the things he wants to talk about, even if I don't agree with him.

So you do think he should be allowed to choose which laws he should follow?

I do not think it is good to live in a society where (for example, in the UK) you can be convicted for saying something which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

You should move to a deserted island so because most civilized countries have these laws.

I think Tommy should be allowed say the things he wants to say, and people can debate him if they disagree with him.

Yeah, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants about whoever he wants :rolleyes:

Cienciano wrote: »

Pretty much every country has restrictions on free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech

I know. I think the less restrictions the better.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you would have no issue with someone walking around your neighbourhood telling all and sundry that you are a rapist?

You don't understand what free speech is.

They should be allowed say I'm a rapist. But I can then, if I choose, sue them for slander.

Timberrrrrrrr

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand what free speech is.

They should be allowed say I'm a rapist. But I can then, if I choose, sue them for slander.

This post should be highlighted and shown to children for decades to come under the banner how not to be a fvckwit on the internet - Lesson #1

Not feeding the gobsh/tes anymore, LLORT gonna LLORT.

El Weirdo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand what free speech is.

They should be allowed say I'm a rapist. But I can then, if I choose, sue them for slander.

This has to be one of the most stupid posts I've ever seen on boards.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This post should be highlighted and shown to children for decades to come under the banner [/b]how not to be a fvckwit on the internet - Lesson #1

Not feeding the gobsh/tes anymore, LLORT gonna LLORT.

Again, you don't understand what free speech is.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want, and you won't have the police knocking on your door.

But it doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

The issue here is you didn't understand this, and because you can't admit you're wrong, you have to insult me. Well done!

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand what free speech is.

They should be allowed say I'm a rapist. But I can then, if I choose, sue them for slander.

I'll ask you again as you ignored it the first time.

Do you think Tommy should be free to jeopardise a trial? you dont see the issue with that?

WinnyThePoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Why do you get so emotional when talking on this subject? You have a terrible attitude.

Why do you post such stupid things?

Are we not surprised that Tommy's defenders tend to be a bit stupid?

El Weirdo wrote: »

This has to be one of the most stupid posts I've ever seen on boards.

No, you just don't understand what free speech means.

It means you have the legal right to say what you want. But it doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

Here's the NY Times explaining it:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/01/10/when-satire-cuts-both-ways/freedom-of-speech-not-freedom-from-consequences

If you're too upset to read it, here's the headline: Freedom of Speech, Not Freedom From Consequences

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Are we not surprised that Tommy's defenders tend to be a bit stupid?

Winnythepoo with another priceless contribution. I don't know what boards would do without you.

Grayson

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand what free speech is.

They should be allowed say I'm a rapist. But I can then, if I choose, sue them for slander.

You do realise that you're saying you want them punished for saying something. That puts limitations on what they say. To have completely free speech you would need to get rid of slander/libel. Anything with any limitations isn't what you would define as free since it could always be freer. And if you're ok with some limitations then you're ok without having completely free speech.

It's just that there are some limitations you want, like slander/libel, and some, like the restrictions on hate speech, that you don't want.

Grayson wrote: »

You do realise that you're saying you want them punished for saying something. That puts limitations on what they say. To have completely free speech you would need to get rid of slander/libel. Anything with any limitations isn't what you would define as free since it could always be freer. And if you're ok with some limitations then you're ok without having completely free speech.

It's just that there are some limitations you want, like slander/libel, and some, like the restrictions on hate speech, that you don't want.

Again, you don't understand what free speech means.

It means you do not get arrested for speech.

It doesn't mean no consequences.

That's it.

This is the standard definition of free speech. It is not my definition.

As stated already, I believe a call to violence should not be legal.

batgoat

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Winnythepoo with another priceless contribution. I don't know what boards would do without you.

In fairness, you just said a poster was being aggressive when they pointed out that Tommy Robinson having absolute free speech could endanger trials. Eg the one he was arrested over.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Again, you don't understand what free speech means.

It means you do not get arrested for speech.

It doesn't mean no consequences.

That's it.

This is the standard definition of free speech. It is not my definition.

As stated already, I believe a call to violence should not be legal.

But you think jeopardising a trial should be legal?

batgoat wrote: »

In fairness, you just said a poster was being aggressive when they pointed out that Tommy Robinson having absolute free speech could endanger trials. Eg the one he was arrested over.

Wrong, you should really read my posts before commenting on them. I never said anyone was aggressive.

Grayson

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Again, you don't understand what free speech means.

It means you do not get arrested for speech.

It doesn't mean no consequences.

That's it.

This is the standard definition of free speech. It is not my definition.

As stated already, I believe a call to violence should not be legal.

I understand better than you what free speech and rights are about. I undersa=tand where rights come from and how they are implemented. I understand why limitations exist too.

I would suggest reading this if you get a chance. It's a bit longer than the article you published but it does go into details about rights and why they shouldn't be absolute.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

dav3

Grayson wrote: »

I understand better than you what free speech and rights are about. I undersa=tand where rights come from and how they are implemented. I understand why limitations exist too.

I would suggest reading this if you get a chance. It's a bit longer than the article you published but it does go into details about rights and why they shouldn't be absolute.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

Law degrees are ten a penny these days. You're nobody unless you've graduated with an honours degree from the tommy robinson school of bullsh*t. You have to realise that these people have put in years of study on youtube and the daily mail website. Do not question them.

Grayson wrote: »

I understand better than you what free speech and rights are about. I undersa=tand where rights come from and how they are implemented. I understand why limitations exist too.

I would suggest reading this if you get a chance. It's a bit longer than the article you published but it does go into details about rights and why they shouldn't be absolute.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

David van Mill is not pro free speech though, so that's just an article by someone who thinks speech needs to be limited if it is "offensive".

I can admit though he is at least attempting to discuss the topic fairly, instead of just calling people who believe in free speech idiots.