nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Tommy Robinson jailed

[Deleted User]

Apparently according to Lauren Southern, Tommy has been sentenced to 13 months but there is a UK wide embargo on reporting.

Anyone else got any info?

Edit. Not too sure about the authenticity of the embargo. I'm assuming that it's for this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html?amp

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

OMM 0000

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.

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.

GinAndBitter

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.

OMM 0000

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

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?

ohnonotgmail

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?

OMM 0000

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!

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

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.

OMM 0000

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.

OMM 0000

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

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:

ohnonotgmail

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.

OMM 0000

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?

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

GinAndBitter

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?

ohnonotgmail

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?

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

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.

ohnonotgmail

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?

OMM 0000

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.

Dyr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can I get a source please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4

WinnyThePoo

This is just hilarious. Free speech merchants are great craic.

Timberrrrrrrr

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes, obviously I think that. He should be able to choose which laws apply to him. This includes killing people and jaywalking.

Well you did say

A judge decided no media should be allowed report on a Muslim gang who had been raping children for decades.

Tommy disagreed with this, so he filmed outside the court, after the criminals had already been convicted for their crimes.

This was illegal (as the judge had banned media covering the case), but Tommy felt the public had a right to know about these pedophile gangs.

He was arrested for the filming, and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court.

That's the gist of it.

Regardless of your opinion on Tommy, a reasonable person should be able to see this is the court system being draconian.

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

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Ah I knew I recognised your username (ohnonotgmail). You don't think antifa are doing anything wrong. You have extreme left political views. I'm checking out of this conversation with you right now.

Well clearly you dont know me as i do not have extreme left political views. The problem with you, and others here, is that if you dont completely agree with a gob****e like tommy you must be left wing. The reason i dont agree with anything that tommy does is not because i am left wing it is because i am not a complete ****.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can I get a source please?

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?

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand what free speech is.

The UK does not have free speech.

Not all democratic countries have the same levels of restrictions.

The UK and Germany, for example, have difference laws on which speech is and is not allowed.

If you're going to be one of those people on the internet who can't admit they're wrong, and want to argue with strangers, I have no interest in that.

No, i understand perfectly what free speech is. and it is not absolute. Anywhere. If tommy had done the same thing in germany he would have faced the same consequences.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The UK does not have free speech.

Can I get a source please?

OMM 0000

Ah I knew I recognised your username (ohnonotgmail). You don't think antifa are doing anything wrong. You have extreme left political views. I'm checking out of this conversation with you right now.

OMM 0000

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

This is wrong and just conveys a lack of understanding. So far wrong that i think it justifies my earlier attitude to you.

Again this is very wrong.

It has the same free speech as any other democratic country.

You don't understand what free speech is.

The UK does not have free speech.

Not all democratic countries have the same levels of restrictions.

The UK and Germany, for example, have difference laws on which speech is and is not allowed.

If you're going to be one of those people on the internet who can't admit they're wrong, and want to argue with strangers, I have no interest in that.