wearing tshirts illegal too now

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

JGHunter

Original post by Zürich

free speech, by definition, is unconditional.

Well the law disagrees with you.

Reply 21

Kiss

Original post by El_Sid

Whine about the left all you want - that's not free speech.

If he'd gone to a home for blind people, would it still not be called free speech? No one can hear his views let alone see them. The same applies to the man's thoughts - no òne can hear or see them, but the views exist. Does that mean he should be done away with for thinking thoughts which are 'not free speech'? :rolleyes:

Original post by James82

Why is it ironic? That's what the left does.

Because they started out from liberal views and now look what's happened.

Reply 22

El_Sid

Original post by Kiss

What the hell are you blabbering on about? The fact was that everyone could see the shirt, which was his intention - to provoke a reaction. So yes, he should have faced the consequences.

Also, for someone who apparently defends free speech, it's quite amusing that you reported one of my posts not too long ago because I apparently hurt your feelings by referring to you as an 'idiot.' Make your mind up.

Reply 23

paddyman4

I think this guy deserved it more than the April Jones guy, as he is technically inciting violence rather than just reveling in it.

I read this article the other day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

I thought this quotation from the judge was funny:

With freedom of speech comes responsibility. On March 8 you failed to live up to that responsibility.

You can't legally enforce responsibility - then you're not being responsible, you're just following the law. We should stop calling it freedom of speech because a freedom that is curtailed is not a freedom. We may as well tell prisoners that they have absolute freedom of location - as long as they choose a location within their cell.

Having said all that, I won't lose any sleep over it as all these people are dicks.

Reply 24

ZÃ¼rich

Original post by JGHunter

Well the law disagrees with you.

The law has become the plaything of an out of touch, guardian reading chattering class determined to transform society to suit their own narrowly subjective tastes.

What would George Orwell say? He certainly had a vastly superior understanding of the fundamental virtue of liberty compared with modern lefties.

Reply 25

JGHunter

Original post by Zürich

Point being? People seem to think that free speech protects these sorts of t-shirts. Whether I agree with it or not I have not stated and is irrelevant, people just make assumptions about what the law says and does.

Why should you be allowed to be a verbally abusive dick?

Furthermore, why should you be allowed to encourage inciting violence? Is your freedom of speech more important than another persons physical safety, if not life? If so, why? People who say "words are just words" lack any sense of social engagement.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 26

James82

Original post by Kiss

Because they started out from liberal views and now look what's happened.

Communism is so liberal. :colondollar:

Reply 27

paddyman4

Original post by JGHunter

Dear morons who think freedom of speech covers everything, including causing needless offence and inciting violence,

It doesn't.

Kind regards,
The Law.

Dear Condescending Annoyance,

No one here has said that these rulings are not in line with the current law. They are saying that the law is out of touch with the true notion of freedom of speech and that the application of the law has changed recently.

Kind regards,

Everyone else.

Reply 28

pr0view

Original post by James82

Technically he could just be a frustrated pig farmer who is questioning the humour of a website.

If he can prove it good on him

Reply 29

JGHunter

Original post by paddyman4

You tell that to the one who thought up the sensationalist and inaccurate title to the thread.

Reply 30

ZÃ¼rich

Original post by JGHunter

Why should somebody have the right to ban what they find 'offensive'? No person has the right to define the parameters of public interaction, so long as anothers actions limit his/her's own freedom. Some people on this earth find women drivers to be offensive, others find certain haircuts to be bad taste. Should such things also be banned?

The Soviet-style arguement that something needs to be legislated away because it is 'offensive' is a complete and utter betrayal of liberal values.

Reply 31

JGHunter

Original post by Zürich

So domestic violence is a-okay with you, so long as it's verbal? After all it's offensive speech but I guess she should just respect his freedom of speech.

Reply 32

ZÃ¼rich

Original post by JGHunter

So domestic violence is a-okay with you, so long as it's verbal?

No, the spouse clearly has the right to leave that relationship and to seek protection from harassment. If the spouse is being prevented from leaving then a crime is being commited, laws have existed for decades for such cases. This is because it limits another individuals personal liberty, not because it is 'offensive'.

Reply 33

34253

Original post by JGHunter

Have you ever been a domestically violent relationship? You are way oversimplifying it.

Furthermore, you agree that harassment is unacceptable, but a lot of incidents, including this t-shirt, count as harassment. It's inciting violence.

I suspect you haven't either. What makes you right and him wrong?

This sentence is an absolute joke. I am sick to death of people getting prison time for offending people.

Reply 34

ZÃ¼rich

Original post by JGHunter

Of course domestic abuse is a very real and complicated problem, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'right' not to be offended.

If somebody can simply ignore the other person then it is not harresment. Seeing an offensive t-shirt is certainly not harressment.

Reply 35

lilahnurave

I love the first comment:

"Time to market one that says:

"my dad went to the UK and all I got was this lousy tee shirt

and a prison sentence""

Reply 36

JGHunter

Original post by Elipsis

I suspect you haven't either. What makes you right and him wrong?

This sentence is an absolute joke. I am sick to death of people getting prison time for offending people.

I have, actually, so kindly screw off.

This isn't just offence for crying out loud. It's incitement to violence.

Reply 37

lou_100

Original post by ESPORTIVA

im pretty sure all the above is free speech

Trying to promote killing for fun should not be tolerated, no matter if it's free speech or not. If it was the right punishment or not is a different matter I'm not quite sure on my opinion of.

Disgusting.

Reply 38

mimx

Original post by JGHunter

Dear morons who think freedom of speech covers everything, including causing needless offence and inciting violence,

It doesn't.

Kind regards,
The Law.