Free speech is truly dying

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

Joep95

Original post by Craig1998

Does that question really need answering?

Yes

Reply 81

mackemforever

Original post by Lady Comstock

Yes, it does and should. One of the reasons it does and should is because "offence" and "insult" are subjective - your freedom of speech is another man's insult and offence, and vice versa.

So you think that in modern society it should be perfectly acceptable for me to march up and down through the middle of london yelling "**** all you nig**r *****, you nig**r ***** need to be put down like the dogs you are" over and over again? I should be able to do that with nobody being able to legally stop me or retaliate in any way?

Reply 82

Joep95

Original post by mackemforever

People could retaliate, freedom of speech is for everyone.

Reply 83

mackemforever

Original post by joecphillips

People could retaliate, freedom of speech is for everyone.

I should have specified physical retaliation.

You also didn't answer my question. In your opinion, would shouting that kind of thing in the middle of a busy high street in this country be completely, 100% acceptable?

Reply 84

Joep95

Original post by mackemforever

There is a difference between acceptable and illegal, it is not acceptable and people should show them how wrong they are.

Good to see your thinking he upset me with his words I know have to physically attack him

Reply 85

mackemforever

Original post by joecphillips

So you're saying that kind of thing isn't acceptable, so surely in that case action should be taken against people who act like that...

Reply 86

Joep95

Original post by mackemforever

So you're saying that kind of thing isn't acceptable, so surely in that case action should be taken against people who act like that...

Action should be taken and that action should be to educate idiots and shun them if they continue not beat them up in the street and arrest them like you seem to want

Reply 87

MACmakeupgirl

He was calling her a towelhead on Twitter.. later he posted something like "I am a towelhead and have a suicide belt"

Reply 88

Lady Comstock

Original post by mackemforever

I think there is an exception where people incite violence, but yes I think you should generally be able to do that. It should be society generally that deals with you by shunning you and not allowing you to use private businesses in that state; the result does not need to be you being hauled before a court at taxpayers' expense.

So if you agree that what you have said in the post above should be unlawful, how exactly would you phrase the law generally? What should be unlawful in your view in terms of speech and writing?

Reply 89

KingBradly

If twitter want to take it down, it's up to them. Their site, their rules. But the fact that the law have gotten involved is utterly crazy.

Reply 90

mackemforever

Original post by Lady Comstock

It should be society generally that deals with you by shunning you and not allowing you to use private businesses in that state

So what you're saying is that society should control when and where people can express those kind of views...

Reply 91

Lady Comstock

Original post by mackemforever

So what you're saying is that society should control when and where people can express those kind of views...

People should be able to use their own freedoms, such as people's freedom to avoid/shun others and business' freedom to refuse service, to deal with those who spout comments they personally find reprehensible.

You didn't respond about what law you would like in place for offensive speech/written words?

Reply 92

Frank Underwood

Original post by Drewski

Bit rich.

I will not troll unless trolled.

Reply 93

Frank Underwood

Original post by Drewski

Fixed that. Now you sounds like a normal human being rather an internet ****.

I'm not sure why you're attacking me, is it because of my tolerant views?

Reply 94

adam9317

I think it could be more referred to as political correctness gone too far!

Reply 95

Joep95

How many of these people were arrested for inciting racial hatred?

Reply 96

Betelgeuse-

Original post by Frank Underwood

Trolling again, I see

wooops looks like the police have released him without charge. I was right as always AGAIN. You were WRONG. AGAIN

Reply 97

Frank Underwood

Original post by Betelgeuse-

wooops looks like the police have released him without charge. I was right as always AGAIN. You were WRONG. AGAIN

Wait, what was I wrong about? lol

Reply 98

BaconandSauce

Common sense has prevailed

Charges against a talent agency boss accused of inciting racial hatred on Twitter have been dropped, in a U-turn by the authorities. Police charged private schoolboy Matthew Doyle, 46, with a public order offence on Friday after he tweeted about confronting a Muslim woman and asking her to 'explain Brussels'. But the Metropolitan Police faced humiliation later the same day when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said they did not agree with their decision, adding that they did not even have the legal power to bring the charges. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510358/Humiliation-Met-Police-CPS-tells-NO-right-charge-talent-agency-boss-inciting-racial-hatred-Brussels-tweet-NOT-appear-court-today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510358/Humiliation-Met-Police-CPS-tells-NO-right-charge-talent-agency-boss-inciting-racial-hatred-Brussels-tweet-NOT-appear-court-today.html

Reply 99

Betelgeuse-

Original post by Frank Underwood

Wait, what was I wrong about? lol

Original post by Frank Underwood

Trolling again, I see

Was your response to me saying "This guy did not incite hatred. He was not racist. He was not abusive. He was not threatening"

The police conclusion shows I was correct, and you were woefully wrong. Unlucky, i can see from your postings how difficult all this is for you, yano thinking clearly and logically without bias. Sucks to be you