&amp;quot;Being offensive is an offence&amp;quot;

Original post by DiddyDec

Espionage Act of 1917 and the case following it Schenck v. United States. Which was then followed by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Hmm thanks for that. It's definitely a interesting subject.

I think it's reasonable for do e civil liberties to be curtailed during war time.

I'm not sure if I agree that encouraging violence should be forbidden as it's pretty vague and open to interpretation.

Eg if I send emails to Person X saying I'm going to kill him or if I'm messaging people to arrange murdering Person X then that seems like a reasonable case for intervention.

It's gets into murky water if you say 'I hate person X' or 'I really hope somebody shoots person X'

By the incitement of hatred / violence clause lots of politicians on the left and right could be seen as guilty of this.

Reply 62

imlikeahermit

14

Original post by 04MR17

Yet nobody stopped you having this opinion... :holmes:

I’m offended.

Reply 63

Original post by imlikeahermit

I’m offended.

I'm very sorry about that, feel free to report my post and explain why it is offensive to you - since it's against TSR community guidelines to be treating other users in an offensive manner. :redface:

Reply 64

username4986690

19

Original post by Starship Trooper

Hmm thanks for that. It's definitely a interesting subject.

I think it's reasonable for do e civil liberties to be curtailed during war time.

I'm not sure if I agree that encouraging violence should be forbidden as it's pretty vague and open to interpretation.

Eg if I send emails to Person X saying I'm going to kill him or if I'm messaging people to arrange murdering Person X then that seems like a reasonable case for intervention.

It's gets into murky water if you say 'I hate person X' or 'I really hope somebody shoots person X'

By the incitement of hatred / violence clause lots of politicians on the left and right could be seen as guilty of this.

Law is typically open to interpretation it is why we have judges, lawyers, etc.

The point is that even the US version of free speech is limited because in order to have a civilised society discourse must be moderated. The same could be said of forums, without moderators they would be filled with spammers and trolls. Nothing productive would ever occur.

Reply 65

imlikeahermit

14

Original post by 04MR17

I'm very sorry about that, feel free to report my post and explain why it is offensive to you - since it's against TSR community guidelines to be treating other users in an offensive manner. :redface:

I’m only offended that you’re not offended that I am offended because you’re not offended.

Reply 66

harrysbar

21

Original post by imlikeahermit

I’m only offended that you’re not offended that I am offended because you’re not offended.

Put like that I’m offended too

Reply 67

Original post by imlikeahermit

I’m only offended that you’re not offended that I am offended because you’re not offended.

I'm sure you can explain that in your post report or in the Ask the Community Staff Forum. :ta:

Reply 68

Original post by DiddyDec

Law is typically open to interpretation it is why we have judges, lawyers, etc.

The point is that even the US version of free speech is limited because in order to have a civilised society discourse must be moderated. The same could be said of forums, without moderators they would be filled with spammers and trolls. Nothing productive would ever occur.

Sure but obviously we can agree that the US has more free speech than say North Korea and I personally think that the less restrictions on speech within sensible parameters is best.

I do not agree that the UK is enforcing sensible parameters at present and seemingly the public and government agree with me.

Reply 69

username4986690

19

Original post by Starship Trooper

Sure but obviously we can agree that the US has more free speech than say North Korea and I personally think that the less restrictions on speech within sensible parameters is best.

I do not agree that the UK is enforcing sensible parameters at present and seemingly the public and government agree with me.

That is a pointless argument.

You seemed to be suggesting earlier that if you supported restrictions then you did not support free speech, do you stand by that?

Reply 70

SHallowvale

14

Original post by 04MR17

Yet nobody stopped you having this opinion... :holmes:

Conservative voices are being silenced!

Reply 71

Original post by DiddyDec

You seemed to be suggesting earlier that if you supported restrictions then you did not support free speech, do you stand by that?

Yes, I think those who wish to add extra restrictions (about what can be said to be hate speech) clearly do not support free speech.

Reply 72

Original post by Starship Trooper

Yes, I think those who wish to add extra restrictions (about what can be said to be hate speech) clearly do not support free speech.

Extra restrictions from what?
At what point do restrictions become "extra"?
Are there restrictions that aren't "extra"?

Reply 73

Original post by 04MR17

Extra restrictions from what?
At what point do restrictions become "extra"?
Are there restrictions that aren't "extra"?

Additional restrictions on free speech from today's legal standard which I already think goes too far.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55046068

I want people like this as far away from power as possible.

Reply 74

Original post by Starship Trooper

Additional restrictions on free speech from today's legal standard which I already think goes too far.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55046068

I want people like this as far away from power as possible.

So what you actually mean by your grand statement is that you believe those supporting a particular bill are a hindrance to the concept of free speech?

Luckily we live in a democracy (and I assume you do too) where you are able to act on that desire.

Reply 75

username4986690

19

Original post by Starship Trooper

Yes, I think those who wish to add extra restrictions (about what can be said to be hate speech) clearly do not support free speech.

Given that you support restrictions such as those in wartime am I to believe that you don't support free speech?

Reply 76

legalhelp

16

There is some interesting discussion on this thread, but it feels like there might be some confusion on the current state of the law in England and Wales, and how it is actually enforced. If anyone has any legal questions on what I will loosely describe as “hate crime”, feel free to ask them and I will do my best to answer.

Reply 77