The Student Room Group

Man arrested for quoting Churchill's anti Islam speech

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Falcatas
You do realise you would be guilty of assault?
You can't shoot people because they have vile opinions.

Fanatical Muslims have the right to attempt to persuade people to embrace Sharia. Of course they are living in fantasy world, it will never happen but they are allowed to try.

Of course any violent attempt to force it must be responded with deadly force.


Yes I do realize that. Felony assault no less. In reality, murder would probably be an appropriate charge.

You said," Of course, any violent attempt to force it must be responded with deadly force." That is what's not going to happen. I'm referring to an attempt on the muslim community to force Sharia on anyone. I'm assuming you mean armed force. That would be called an insurrection, would it not?
You also said," You can't shoot people for vile opinions." I agree 100%. I'm exposed to vile opinions almost daily here in the states. Let me ask you this; When someones vile opinions become a call to action and you see his beliefs making headway in your society, is it still just expressing, "vile opinions"? When do his expressions become a call to actions? People answer that question differently but I wouldn't debate it too long.
Original post by ThatPerson
In other words you would use the 2nd Amendment against the 1st. Great logic.


Natural Law and common sense trump both Amendments.
Original post by Oldcon1953
Natural Law and common sense trump both Amendments.


Surely the Tea Party and NRA would be out of business if this was true?
Original post by Radicalathiest
Not what i asked

How is it hate speech?


because he outright insulted followers of a certain faith

do you have comprehension issues? dont see how you couldve missed that.
Original post by ThatPerson
Surely the Tea Party and NRA would be out of business if this was true?


The fact that both organizations are flourishing proves it is true. Smaller gov., spending within our means, and the right to a practical means of self defense. HOW RADICAL!!
Original post by Radicalathiest
Not what i asked

How is it hate speech?


deliberately trying to antagonise Muslims with a loud device...
Original post by brap man 420
deliberately trying to antagonise Muslims with a loud device...


Just because someone "hates" your speech does not make it hate speech. Is the content of anyones speech defined by how people react to it? That's absurd. Do we look to the crowds reaction to something being said to determine whether or not it is acceptable and whether or not to ban it?
It's completely right that this man was arrested, though perhaps a caution (rather than a criminal conviction) would be more appropriate in this case.

The speech compares Muslims to dogs, called them curses, sluggish and slovenly - surely this is hate speech at its worst? If somebody started to compare Jewish people or Christians to dogs (or another ethnic/religious group for that matter), you'd surely expect them to be arrested or cautioned.

Freedom of speech in this country only exists within a contract of respect for one another - and I hope it stays that way.
Original post by BullViagra
because he outright insulted followers of a certain faith

do you have comprehension issues? dont see how you couldve missed that.



I see you do. It wasn't Churchill who was arrested and they were his words:rolleyes:
Original post by Radicalathiest
I see you do. It wasn't Churchill who was arrested and they were his words:rolleyes:


and?

the man insulted a large group of people. it doesnt matter who said it first.
Original post by Radicalathiest
I see you do. It wasn't Churchill who was arrested and they were his words:rolleyes:


Churchill wrote those words approximately 70 years ago, at a time where these views were publicly acceptable (along with Churchill's other views that would now be regarded as far-right).

If I repeat Hitler's anti-semetic views as he expressed in Mein Kampf in London with a megaphone, I can expect to be arrested, not Hitler.
Original post by Oldcon1953
Just because someone "hates" your speech does not make it hate speech. Is the content of anyones speech defined by how people react to it? That's absurd. Do we look to the crowds reaction to something being said to determine whether or not it is acceptable and whether or not to ban it?



see below

Original post by JamesGibson
It's completely right that this man was arrested, though perhaps a caution (rather than a criminal conviction) would be more appropriate in this case.

The speech compares Muslims to dogs, called them curses, sluggish and slovenly - surely this is hate speech at its worst? If somebody started to compare Jewish people or Christians to dogs (or another ethnic/religious group for that matter), you'd surely expect them to be arrested or cautioned.

Freedom of speech in this country only exists within a contract of respect for one another - and I hope it stays that way.
Reply 32
Avatar for Falcatas
Falcatas
OP
9
Original post by JamesGibson
It's completely right that this man was arrested, though perhaps a caution (rather than a criminal conviction) would be more appropriate in this case.

The speech compares Muslims to dogs, called them curses, sluggish and slovenly - surely this is hate speech at its worst? If somebody started to compare Jewish people or Christians to dogs (or another ethnic/religious group for that matter), you'd surely expect them to be arrested or cautioned.

Freedom of speech in this country only exists within a contract of respect for one another - and I hope it stays that way.


Errgh... Typical modern left wing contempt for the people and freedom of speech. Speech does not harm people (hurt feelings don't count).

The reason for restriction of free speech is because they (the ruling elites) are afraid that if the public hear these views they will have their little feeble minds corrupted.

The state should not be able to judge what opinions are allowed to be debated. All opinions should be free to be discussed in the public realm where each of us can individually judge it with our own moral judgement.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Falcatas
Errgh... Typical modern left wing contempt for the people and freedom of speech. Speech does not harm people (hurt feelings don't count).

The reason for restriction of free speech is because they (the ruling elites) are afraid that if the public hear these views they will have their little feeble minds corrupted.

The state should not be able to judge what opinions are allowed to be debated. All opinions should be free to be discussed in the public realm where each of us can individually judge it with our own moral judgement.


... i'm right wing so come at me bro. Shouting in public and causing conflict is precisely why laws exist.
:colondollar:
Original post by ThatPerson


If I repeat Hitler's anti-semetic views as he expressed in Mein Kampf in London with a megaphone, I can expect to be arrested, not Hitler.


No you should not be arrested. Suppression of an opinion no matter how backwards or abhorrent should simply not happen.

But his views were relevant then and little has changed. Perhaps this is why some think a police state is the solution to this.
Original post by Falcatas
Errgh... Typical modern left wing contempt for the people and freedom of speech. Speech does not harm people (hurt feelings don't count).

The reason for restriction of free speech is because they (the ruling elites) are afraid that if the public hear these views they will have their little feeble minds corrupted.

The state should not be able to judge what opinions are allowed to be debated. All opinions should be free to reign in the public realm where each of us can individually judge it with our own moral judgement.


I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe the freedom to not be harassed or be the victim of hate speech. If I was a Muslim, I would not want to hear these comments - in fact, I'm not a Muslim, and I do not want to hear these comments. In fact, 99.9% of the population would also agree with me that they don't want to hear racist comments.

I find it disgusting that anybody thinks people should have the right to be racist. It's similar right-wing rhetoric that justifies gun ownership, free market economics and the likes.
Original post by Radicalathiest
:colondollar:

No you should not be arrested. Suppression of an opinion no matter how backwards or abhorrent should simply not happen.

But his views were relevant then and little has changed. Perhaps this is why some think a police state is the solution to this.


Freedom of speech is not absolute; it must have limits to prevent hate speech, which can only have negative effects on society. Even the US recognises this.

I'm not advocating a police state, merely stating there is no contradiction between supporting free speech and supporting the police in their arrest of this man.
Reply 37
Avatar for Falcatas
Falcatas
OP
9
Original post by JamesGibson
I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe the freedom to not be harassed or be the victim of hate speech. If I was a Muslim, I would not want to hear these comments - in fact, I'm not a Muslim, and I do not want to hear these comments. In fact, 99.9% of the population would also agree with me that they don't want to hear racist comments.

I find it disgusting that anybody thinks people should have the right to be racist. It's similar right-wing rhetoric that justifies gun ownership, free market economics and the likes.


Unfortunately for you, you cannot force people to think how you want them to. People can think whatever they wish to. There can be no thoughtcrimes.
Harassment is different but it shouldn't specifically matter what is said.

This type of thinking leads to the conclusion that free speech is harmful to ethnic minorities. It isn't. They benefit from being able to say whatever they may wish to and being able to hear ideas which they can agree or disagree and ridicule.
As for gun ownership it is the exact same reason, we can't trust people or they might all kill each other. A perverse distrust of humanity.

Original post by ThatPerson
Freedom of speech is not absolute; it must have limits to prevent hate speech, which can only have negative effects on society. Even the US recognises this.

I'm not advocating a police state, merely stating there is no contradiction between supporting free speech and supporting the police in their arrest of this man.


No. If there are restrictions on then it isn't truly free speech. It is privileged speech.
There is a huge contradiction. You cannot support free speech and support people being arrested for being offensive. The US only prohibits speech if it causes immediate danger. If he said "Kill all the Muslims in Britain", then of course that is different.

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-hate-speech-should-not-be-banned/
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by JamesGibson
I believe in freedom of speech, but



But...........

say's it all.

oh and Islam is not a race.
Original post by ThatPerson
Freedom of speech is not absolute; it must have limits to prevent hate speech, which can only have negative effects on society. Even the US recognises this.

I'm not advocating a police state, merely stating there is no contradiction between supporting free speech and supporting the police in their arrest of this man.


yes you are you want the police to censor views you do not like.

Do you have any brown shirts by any chance?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you