In UK, quoting Winston Churchill might lead you to jail

[Papay]

http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&...KbyLVcED7mYOLA

To sum it up, Paul Weston chairman of liberty GB quoted some passages from the book of Churchill "River war" in which he heavily criticized Islam. Amazingly he was arrested for promoting racial harrasment. I am wondering:If he attacked in a similar way Christianity would he end up in prison? Or would he receive medals from liberals in UK?

[Vanoi]

Daily Fail

[Mayer]

I could understand if he had been arrested for making an unauthorized speech, if it is so i approve of the intervention by police.

but if he made a legal speech in which he condemns the fanaticism of the followers of islam, this is an action against freedom of speech

[Big War Bird]

arrested for making an unauthorized speech

Just let that sink in for a while.

[Mayer]

Just let that sink in for a while.

It is more polite to announce the intention of making a speech before than get on the nerves of random people on the streets who have no interest in hearing this.
Otherwise we could also be legally annoyed by preachings of Musulmans while we just want to continue our daily life like going shopping or sth.

[Big War Bird]

It is more polite to announce the intention of making a speech before than get on the nerves of random people on the streets who have no interest in hearing this.
Otherwise we could also be legally annoyed by preachings of Musulmans while we just want to continue our daily life like going shopping or sth.

If you are annoyed by the ramblings of musselmen then that is your cross to bear.

Nope. He was arrested for making a speech with a megaphone in a public place which was disturbing members of the public. He was also accused of intolerance towards Muslims, but that wasn't why he was arrested.

According to the BBC:

He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order.

He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.

I wonder if its now a-ok to call for the use of poison gas on third world countries because a man who died decades ago called for it.

I can't see a problem with that. The ways and means of waging war is a topic open for discussion in a free society and most other societies as well I would think.

[Mayer]

If you are annoyed by the ramblings of musselmen then that is your cross to bear.

Is it really that hard to make it previously known to people and authorities that you want to use a public place for a demonstration, rally, speech or whatever? And get the authorization for it? The street is not his property!
Personally i don't want to be suddenly nerved by men who try to be orators before an audience who don't want to be an audience and i appreciate it when such troublemakers are removed by police.

[Gatsby]

I wonder if its now a-ok to call for the use of poison gas on third world countries because a man who died decades ago called for it. He was a good wartime leader but he was also a nutjob, I have no idea when we venerate him so much more than PMs with an actual moral compass like Attlee.


"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

If a man running for important office can't spontaneously go out and shout these kinds of statements in public and then refuse to move several times when ordered by police officers without being arrested, what can he do in this wacky liberal PC-gone-mad country!?

These threads just get stupider and stupider.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

Scotland was out of control at the time to be fair

[Copperknickers II]

Nope. He was arrested for making a speech with a megaphone in a public place which was disturbing members of the public. He was also accused of intolerance towards Muslims, but that wasn't why he was arrested.

[Roma_Victrix]

Nope. He was arrested for making a speech with a megaphone in a public place which was disturbing members of the public.

Ah, a little caveat Papay forgot to include in the OP. I have to wonder if that was deliberately left out of the opening post of this thread, the reason he was actually arrested. I smelled BS from the moment I read the title of this thread. How am I not surprised that, in fact, it's a load of BS.

I could understand if he had been arrested for making an unauthorized speech

What are you talking about? A speech without a permit or something? I thought you only needed a permit to organize rallies and marches...not to sit around in a public square saying stuff to people. I fail to see how that should be illegal without the government's permission first.

[Gatsby]

It isn't normally but he was using a megaphone . Whilst walking through town all kinds of nutjob Christians, Hare Krishnas and communists etc. have asked me to join their groups of crazies but they don't yell at me through a megaphone and disturb everyone within a 50 yard radius.

[Roma_Victrix]

@Gatsby: exactly! We all have freedom of speech (in the West, at least), but not the freedom to blast that speech into the eardrums of everyone within firing distance.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Enjoy your limited freedom while you have it U.K. citizens.

[Gatsby]

Enjoy your limited freedom while you have it U.K. citizens.

Don't worry mate just feel free to ignore the rest of what must be an overwhelmingly extensive 1-page thread.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Enjoy your limited freedom while you have it U.K. citizens.

Nope. Inciting hate-speech in an unauthorized public platform is rightfully illegal. Otherwise every feminists, racists, homophone, sexists or whatever could potentially stand in a town centre and shout rubbish at those around them, harassing people and forcing their views down their throat.

As i said in the other thread, Just because it was Churchill, doesn't mean it's acceptable to say it in a contemporary setting considering how morals of the present are different to those of the past, and thus the two can't be applied together or vice versa. Again otherwise it would be ok for someone to scream about how much they hate black people.

In private though you can say what you like. Or indeed in a private/public meeting you've organized. This though...this is just an idiot being stupid.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Don't worry mate just feel free to ignore the rest of what must be an overwhelmingly extensive 1-page thread.

I read everything, I just don't think him using a megaphone warrants an arrest. Liberals around my area do it all the time and nothing happens to them.

Nope. Inciting hate-speech in an unauthorized public platform is rightfully illegal. Otherwise every feminists, racists, homophone, sexists or whatever could potentially stand in a town centre and shout rubbish at those around them, harassing people and forcing their views down their throat.

They already do...

As i said in the other thread, Just because it was Churchill, doesn't mean it's acceptable to say it in a contemporary setting considering how morals of the present are different to those of the past, and thus the two can't be applied together or vice versa. Again otherwise it would be ok for someone to scream about how much they hate black people.

Morals differ from person to person, that's a strawman argument.

In private though you can say what you like. Or indeed in a private/public meeting you've organized. This though...this is just an idiot being stupid.

Nope.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ed-2-5-million

[Dante Von Hespburg]

They already do...

Nope. I can't remember the last time a black man stood up with a microphone in the UK and started shouting racist slogans, or indeed a white man publicly grab a mic and start calling for a British KKK in the streets of Edinburgh.

Morals differ from person to person, that's a strawman argument.

Good lord man, it's more than that, not just person to person. Morals differ across time periods, AND space. No straw-man arguments here, you've just reinforced my point! Their are things that are publicly acceptable now, that weren't back then and vice versa. It's integral to understanding the i would hazard to say evolution of human society. So not really a straw man at all my friend.

Nope.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ed-2-5-million

You know thats the US right?

[Mayer]

What are you talking about? A speech without a permit or something? I thought you only needed a permit to organize rallies and marches...not to sit around in a public square saying stuff to people. I fail to see how that should be illegal without the government's permission first.

It's annoying. I like the streets to be tidied up

[Gatsby]

It's not even just that morals have changed, Churchill was a crazy even back then. He was a nationalist, upper-class, chauvinist who loved war and even in military matters generally failed to make any positive contribution. As an orator and figure-head he was magnificent but otherwise his most notable achievements are sacking commanders unduly, spoiling the advance on Tripoli, and obviously even before the Second World War he had such moments of glory as being part of the pro-war faction in August 1914 and advocating the Gallipoli invasion.

Edit:
First quote: You may think that but British law forbids it, and it doesn't constitute any real breach of freedom of speech, just the freedom to speak very very loudly without warning the public.
Second quote: I never said that last quote I don't know why you are now fabricating points of mine to ineffectively rebuke. In any case I'm going to argue back just for fun.

The Clippers owner had not been found guilty of any crime, a non-government body he participates in has punished him for breaching their own standards. That story relates in no way to government policy on freedom of speech, at all.