Free Speech in the UK

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Orders to subordinates imply coercion and thus responsibility for one issuing them since the one following has no legal choice but to follow them. People have a right to not listen to a statement made publicly, let alone follow its message if it has one. I'm surprised I even have to explain the difference.
Talking about making arguments that reflect poorly on one's ability to be rational...

I though a obvious example might be something you could keep up with, so since you're doing so well with following logic, lets build on it, harassment hurts, being shouted at in the street causes fear, fear leads to isolation, isolation leads to self harm and suicide.

The fact that majority of Muslim societies do not really believe in "moderation" and directly oppose it proves you wrong.

I don't give a about them, I only give a about the ones H.Mm Reigns over, and those which to join her realms.

Dude, you do realize that nobody is forced to listen to public statements, right?

Bulshit. I've had ers follow me around screaming at me for having dyed hair and piercings, unless you're advocating I shut myself in, which is converse, then it's full of . Thank that's ignoring the whole transgender thing.

Indeed. Context matters.

Scottish courts however don’t feel the same way. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk...v-Mark-Meechan

BULSHIT.

Meechan entered a "not proven" defense on it begin "published" made no free speech defense and the judge literally stated "This forms no precedent what-so-ever".

Putting someone on trial, is not the same as finding them guilty, frankly, i find Meechan a , but I do find the dog joke pretty in funny.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk...v-Mark-Meechan

" I should note that although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right.“This trial, unusual though some aspects have been, was therefore concerned, ultimately, only with the narrow fact-based question of whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that your using a public communications network on one day to post the video onto your video channel, constituted an offence contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. I found it proved on the evidence that it was. My finding establishes only your guilt of this offence. It establishes nothing else and sets no precedent."

[Aexodus]

Mark Meechan was eventually found guilty of hate speech, and the judge specifically said context doesn’t matter. Sorry if I got the wrong court hearing.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Context didn't matter because the context was never entered into evidence. Meecham could have appealed on context. He chose not to appeal as his "prosecuted for a joke" story was so lucrative and served his right wing sponsors agenda. He made more than £800 out of that. He's in profit from the whole debarkle I'm sure.

[Heathen Hammer]

I though a obvious example might be something you could keep up with, so since you're doing so well with following logic, lets build on it, harassment hurts, being shouted at in the street causes fear, fear leads to isolation, isolation leads to self harm and suicide.

That makes even less sense then your previous "argument". If somebody is ready to commit suicide over an Internet comment, then they are too mentally weak to be responsible for themselves and whoever's their guardian should control and monitor content that they can view on the Internet. What you are asking for is to ban steaks because babies can't chew them.

I don't give a about them, I only give a about the ones H.Mm Reigns over, and those which to join her realms.

Your German non-British queen reigns over immigrants from those countries, and we are yet to see any evidence that they assimilate generations after emigration.

Bulshit. I've had ers follow me around screaming at me for having dyed hair and piercings, unless you're advocating I shut myself in, which is converse, then it's full of . Thank that's ignoring the whole transgender thing.

That goes to my above argument. Not to mention that forcing yourself in someone's personal space isn't free speech.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

That makes even less sense then your previous "argument". If somebody is ready to commit suicide over an Internet comment, then they are too mentally weak to be responsible for themselves and whoever's their guardian should control and monitor content that they can view on the Internet. What you are asking for is to ban steaks because babies can't chew them.

No, because you have to choose to eat a steak, you don't choose to be hounded, to be vilified, dehumanized, excised, harassed.

Even the strongest, can be brought low by a baying mob.

Your German non-British queen reigns over immigrants from those countries, and we are yet to see any evidence that they assimilate generations after emigration.

Really? What about the Italians? The Germans? The Scots, the Welsh, the Romans? Jamaicans? The Indians? The American Loyalists?

My country has no problem with different aesthetics or opinions, only those who do. We didn't start an empire with the view to start genocide. (Slavery, sure) but not genocide.

The Queen is the Queen, and a damn good one. I hold affection for anyone who holds affection for her.

But you have no evidence that the communities are or are not integrating.

I have at-least anecdotal evidence that they are, from my shopkeepers, my teachers, my schoolmates, and my work friends.

That goes to my above argument. Not to mention that forcing yourself in someone's personal space isn't free speech.

Well then, I feel a little better of your view, if we can agree that debates should be limited to the consenting, and that it should be exception in certain areas designated "Forums" thn we are in agreement.

But too often the words free speech, are not the views you hold.

[Heathen Hammer]

No, because you have to choose to eat a steak, you don't choose to be hounded, to be vilified, dehumanized, excised, harassed.

Even the strongest, can be brought low by a baying mob.

We are talking about public statements which can be easily ignored.

Really? What about the Italians? The Germans? The Scots, the Welsh, the Romans? Jamaicans? The Indians? The American Loyalists?

My country has no problem with different aesthetics or opinions, only those who do. We didn't start an empire with the view to start genocide. (Slavery, sure) but not genocide.

That's some grade A historical revisionism. From Irish and Scots to populations of Asia and Africa, British empire left quite the bloody trail. Now Might is right and all that, but to say that it was started with no view for genocide is to blatantly lie.

The Queen is the Queen, and a damn good one. I hold affection for anyone who holds affection for her.

Meh, she is not even British. She is German. In fact, British people weren't even ruled by one of their own since 1066.
Also even if she was British, she spent the last few decades watching her country being destroyed by billionaires and their pet politicians, and what did she do? Nothing. She is nothing but a symbolic figurehead, quite an expensive one for the taxpayer, might I add.

I have at-least anecdotal evidence that they are, from my shopkeepers, my teachers, my schoolmates, and my work friends.

And do you have any non-anecdotal evidence for your claim?

Well then, I feel a little better of your view, if we can agree that debates should be limited to the consenting, and that it should be exception in certain areas designated "Forums" thn we are in agreement.

But too often the words free speech, are not the views you hold.

You consent by viewing opposing side's argument. In civilized society nobody gets to decide what can be said, while also nobody has a right to not be offended.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

We are talking about public statements which can be easily ignored.

Ignored is not so easy my friend. If you can switch of your ears and emotions, you are in the minority.

That's some grade A historical revisionism. From Irish and Scots to populations of Asia and Africa, British empire left quite the bloody trail. Now Might is right and all that, but to say that it was started with no view for genocide is to blatantly lie.

No, it wasn't, we wanted to enslave people, not kill them, arguably what we wanted was worse.

Meh, she is not even British. She is German. In fact, British people weren't even ruled by one of their own since 1066.
Also even if she was British, she spent the last few decades watching her country being destroyed by billionaires and their pet politicians, and what did she do? Nothing. She is nothing but a symbolic figurehead, quite an expensive one for the taxpayer, might I add.

This is not a debate on the monarchy so we shall let that pass.

But at what point did angles and Danes, and Saxons become more British than the Normans? or the Romans or Celts. As a Norman decedent, and as British as they come, I reject your claim. You are arbitrarily placing a cut off date which makes no sense. on the basis of your own historical preferences.

And do you have any non-anecdotal evidence for your claim?

Other than the crime rate committed by non-whites is lower than that of whites, no. Do you?

You consent by viewing opposing side's argument. In civilized society nobody gets to decide what can be said, while also nobody has a right to not be offended.

And if we have an option not to click on a thread like this, or enter a debating hall that's fine, but when it's taking place on streets, on trains with captive audiences, that's not okay.

They do have aright to self determination however, and to not have that invalidated and contradicted by others unless they choose to participate in a debates.

[Heathen Hammer]

Ignored is not so easy my friend. If you can switch of your ears and emotions, you are in the minority.

That's not how it works. You don't have a right to not be offended.

No, it wasn't, we wanted to enslave people, not kill them, arguably what we wanted was worse.

That clearly wasn't the case.

This is not a debate on the monarchy so we shall let that pass.

But at what point did angles and Danes, and Saxons become more British than the Normans? or the Romans or Celts. As a Norman decedent, and as British as they come, I reject your claim. You are arbitrarily placing a cut off date which makes no sense. on the basis of your own historical preferences.

Not really. I'm sure Saxons and other peoples that were subjugated by Normans would have a few things to say about that.

Other than the crime rate committed by non-whites is lower than that of whites, no.

Source?

And if we have an option not to click on a thread like this, or enter a debating hall that's fine, but when it's taking place on streets, on trains with captive audiences, that's not okay.

They do have aright to self determination however, and to not have that invalidated and contradicted by others unless they choose to participate in a debates.

And since we are talking about social media I don't really get what you mean by brining up trains and such.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

That's not how it works. You don't have a right to not be offended.

See my last response in this psot.

That clearly wasn't the case.

Evidence?

Not really. I'm sure Saxons and other peoples that were subjugated by Normans would have a few things to say about that.

Yes, the saxons invaded as well. I'm sure the Roman-British weren't happy about that either. The saxons are from saxony. The didn't pop out of holes in the ground on the east coast, they came with ships and swords.

Source?

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures....t#by-ethnicity

• arrest rates for people from the Asian, White, and Other (including Chinese) ethnic groups were lower than average in almost every year of the period studied, while the rates for people from the Black and Mixed ethnic groups were consistently higher than average

I can only find this, but when adjusted for income equality, and the fact blacks are disproportionately poor, there is no issue in crime between whites and blacks.

And since we are talking about social media I don't really get what you mean by brining up trains and such.

I was talking in general, you can procure your own social media, not the people around you, if you want to limt it to soical media, these are places for people to express themselves, as such some expressions may be found to be challanging, social media isn't for everyone.

[Infidel144]

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures....t#by-ethnicity

• arrest rates for people from the Asian, White, and Other (including Chinese) ethnic groups were lower than average in almost every year of the period studied, while the rates for people from the Black and Mixed ethnic groups were consistently higher than average

I can only find this, but when adjusted for income equality, and the fact blacks are disproportionately poor, there is no issue in crime between whites and blacks.

Your claim was:
"Other than the crime rate committed by non-whites is lower than that of whites, no."

Your source does not support your assertion. Your source shows that Whites have the second lowest arrest rate by ethnicity (11 per 1000) with only "Other inc Chinese" being lower (9 per 1000), Asian, Black and Mixed have higher ( at 12, 35 and 25 per 1000 respectively).

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

But this is not adjusted for income. and also is only arrests not convictions. Arrest =/= guilt.

[Infidel144]

But this is not adjusted for income. and also is only arrests not convictions. Arrest =/= guilt.

This was the source you chose to support your claim ("Other than the crime rate committed by non-whites is lower than that of whites, no"). Which it does not.

Are you now disavowing the source you chose, thus leaving your claim unsupported while adding yet another unsupported claim to it?

[Axalon]

Alright, one more post here...

My Muslim friends support those freedoms, they don't see Islam as incompatible with them. As they're Muslims, I think they're well-qualified to say what they believe.

Considering your wording there, I take it that you are not a Muslim? …Furthermore, I notice the problematic circumstance we have here due to the fact that you are a kafir/infidel - and your friends are supposed “Muslims” anyhow. An actual Muslim could not be friends with you - since Islam does not permit that - and basically “reward” those that ignore this with hellfire… See sura 3:28, 5.51, 5:80. Meaning that these guys are not actual Muslims if they are also your friends. In which case they are hardly representative for actual Muslims at any level, or in regards to what goes for Islam for that matter. If anything, it would rather disqualify them for such a task…

That said, many supposed “Muslims“ whenever discussing Islam in public discourse have a habit of being hopelessly biased, irrational, and dishonest. We can hardly expect Muslims (in general) to be rational, neutral and sober in regards to Islam - they will not be - usually it is very emotional for them, and anything they say must be treated accordingly. There are lots of clips of this at Youtube, check it out at your discretion.

Furthermore, many “Muslims” don’t really seem to know much about Islam to begin with (just like your friends here), they are essentially ignorant of it and its actual practices and many doctrines. They simply rely on the opinions of local (or preferred) “scholars” but not the actual source-material that do make up Islam. This of course, worsen things as these “scholars” typically only convey things that they deem suitable and not much else. As a result many “Muslims” understanding of Islam tend to be skewed and insufficient (or worse). One should always keep these things in mind whenever public discourse about Islam is initiated.

You seem to perceive Islam as one fixed set of ideas which can only be interpreted in one way. Like other religions, Islamic beliefs vary between Muslims. …

No one has ever doubted that Islam can be interpreted in more ways then one… I have never suggested otherwise, anywhere... That said, Islam is special in more ways then one. It does make some bold and exceptional claims that ultimately means that - structurally speaking - Islam does not afford much flexibility, reformation or change (and this trait does limit viable interpretations of it). The two main reasons for this is A). Islam claims to have access to “the verbatim words of god” (as supposedly materialized and accessible in the quran), B). Islam claims to be the last and final revelation that this world will ever receive. Neither of these affords or allow much flexibility, moderation or even any changes. In contrast it does set many (if not most) things in stone.

If either A or B is contested by the Muslims themselves somehow - the entire foundation of Islam will collapse, and that would mean the end of Islam as a major movement. It would be hopelessly ridiculous otherwise – there would be no way to explain away that “the verbatim words of god” had been either deliberately changed, altered or ignored - by the servants of the very same god. In order to further develop - the gods will - this by his servants initiative. Therefore, it can not happen, it must not happen, as the survival of Islam essentially hinges on claims A and B. It is the very thing that makes it supposedly superior to both Christianity and Judaism. It is the thing that makes Islam “right”, and Christianity and Judaism “wrong” – supposedly…

Husseini points out that Islam "interacted with foreign religions and cultures, influencing and being influenced. If the chief locus of influence was literary and linguistic, there was also exchange at the most profound levels of theology." Islam can be influenced and changed because it already has been influenced and changed. If Islam couldn't change, there wouldn't be different schools of thought in Islam - yet different schools of thought exist.

These claims strike me as misleading – the cultural and theological exchange between Islam and other movements was minimal at best. World history is rather clear on this... Husseini seems to be both ready, able and willing to conveniently “forget” all such relevant world history in that discussion. Or the Islamic doctrine of suppressing any other cultures and movements – once supremacy is/was established. A quick look at North Africa and we have all we need to dispel all such delusions. North Africa was once explicitly Christian domains, but once these lands fell under Islamic rule all that changed drastically and quickly. The Christian culture and institutions there gets annihilated by deliberate, systematic and structural suppression of any cultural and religious expression other then that of Islam. One obvious example of this is the burning of the library of Alexandria. The cultural and theological impact of Christian North Africa onto Islam was about zero. There is no doubt about this, as we can 500 years after the fact, safely conclude that the Christian culture has been all but eradicated everywhere save Egypt (where the once significant Coptic church lingers on, slowly but ultimately fading away into oblivion due to ruling Islamic doctrine), and there are virtually no trace of it left. That hardly qualifies as any cultural “interaction” at any level, but it does qualify for “extermination” however.

Regarding the different schools in Islam... The more a movement grows there is bound to be both schisms and disintegration regardless of anything - Islam is hardly any exception to that circumstance, if anything it is a good example of it. This is not to be confused with, or to be twisted into any "evidence" of any supposed tolerance for diversity or theological exchange with other non-Islamic movements. The fact is, it was (historically speaking) largely one sided - as in others conformed to Islamic culture and doctrine, while hardly ever the other way around (once Islam established its supremacy. Hardly surprising either, as apostasy was/is greeted with a death-penalty in Islam etc). Such a circumstance does not qualify as "interaction" at any meaningful level - so that is just construct and it stands in conflict with established world history. Technological exchange and general commerce, does hardly qualify as any theological or cultural "interaction" either. Feel free to prove me wrong (present any solid and relevant examples of such interaction, and don't bother with obscure exceptions).

You seem to want to define Islam according to the beliefs and actions of Islamic extremists. …

Nope, not true… I define Islam according to how I understand the written source-material that actually make up Islam (the quran and the hadiths). I define Islam, on the terms of Islam - the written source material as such - not what any propagandist, advocate or supposed authority-scholar tells me to think of it. As in, I let Islam, speak for itself. You and others really should do too…

Furthermore, there are no "Islamic extremists" within the framework of Islam - not really. Much in the same way there have never been any “Nazi extremists” for instance. It is the movement as such that is extreme. It is Islamic doctrine and principles that is inherently and repeatedly extreme - and the devout (the “extremists”) are merely trying to follow these to their best ability. I seriously doubt that they would ever correspond to the skewed, tailored and dishonest concept of "Muslim" that have been sold to us in the west. The “moderate Muslim” is merely a heretic, and “moderate Islam” is just (a watered down) heresy - a construct that has little to do with actual Islam as conveyed in the sources that makes up Islam as we know it (the quran and sahih bukari, basically).

Personally, I define actual believers of Islam merely as “willing servants of Islam”. The reason is quite simple - most people who declare themselves as “Muslims” in the west will fail to qualify to that distinction. As that means that you are prepared to subscribe to ALL the weird and inconsistent stupid junk that we can find in the quran and the hadiths - and then you try to live by it. It’s a really, really screwed up and horrendous prospect for sure. Not many people are prepared to go there willingly at the end of the day (if given a choice) – hence the people that do, are usually labelled both extremists and idiots by the rest of us....


***

One last thing… There is only one movement that are consistently and repeatedly attacking the freedoms we have established in Europe (and the west) today. And "freedom of speech" is at the very heart of this repeated assault - and the aggressor is consistently spelled "Islam". Again, and again and again. Not Christianity, not Hinduism, not Sikhism, not Judaism, not Buddhism, not Shintoism, not Daoism, not Atheism but Islam… And only Islam. In light of this reality, I find the notion that supposed "Muslims" - as professed and explicit servants of Islam - would somehow also support something like "freedom of speech" as totally ludicrous. After all, they are the ones who are obsessively and obstinately trying to regulate and dismantle it - again, and again and again... You can not (repeatedly) eat the cake, and still have it at the same time. You can't have it both ways - one excludes the other...

- A

[Heathen Hammer]

See my last response in this psot.

I already addressed it. Typically if you get "triggered" you have to look for something that would trigger you. Self-victimization, nothing less.

Evidence?

The fact that "we killed all those people by accident" is a terrible argument. Of all European powers, Britain has least moral supremacy.

Yes, the saxons invaded as well. I'm sure the Roman-British weren't happy about that either. The saxons are from saxony. The didn't pop out of holes in the ground on the east coast, they came with ships and swords.

Not really, there is hardly any other country that was ruled by foreigners for that long.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures....t#by-ethnicity

• arrest rates for people from the Asian, White, and Other (including Chinese) ethnic groups were lower than average in almost every year of the period studied, while the rates for people from the Black and Mixed ethnic groups were consistently higher than average

I can only find this, but when adjusted for income equality, and the fact blacks are disproportionately poor, there is no issue in crime between whites and blacks.

That doesn't really support your above claim, as Infidel pointed out.

I was talking in general, you can procure your own social media, not the people around you, if you want to limt it to soical media, these are places for people to express themselves, as such some expressions may be found to be challanging, social media isn't for everyone.

Again, that doesn't really negate my above argument that if you chose to view content then your hurt feelings is on you, be it a fat person seeing fast food ad and ditching his/her diet or liberal having his feelings hurt by a video on youtube.

[Ludicus]

And "freedom of speech" is at the very heart of this repeated assault - and the aggressor is consistently spelled "Islam".

Let's keep in mind that Christian fascists, and ultra nationalist parties in the past rejected liberal individualism and free speech as incompatible with national solidarity, in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal. The freedom of speech was completely suppressed.
Freedom of speech is an important right, but the aggressor is not always spelled Islam. Thirteen European countries have blasphemy legislation.In fact, European Court of Human Rights ruled on 2018,October 25, that governments can punish citizens for criticizing the prophet Muhammad. (Neither Spain nor Portugal have anti-blasphemy laws, although both have legislation on religious hatred that is rarely used).

The far right now argue they are fighting for freedom especially free speech, against the Islamic threat, but decline of the freedom of speech in Islamophobe Central and Eastern Europe is worrying.In Hungary, after the election of Trump, Orbán's authoritarian government and its supporters definitely felt emboldened. Orban says, "The age of liberal democracy is at an end. Our response has been to replace the shipwreck of liberal democracy by building 21st-century Christian democracy"
The Assault on Press Freedom in Poland | Freedom House
Rule of Law, Free Speech, and Individual Rights Disappearing in Hungary

Dr. Stephen Smith, a British Holocaust studies expert, after studying the politics of the new far right, concludes that,

As it stands, the nationalism now rife in Europe is a more timid mutant of fascism. It comes with a suit and a smile. But beware. Its parentage is the same, and who knows what monster it might grow into. Europe’s new far right, on this analysis, are not the heirs of Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, or Friedrich Hayek. Nor are they the extremist wing of the liberal party defending freedom against an illiberal Islam. They are, rather, on Smith’s analysis, freedom's fascists.

A couple of years ago, a UN expert has warned, "Governments are treating words as weapons". There is food for thought here, The end of political cartoons at The New York Times

In 20-plus years of delivering a twice-weekly cartoon for the International Herald Tribune first, and then The New York Times, and after receiving three Overseas Press Club of America awards in that category, I thought the case for political cartoons had been made I’m afraid this is not just about cartoons, but about journalism and opinion in general.The most outraged voices tend to define the conversation, and the angry crowd follows in.Political cartoons were born with democracy. And they are challenged when freedom is.

Cartoon published on the front page of the NYT website on January 8, 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks.




--
By that time, approximately three million people marched in France, including many world leaders. Their slogan, which first appeared on Twitter, was Je suis Charlie. Their message: murdering cartoonists for their cartoons is bad. Some prefer a more civilized approach. Fire them.
Another cartoonist was fired after 25 years, for making fun of Trump, The Art of a Fired Cartoonist - Hyperallergic

[Aexodus]

The UK government has censored two adverts claiming they featured ‘harmful gender stereotypes’. I brought this up on TWC before actually when they first brought in the new rules, citing a ‘lack of diversity’.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

Television advertisements from US food giant Mondelez and German carmaker Volkswagen are the first to be banned under new UK gender stereotyping rules.

A ban on ads featuring "harmful gender stereotypes" or those which are likely to cause "serious or widespread offence" came into force in June.

The first banned ad, for Philadelphia cheese, showed two fathers leaving a baby on a restaurant conveyor belt.

The other, VW ad, showed men being adventurous as a woman sat by a pram.

128 people complained about the cheese ad, and the Volkswagen ad was censored after all of 3 people complained to the regulator.

Hilariously the people behind the more complained of cheese ad said this:

Mondelez UK argued that the ad showed a positive image of men with a responsible and active role in childcare in modern society. It said it chose to feature a pair of fathers to avoid a stereotype of new mothers being responsible for children.

They’re so terrified of breaking the rules they still couldn’t bend over backwards enough. Soon all comedy will be sucked out of British advertising broadcasts. Hapless fathers is a funny stereotype. That’s all.

But most importantly:

The new rules cover both broadcast and non-broadcast adverts, including online and social media.

These rules, which pander to a small minority wound up tighter than a spring, ready to take offense at anything and everything, will cover more than just broadcast television.

Why do these people want to make society tread on eggshells to ensure we god forbid, offend someone? This has really gone too far.

[Cope]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[mongrel]

Have I suffered some unmitigated loss from not seeing these adverts? Not to my knowledge.

Indulge me and explain what it could be.

Here's some adverts from the old days, a handful of which wouldn't be made now. I don't recall how much fuss there was when tobacco and alcohol bans were imposed, but meh.

[95thrifleman]

I kinda miss the Hamlet ads, they where pretty cool

[Love Mountain]

Well you know what they say,

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a terrorist.
Then they came for the hate groups, and I did not speak out - because I was not in a hate group.
Then they came for the harmful ads, and I did not speak out - because I was not in advertising.
Then they came for me, and I was convicted for planning a mosque shooting.

Just kidding of course. On a more serious note, I do agree that it is a bit ridiculous to ban those ads. I don't see what harm they're causing. I think a better evaluation of the law, would be to focus on whether it has done any good, rather than bashing it for everything it gets wrong Aexodus. For example, food and drug regulations. Sure, regulations may prevent some useful products from coming into the market, but on the other hand, just how many bad or sub-standard products have been eliminated from the market place? How much safer is the food and drug supply now? Just because some products have been wrongfully axed doesn't mean that a particular regulation should be immediately re-written. Let's look at something more controversial, like bans on sex work in United States. Are we protecting women, or are we doing more harm than good? That's probably an area that we should look at and rewrite.

So I guess my question is, do you think there is any usefulness to the law?