Free Speech in the UK

[Aexodus]

Why is parenthood a problem? Oh its brown parents you refer to. Segregation isn't the reason for babies being born. When a daddy loves mummy very much he puts his willy in her bunny tuft, some months later a baby is made from that love. Perhaps they are to prissy to have sex education up North.

How does this relate to my statement, all I'm saying is that it isn't preferable if Brits were to become a minority in their own country, nor would it be if it happened in Nigeria, Japan, or any other country. I don't have a problem with having a mixed society, but I do have a problem with a group becoming a minority in their own country through no fault of their own.

See what I mean,? You are pretending I'm accountable for the lawful decisions of the judiciary. If someone breaks the law and they are punished, supporting that is the default position.

The smile and nod approach then. It worked in Russia...

You have not even bothered to read the very words you quote. Have I given the Court a witness statement to this effect? No , the Court took its own view about whether this so-called 'joke' was , in fact racial harassment. Posting it on Youtube didn't exactly help the case, if the excuse was it being a 'private' joke. I didn't actually hear the caser either, nor pass judgment on him. I still don't find the joke funny. Is it compulsory now to enjoy racist jokes?

In my personal opinion, making fun of Nazis by teaching your dog the Seig Heil isn't racist. Just like when you said 'gas the jews' you didn't mean it literally, Andy neither did Meecham. Sarcasm is the basis of most of British humour. I've lost count the amount of times I've used derogatory language humourously towards friends that you would probably deem as hate speech, which they probably would be if they weren't said in irony. For example, a friend of mine might say 'well that's a bit gay' when that friend of mine (that may happen to be homosexual) sees something stupid. Likewise, Meecham is saying 'gas the jews' in irony.

On the posting on YouTube part, his channel had 8 subscribers when he uploaded it, all of which were his friends.

Whether or not you find it funny is subjective, you have to prove he was deliberately trying to make fun of Holocaust victims, or encouraging genocide. Since the court had to disregard all context, I really do have to view that decision in absolute contempt, personally. You may disagree, and that's fine, but it doesn't make everyone else a racist for finding it funny.

[mongrel]

How does this relate to my statement, all I'm saying is that it isn't preferable if Brits were to become a minority in their own country, nor would it be if it happened in Nigeria, Japan, or any other country. I don't have a problem with having a mixed society, but I do have a problem with a group becoming a minority in their own country through no fault of their own.

Racist bollocks, Brits are already a minority in their own country, numerically, linguistically, politically and culturally, the English are dominant.If you mean British in the generic sense, many if not most brown people are already British by virtue of of British or Commonwealth citizenship, many white EU people certainly are not.

The smile and nod approach then. It worked in Russia...

It's called the rule of law, but I guess being comfortable with organisations whose perople are ready to gun down MPs opposed to racism your attitude is not surprising.

In my personal opinion, making fun of Nazis by teaching your dog the Seig Heil isn't racist. Just like when you said 'gas the jews' you didn't mean it literally, Andy neither did Meecham..

Your opinion is worthless, its for m'learned Judge to determine if the law was breached, not you. All I can say is that he is no Mel Brooks.

Sarcasm is the basis of most of British humour. I've lost count the amount of times I've used derogatory language humourously towards friends that you would probably deem as hate speech, which they probably would be if they weren't said in irony. For example, a friend of mine might say 'well that's a bit gay' when that friend of mine (that may happen to be homosexual) sees something stupid. Likewise, Meecham is saying 'gas the jews' in irony.

The 1970s rang, they said you must move on.

On the posting on YouTube part, his channel had 8 subscribers when he uploaded it, all of which were his friends..

Yet you were able to view it, yes?

Whether or not you find it funny is subjective, you have to prove he was deliberately trying to make fun of Holocaust victims, or encouraging genocide. Since the court had to disregard all context, I really do have to view that decision in absolute contempt, personally. You may disagree, and that's fine, but it doesn't make everyone else a racist for finding it funny.

FFS how hard can this be. I don't have to do anything. The prosecution must make the case. If there is one then the defendent must satisfy the judge that his intentions were lawful. He failed, so by law he pays a penalty.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

If I break the law I would either take it like a man, or appeal if if I'm innocent. You may fell free to report that post if you so wish, the moderators would have already worked out that I was satirising your attutude and that of the OP to all this by the rather clear statement 'still not funny'. Or is the English language different where you are?

I don't know who taught you English, but let's try and help you out here. Which part of the statement "context doesn't matter" are you having trouble with? Are you aware that the word "doesn't" stands for "does not"? Or do you not understand that "not" is a negative? Or is it that you don't know the meaning of the word matter? it means the same as "important", so in this case: context is not important. Understand now?
I'm sure "count dankula" also thought that the judges would have already worked out that he was satirising, but since the judge ruled that context doesn't matter..

See what I mean,? You are pretending I'm accountable for the lawful decisions of the judiciary. If someone breaks the law and they are punished, supporting that is the default position.

Where am I calling you accountable?
Oh, so if slavery was legal by UK law you would support it? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should stay that way.
The holocaust also followed the laws of Nazi Germany, so is that why the UK didn't attempt to prevent it, or stop it once they know of it?

[mongrel]

I don't know who taught you English, but let's try and help you out here. Which part of the statement "context doesn't matter" are you having trouble with? Are you aware that the word "doesn't" stands for "does not"? Or do you not understand that "not" is a negative? Or is it that you don't know the meaning of the word matter? it means the same as "important", so in this case: context is not important. Understand now?
I'm sure "count dankula" also thought that the judges would have already worked out that he was satirising, but since the judge ruled that context doesn't matter..

Again you reinforce my point, you say in your own words "the judge ruled that context doesn't matter". As he ruled it so, it does not matter, it is a point of law, not an opinion. In that context, to make the full use of that word, your opinion and mine is worthless. If you think the judge erred in law, then give the failed clown some legal advice for his appeal and charge the going rate.

Where am I calling you accountable? .

Irony overload, you just did.

Oh, so if slavery was legal by UK law you would support it? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should stay that way.
The holocaust also followed the laws of Nazi Germany, so is that why the UK didn't attempt to prevent it, or stop it once they know of it?

Now wheeling out a strawman large enough to incinerate a virgin policeman. If slavery was legal, which it is not, the judge would still have to adjudicate accordingly . What this has to do with me exactly?.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Again you reinforce my point, you say in your own words "the judge ruled that context doesn't matter". As he ruled it so, it does not matter, it is a point of law, not an opinion. In that context, to make the full use of that word, your opinion and mine is worthless. If you think the judge erred in law, then give the failed clown some legal advice for his appeal and charge the going rate.

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation, so let's quote your own words:

Gas the Jews.

This statement by you is quite obvious hate speech, and is in fact grossly offensive. I can't believe you of all people would resort to such bigotry. Were you to be on trial for the fact that you wrote this, and you did write it, you'd be found guilty of hate speech.

Irony overload, you just did.

Where? provide a quote.

Now wheeling out a strawman large enough to incinerate a virgin policeman. If slavery was legal, which it is not, the judge would still have to adjudicate accordingly . What this has to do with me exactly?.

That you support it. You are in favour of it. Yes, you can't change it personally, but this is a thread about freedom of speech, and you are arguing against it. Infact, you seem delighted with the fact that you lack it.

[Himster]

Having watched an EDL march dissolve into farce, at great taxpayer expense some years ago, due to a revolt by locals (antifa were kettled),I must say, no, I am not a great fan of free dumb of speech.

Well that's not sinister at all......
What the hell does that have to do with a joke involving a pug?
I mean, Jesus, could you possibly be any more anti-liberal?

You forget something which I have pointed out earlier in the thread. I don't govern the country.I don't know why forum members refuse to recognise this self-evident truth.

Nobody has stated or even implied that you govern any country.
But you have explicitly and strongly endorsed a particularly anti-liberal trend prevalent in the current establishment in western countries. For all intents and purposes you are the primary representative of that worldview in this thread.

The judge considers it harrassment according to the law. That is what matters.

Then the law is wrong.

[mongrel]

Well that's not sinister at all......
What the hell does that have to do with a joke involving a pug?
I mean, Jesus, could you possibly be any more anti-liberal?

And what is so anti-liberal about watching residents quite literally chasing imported Nazis , or should I say drunks, of of town? They weren't consulted and it was no doubt a damned nuisance for those who wanted a quiet weekend shopping or in the park or pub.

Nobody has stated or even implied that you govern any country.
But you have explicitly and strongly endorsed a particularly anti-liberal trend prevalent in the current establishment in western countries. For all intents and purposes you are the primary representative of that worldview in this thread.

Your response is still not grounded in reality.

My understanding is that Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the Communications Act, sectiion 127 presumably, and not by reference to this forum. If there is an argument to be had it is that there was no breach under that Act, or the Act is being applied beyond its policy intent.

Then the law is wrong.

Wow , wasn't that hard, was it? Except you have not explained why.

This is the law ( note that I didn't say I am the law, I'm not Dredd).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...21/section/127

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


Examples I am aware of include:

A joke about blowing Robin Hood Airport 'sky high'. Defendent won case on appeal.

Death threats to Louise Mensh, Tory MP

Racist Tweets directed at football commentator Stan Collymore

A decision not to prosecute a homophobic tweet regarding Tom Daley and his partner. The DPP Keir Starmer stated that new guidelines were needed and that a high threshold should be established for launching criminal action against digital communications which are written spontaneously.

Someone who knows what he's talking about: The distinction [between "offensive" and "grossly offensive"] is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed in the case of Handyside v UK (1976), the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions “…that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population".

On 8 October 2012 Matthew Woods was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment in a Young Offender Institution for posting offensive jokes about missing children April Jones and Madeleine McCann on Facebook, including some sexual comments

Peter /Nunn jailed for rape death threats sent to MP Stella Creasy , simply for having the temerity of suggesting that a lady appear on the new £10. He used a freedom of speech defence..

Bahar Mustafa was charged in October 2015 for his #killallwhitemen riffs.

So in light of these, why is the law wrong?

The defendant would have to prove that :

he did not post a video public electronic communications network a message -he clearly did

and,

the subect matter is not grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. The legislation doesn't mention free dumb of speech.

There are also guidelines covering when such cases should be charged, as mentioned above.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...t-social-media

I have now given you all the information you need to discuss this specific issue like a grown up. You can thank me by not insulting the forum with further lazy -arse posting.

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation, so let's quote your own words:

This statement by you is quite obvious hate speech, and is in fact grossly offensive. I can't believe you of all people would resort to such bigotry. Were you to be on trial for the fact that you wrote this, and you did write it, you'd be found guilty of hate speech..

Not my words, I quoted the defendent's words said they weren't amusing.The entire post was this 'Gas the Jews...(drums) .Bam dum ching
Still not funny. Maybe because the cold-blooded murder of 6 million innocent civilians isn't a laughing matter. It is not a lack of a sense of humour, it is my possession of a moral compass that is impeding me.'. I would say that you appear to be resorting to trolling in the absence of any real arguments.

Oh look I can quote you now, you said.

Gas the Jews.

. This is beyond daft.

Where? provide a quote.

You just did might provide a clue.

IThat you support it. You are in favour of it. Yes, you can't change it personally, but this is a thread about freedom of speech, and you are arguing against it. Infact, you seem delighted with the fact that you lack it.

I can't apologise for living in a country with a functioning legal system. If it was an issue of freedom of speech , or even free dumb of speech, he would have put up a better argument. He lost, live with it, instead of scribbling this babble. He also has the right of appeal if the judge erred in law.

[Aexodus]

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

'annoyance'

I can't apologise for living in a country with a functioning legal system. If it was an issue of freedom of speech , or even free dumb of speech, he would have put up a better argument. He lost, live with it, instead of scribbling this babble. He also has the right of appeal if the judge erred in law.

Ah, i see. Freedom of speech for anyone you agree with is fine, but for anyone else its 'free dumb' of speech, and need to be violently repressed by antifa.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Not my words, I quoted the defendent's words said they weren't amusing.The entire post was this 'Gas the Jews...(drums) .Bam dum ching
Still not funny. Maybe because the cold-blooded murder of 6 million innocent civilians isn't a laughing matter. It is not a lack of a sense of humour, it is my possession of a moral compass that is impeding me.'. I would say that you appear to be resorting to trolling in the absence of any real arguments.

See, everything you've written here? that's context. It doesn't matter. The only thing in your entire statement that matters is the part in bold.
It's amusing how you think people should be prosecuted for saying such things regardless of context, and yet here you are writing those things yourself.

Oh look I can quote you now, you said.. This is beyond daft.


You just did might provide a clue.

Except I didn't. Clicking on the arrow will show that it was written by you.
Where did I hold you personally responsible? please provide a quote of me holding you responsible.

I can't apologise for living in a country with a functioning legal system. If it was an issue of freedom of speech , or even free dumb of speech, he would have put up a better argument. He lost, live with it, instead of scribbling this babble. He also has the right of appeal if the judge erred in law.

This is beyond daft. The nazi's also had a functioning legal system, as did the soviets. Does that mean that those legal systems were good and needed no change? absolutely not. Your legal system is flawed aswell, and just because the judge might have followed your morally wrong laws does not mean that all is good in the realm.

[Heathen Hammer]

One person, not people.

That is still one person too many.

In the form of attacking minorities. Is it so hard to get that concept? 'Muslims are third world savages who should be deported' is an opinion, but it's also an incitement of hatred. It's not acceptable to say things like that and it only makes things worse not better.

Far-right in Europe does not attack minorities. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Islam. Acknowledging the fact that Islam is a violent ideology and that policies of mass-immigration of people that share it is harmful isn't incitement of hatred, it is merely statement of facts. UK government doesn't care about minorities, it mostly cares about crushing dissent.

Gennadi Zyuganov was never allowed to become Russia's leader though, despite allegedly only losing to Yeltsin due to rigged elections in many areas. When Corbyn becomes prime minister I'll look forward to your excuse for how his victory was actually part of the plan of the elites.

LOL that reminds me of arguing with Sanders supporters.

Meanwhile here in Scotland, the SNP are already in power in Edinburgh, I suppose that was the plan of the Westminster elite as well? And our independence will also be just a ploy to increase the power of Westminster. How lucky we are to have such superhuman geniuses in control of the country. Then again it's so obvious when you look at the current Conservative government, they are after all such a competent and capable group of individuals.

Its not like they would allow you to secede or anything.

If you burn books, you will end by burning people. Nevertheless I do think that the proper place for holy books is as works of reference and historical interest, and not as a manual for a modern belief system. Notice how I implicitly criticised Islam there, but am not in prison, despite living in a tyrannical country where people are routinely imprisoned for expressing opinions? It's almost as if the only people that are imprisoned are Far Right activists who have actually incited violence or hatred in unambiguous terms, and the rest of the population are perfectly free to express negative opinions towards religions.

As we've established earlier, incitement of hatred is mostly an imaginary pre-text. Far-right activists are being jailed because they oppose the government and the elites. If UK cared so much about minorities, it wouldn't jump the bandwagon of attacking Syria or Iraq before that.
[quote]

And yet the 'masses' voted to massively expand the power of the Westminster government by returning powers from Brussels back to London. Clearly they didn't get the memo that the UK government is a threat, although I personally agree with that assessment hence why I am a separatist who has no more love for the UK government than you do, and indeed am doing far more to undermine them than any of the Far Right. And again, notice how I am not in prison, despite attending anti-Westminster rallies and associating online with separatist groups. If I did that in Russia or China I'd be hanging upside down by my ankles in a dungeon with electric clamps attached to my unmentionables.

And "masses" in Russia "voted" for Putin with similar results.

That's some nice waffling, but would you care to answer the question? Namely, how does criticism of Muslims represent a threat to the ruling elites?

Ruling elites are partially or entirely in pockets of their Saudi friends, who want to spread their ideas as much as possible. Let's not forget that the whole "incitement of hated against minorities" is mostly used as a tool of intimidation and political suppression.

[Aexodus]

Far-right in Europe does not attack minorities.

This isn't really true. We have seen that there are racist idiots that will attack people because of their ethnicity. We have seen in this very thread, that there are those who support violence against political enemies. My question is this, is there a difference between the two. I don't believe so. Both are based on a bigoted generalisation, either 'all far righters are violent' (some are, Finsbury Park, Anderson Breivik) or 'all brown people are violent' (some are, 7/7 bombers and Manchester attack), but neither statement is true. If there is a person anywhere on the political compass that tries to justify violence, they should be stopped. Until you can prove someone or something actually advocates violence, you have no basis.

The problem with the Koran that many people have is the fact that a minority take up its cause violently. And yes, a minority also take up far-right causes, violently. But if you want to ban all so called 'far right' (in Italy for example it's actually quite mainstream to have a negative view of Islam) for the actions of a few, you must also ban the Koran, for the actions of a few.

Neither censorship is a solution. How about we identify the problems in Islamic communities, and try to, fix them, instead of calling people Islamophobic for pointing it out.

For example, Muslim grooming gangs.

And if it is certain doctrines in Islam, such that may prevent full integration, then so be it. I don't know of a prevalence of vigilante Jewish or Sikh or Christian terrorism. It probably exists, but isnt on the same scale.

When you have deranged Islamist radicals who will kill, there will always be attacks in kind from other deranged people. How many people have been killed by far-right terrorism in recent years compared to Islamist radicals. Which is the bigger the problem, and which should be the priority?

An Islamist terrorist can take Muhammad's violence as an example, a pretext, but who inspired the Finsbury attacker to commit violence. Was it Tommy Robinson, or Islamic terrorism itself?

Again, if you can't quote someone encouraging violence, they aren't inciting it.

Ruling elites are partially or entirely in pockets of their Saudi friends, who want to spread their ideas as much as possible. Let's not forget that the whole "incitement of hated against minorities" is mostly used as a tool of intimidation and political suppression.

To add to this, it does make me uncomfortable that the same country that is funding certain mosques in Britain, is funding Islamists in eastern ghouta, who we are all made to believe are just bog-standard FSA rebels. They are not.

[mongrel]

guff

I provide the law, Prosecution Service guidelines and a few real-life examples, you provide childish recycled trolling.

[chriscase]

Remember to direct your criticisms at the post rather than the poster. Personal references are categorically off topic in the Discussion and Debate areas of TWC.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I provide the law, Prosecution Service guidelines and a few real-life examples, you provide childish recycled trolling.

Childish trolling? Mongrel, someone has been prosecuted and found guilty in your country for "hate speech" for saying the very same words that you have written here on this forum. You cannot possibly think that that is a good thing, and you are just as guilty of this "crime" as he is. If you do actually think that it's a good thing, please turn yourself in to the authorities and present them with the evidence of your grossly offensive hate speech.

[mongrel]

Childish trolling? Mongrel, someone has been prosecuted and found guilty in your country for "hate speech" for saying the very same words that you have written here on this forum. You cannot possibly think that that is a good thing, and you are just as guilty of this "crime" as he is. If you do actually think that it's a good thing, please turn yourself in to the authorities and present them with the evidence of your grossly offensive hate speech.

Yes childish trolling. Such is the awesome comprehensiveness of my response, as outlined above. And now we have spamming to boot.

Read the damned prosecution guidelines.They are clear enough. My baby child can grasp the details , so I'm sure anyone else can.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Yes childish trolling. Such is the awesome comprehensiveness of my response, as outlined above. And now we have spamming to boot.

Read the damned prosecution guidelines.They are clear enough. My baby child can grasp the details , so I'm sure anyone else can.

Allow me to summarise: you yourself are guilty of the same "hate speech" as the discussed case, fits with the guidelines and all. And yet you still somehow support this, while failing to see your own guilt. Your statement was both indeed posted by you, and grossly offensive, as per the requirements you listed. You can keep repeating "It's the law" all you want, but that's pointless. Laws can and have been changed before, and shall be changed again in the future.

[chriscase]

Reminder of this thread warning:

Please do not post the same argument multiple times. If you have already made a point, consider it made and move on. The "broken record" technique of repeatedly asking the same question and ignoring responses is disruptive to discussion and will not be tolerated.

This applies whether you are making a point or responding to one.

[mongrel]

The forum may consider the CPS guidelines , the legislation and sample cases as a resource and a basis for proper discussion. Not sure why anyone would have an issue about that.

[Prodromos]

See, everything you've written here? that's context. It doesn't matter. The only thing in your entire statement that matters is the part in bold.
It's amusing how you think people should be prosecuted for saying such things regardless of context, and yet here you are writing those things yourself.

You're literally not exaggerating.

Woman who posted rap lyrics as tribute on Instagram guilty of sending offensive message

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...yrics-14543694

[mongrel]

You're literally not exaggerating.

Woman who posted rap lyrics as tribute on Instagram guilty of sending offensive message

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...yrics-14543694

Wasn't aware Liverpool was compelled to adopt the cultural habits of Detroit.