It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage




Have you not heard of "The pen is mighty than the sword"? Speech is not just words arranged any old way, they have meaning, and power, humans are not robots. With the use of the internet "speech" can spread far and wide. Communication is one of the main reasons why we are the dominant species on the planet, and its how that communication is used on a wide stage.


I have heard of it and it's complete bullocks. Tell that to the man who was recently sentenced to death in Pakistan for insulting the prophet on facebook. The sword is mightier than the pen in every single instance.


And that was a crime because the majority of the population have been persuaded it should be.

Words not force are the cause.
edit on 2-2-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage




There's a difference between freedom of speech and preaching hate though, and I understand that Countries like China and Turkey want to control every aspect of internet access to their populace, but that's not what is being spoken about here. For example -You're entitled to say you dislike an individual, but generalising and saying a particular race of people should be gassed, is a step too far and should have some sort of consequence.


No there is no difference. Speech is speech, and as soon as it is constrained or suppressed, it is not free. There is no consequence of speech beyond marking paper with ink or creating sound waves. There are, however, consequences to actions, and censorship is an action that has very dire consequences to open societies.


You really can't think of any scenarios where speech should be restricted?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
I read this :

When YouTuber “Count Dankula” uploaded an offensive video of his girlfriend’s pug, Buddha, whom he filmed responding to phrases such as “gas the jews” and “Sieg Heil” while images of Hitler and goose-stepping Nazis appeared on a TV in the background, I bet he never expected the police to come knocking on his door. But, as we’ve come to expect from certain progressive bastions of the free world such as the UK, he was promptly arrested for it.

According to the Count Dankula, the video was a silly joke to annoy his girlfriend,

This is where I stopped. What moron videos the said event to "annoy his girlfriend" and then posts the results on the internet! Only an utter moron OR someone who is trying to be racially offensive in a sideways manner. Idiots or racists would fall for this........hence this topic!

Sorry but this topic has been started by a right wing moron.

ATS is getting fricking worse.


'Ciubt Dankuka' may well be a moron, but being a moron (racist or otherwise) shouldn't be illegal.

From what I know about the case it would seem a stretch to believe his actions were threatening.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
'Ciubt Dankuka' may well be a moron, but being a moron (racist or otherwise) shouldn't be illegal.


It's not. Yet ignorance of the law is no defence. Whether he broke the law by his antics has yet to be concluded by the court as at date the case is still running.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope





Nowadays, I believe that the governments work more on an order of public relations and dogma than consensus. The favourable dogma, just from judging by the terminology used, is that evil words beget evil deeds, which simply isn't the case.



Nobody is claiming it is the case though.

Freedom of the press or the inability for reporters to have the moral fortitude to report what should be reported out of fear of the masses has very little to do with a civilian, a civilian that has produced material that he happened to get a conviction for.

This person had freedom of speech, it was his freedom of speech and expression that landed him in trouble.




the government has become the better protectors of free speech than the people they govern. 


Good. I'm glad my ancestors didn't behead a King for nothing. We don't take a pledge to be a citizen either... It might sound moronic but I owe nothing to my fellow citizens, I'm not a vanguard of their rights.

People can educate themselves, especially in the UK. It's of no consequence to me if people would prefer to waste time making nazi-Pug videos.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
'Ciubt Dankuka' may well be a moron, but being a moron (racist or otherwise) shouldn't be illegal.


It's not. Yet ignorance of the law is no defence. Whether he broke the law by his antics has yet to be concluded by the court as at date the case is still running.


Not so much about ignorance of the law as wether the prosecution should have went forward at all. I think it is stretching the law a lot to say that what he did merits prosecution.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990




This person had freedom of speech, it was his freedom of speech and expression that landed him in trouble.


No, it was the government's anti-free speech laws that landed him in trouble. Elsewhere, where they have free speech (hardly anywhere), and where they do not have the police monitoring social media, that would not have been the case.


People can educate themselves, especially in the UK. It's of no consequence to me if people would prefer to waste time making nazi-Pug videos.


Well I hope people in the UK still have a sense of justice, and step up and speak when injustice comes knocking.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




You really can't think of any scenarios where speech should be restricted?


Restricted through threat of force, imprisonment, loss of employment, ostracism? No. I would prefer the choice be left to personal conduct and morality.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




And that was a crime because the majority of the population have been persuaded it should be.

Words not force are the cause.


A brief look at history will show us that laws can be unjust.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage




Have you not heard of "The pen is mighty than the sword"? Speech is not just words arranged any old way, they have meaning, and power, humans are not robots. With the use of the internet "speech" can spread far and wide. Communication is one of the main reasons why we are the dominant species on the planet, and its how that communication is used on a wide stage.


I have heard of it and it's complete bullocks. Tell that to the man who was recently sentenced to death in Pakistan for insulting the prophet on facebook. The sword is mightier than the pen in every single instance.


Yet this man lost his life because of the words he chose to use, it was the words that cost him his life, how can you not see that?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
why the hell is the delusion that :

" freedom of speech " grants some " protection from consequences "

so prevalant on ATS ?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage




Yet this man lost his life because of the words he chose to use, it was the words that cost him his life, how can you not see that?


How can you see that it was the reaction to the words, and not the words that cost him?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




You really can't think of any scenarios where speech should be restricted?


Restricted through threat of force, imprisonment, loss of employment, ostracism? No. I would prefer the choice be left to personal conduct and morality.


Not everyone had a standard of personal morality. Some times we need rules enforced.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




And that was a crime because the majority of the population have been persuaded it should be.

Words not force are the cause.


A brief look at history will show us that laws can be unjust.


No argument on that. But it's often words that result in those unjust laws.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




why the hell is the delusion that :

" freedom of speech " grants some " protection from consequences "

so prevalant on ATS ?


It's a simple matter of physics. The idea that words has consequences is a matter of superstition.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Not everyone had a standard of personal morality. Some times we need rules enforced.


I'm sure they said the same when laws against slaves and laws against homosexuality were on the books.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




You really can't think of any scenarios where speech should be restricted?


Restricted through threat of force, imprisonment, loss of employment, ostracism? No. I would prefer the choice be left to personal conduct and morality.


I would love to agree with you but sheeple + internet leads to keyboard warriors who have no understanding of consequence and no idea of personal conduct, also a lot of the internet isn't free, it's owned and has laws and codes of conduct. I wouldn't walk in to my place of work and tell my boss that he's a Nazi and not expect to get a warning or sacked because of my conduct, why is the internet different? Complete freedom is a delusion.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




Not everyone had a standard of personal morality. Some times we need rules enforced.


I'm sure they said the same when laws against slaves and laws against homosexuality were on the books.


Slavery is illegal. Some people have no moral objection to slavery.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage



I would love to agree with you but sheeple + internet leads to keyboard warriors who have no understanding of consequence and no idea of personal conduct, also a lot of the internet isn't free, it's owned and has laws and codes of conduct. I wouldn't walk in to my place of work and tell my boss that he's a Nazi and not expect to get a warning or sacked because of my conduct, why is the internet different? Complete freedom is a delusion.


Of course not. Contractual relationships come with certain obligations. Refuse those obligations you can get fired.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ignorant_ape




why the hell is the delusion that :

" freedom of speech " grants some " protection from consequences "

so prevalant on ATS ?


It's a simple matter of physics. The idea that words has consequences is a matter of superstition.


Then you must be a robot or a higher being. Words affect humans which inturn lead to actions.




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join