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.

 

4 Arrested in UK Over Alleged Support of NZ Shooting

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Barcs

Oh right so now its bad and oh so wrong to be a Nationalist? Proud of the country you live in? There's a whole lot of difference between supremacist and nationalist. But again here in the Uk its always been fine to be a Welsh Nationalist or a Scottish Nationalist but god forbid you should actually be an English Nationalist!!!


That's not what white nationalism is. It's not just white people proud of the country. It involves directly thinking the white race needs to remain the majority and be at the forefront of everything at all costs. They generally do believe separatism and white supremacy. Neo nazi / KKK are the more extreme of the white nationalists.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 3 21 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Tell that to the Welsh & the Scots...don't think that's what they have in mind when they call themselves Scottish Nationalists



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Barcs

Tell that to the Welsh & the Scots...don't think that's what they have in mind when they call themselves Scottish Nationalists


Can you point me to the SNP policy that specifies the prefered colour of Scots people?



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's plaid and don't even say it isn't. We all know the truth.

edit on 21 3 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's plaid and don't even say it isn't. We all know the truth.


Billy Connolly described the Scottish skin tone to be so pale its blue.

Personally I can get sunburn from an energy saving light bulb.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Huh? Think you misunderstood my post



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: ScepticScot

Huh? Think you misunderstood my post


Just making the point that seems to allude you white nationalism and nationalism are not the same thing.

Barcs has twice now specifically referenced White nationalism. Nothing to do with english/scots/welsh nationalism.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Tartuffe
Censorship incites more violence than free speech does. These latest white nationalist terrorists were not allowed to express their views on social media, or in some cases, in public. They get pushed to the margins of society where their ideas fester, where they gain support, and where the rest of us cannot combat them in the domain of discourse.


You can't call it censorship or free speech if somebody is inciting violence. People should not be allowed to support terror attacks and champion them on social media. The attacks should be condemned. That is far better way to gain support for an ideology. Condemn them and tell people he does not represent what you stand for.



Let me ask, could you be incited to violence by someone supporting terrorism on social media?



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Tell that to the Welsh & the Scots...don't think that's what they have in mind when they call themselves Scottish Nationalists


Equivocation fallacy. I even gave you a link about what white nationalism is. It would be different if I said American Nationalism or patriotism. White nationalists are about loyalty to the white race in regards to running the country and maintaining a racial majority in that country with population and leadership and separation from non whites. They are basically neo-nazis. I'm not talking about white people that are nationalists.


edit on 3 21 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Tartuffe
Censorship incites more violence than free speech does. These latest white nationalist terrorists were not allowed to express their views on social media, or in some cases, in public. They get pushed to the margins of society where their ideas fester, where they gain support, and where the rest of us cannot combat them in the domain of discourse.


You can't call it censorship or free speech if somebody is inciting violence. People should not be allowed to support terror attacks and champion them on social media. The attacks should be condemned. That is far better way to gain support for an ideology. Condemn them and tell people he does not represent what you stand for.



Let me ask, could you be incited to violence by someone supporting terrorism on social media?


Me personally? No, because I am against violence as a solution to social/political problems. But then again, I'm not an insane race extremist. But other people can be influenced by such statements, that's why freedom of speech ends at inciting violence.

Imagine a hard core neo-nazi that hates Muslims and immigrants reading somebody in their community supporting such acts. It adds fuel to the fire and could incite that person to go on his own shooting spree thinking he's doing the world a favor when he's really just insane.

The white nationalist in Christchurch isn't the first one either. Another white nationalist plot from a coast guard guy was foiled near the end of February. These guys are out there, no reason to downplay this.


edit on 3 21 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Tartuffe
Censorship incites more violence than free speech does. These latest white nationalist terrorists were not allowed to express their views on social media, or in some cases, in public. They get pushed to the margins of society where their ideas fester, where they gain support, and where the rest of us cannot combat them in the domain of discourse.


You can't call it censorship or free speech if somebody is inciting violence. People should not be allowed to support terror attacks and champion them on social media. The attacks should be condemned. That is far better way to gain support for an ideology. Condemn them and tell people he does not represent what you stand for.



Let me ask, could you be incited to violence by someone supporting terrorism on social media?


Me personally? No, because I am against violence as a solution to social/political problems. But then again, I'm not an insane race extremist. But other people can be influenced by such statements, that's why freedom of speech ends at inciting violence.

Imagine a hard core neo-nazi that hates Muslims and immigrants reading somebody in their community supporting such acts. It adds fuel to the fire and could incite that person to go on his own shooting spree thinking he's doing the world a favor when he's really just insane.

The white nationalist in Christchurch isn't the first one either. Another white nationalist plot from a coast guard guy was foiled near the end of February. These guys are out there, no reason to downplay this.



I'm not downplaying the white nationalism. What I'm downplaying is the assertion that we must censor something just in case someone is incited to violence by it.

If you're not incited to violence by it, why do you believe others will be?

In the United States, first amendment protections end at "immanent lawless action". Such writings and propaganda of the shooter in NZ, for instance, would be protected under the first amendment.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Join the colonies, take advantage of the First Amendment.


I'm not sure your first amendment covers inciting violence or death on others, in fact I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Do you think it should?



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Steveogold

protection of free speech means we protect even those whose speech is offensive

guess that is not the case in the uk anymore



Why do non UK people and some UK people not understand the actual definition of this - and if you, shooterbrody think that the US is different then you don't know your own laws anywhere near as well as you think you do - that's a surprise isn't it.

To threaten other individuals or groups of the society with violence or worse, or to incite others to do the same brings the risk of arrest and potential prosecution. Anyone who thinks that is a bad thing IMHO is an idiot that frankly has zero respect from me.

At the time of this posting, what was actually said by the individuals is not common knowledge. The OP (who is no stranger to posting multiple anti muslim threads) doesn't know anymore than anyone else. As the arrests have been made to specific individuals one would assume there is more than a possibility that they were of a level were the police suspected there was either threats or incitement to violence or worse.

Best thing to do really would be to wait and see if it comes to court and if what was actually said is disclosed, otherwise it's just the OP moaning that odious people aren't allowed to spew hate and threats of violence and call that a threat to free speech.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Tartuffe
Censorship incites more violence than free speech does. These latest white nationalist terrorists were not allowed to express their views on social media, or in some cases, in public. They get pushed to the margins of society where their ideas fester, where they gain support, and where the rest of us cannot combat them in the domain of discourse.


You can't call it censorship or free speech if somebody is inciting violence. People should not be allowed to support terror attacks and champion them on social media. The attacks should be condemned. That is far better way to gain support for an ideology. Condemn them and tell people he does not represent what you stand for.



Let me ask, could you be incited to violence by someone supporting terrorism on social media?


People are though, not by supporting terrorism but by people openly grooming and inciting them to. Don't bother asking me for 'evidence', I guess when it's when people went to (for example) Syria to join up with ISIS after being it seems indoctrinated by social media it's just passed you by completely?



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope I'm connecting it to, just as he said, Nationalism which appears to be a filthy dirty word this year and will no doubt get me arrested for simply thinking it


No, but if you said white supremacist you should be treated like the scum that would make you. There's a huge difference and you are doing your best to pretend there isn't. What would you define the EDL and the scum who were its members as? Decent normal people proud of their country or racist scum that are depriving this planet of oxygen?



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe
I'm not downplaying the white nationalism. What I'm downplaying is the assertion that we must censor something just in case someone is incited to violence by it.


Again, it's not censorship when inciting violence is not considered free speech in the first place. I know this can vary from country to country, but most western countries do have limits on freedom of speech. This isn't the same as somebody drawing a picture of Mohammed and indirectly causing a riot. It is directly offering verbal support for a terrorist attack that killed dozens. It is basically calling for more of such attacks.


If you're not incited to violence by it, why do you believe others will be?


Because every person is unique. Why would I be so audacious to assume everybody else behaves like I do? I know for a fact many people do not. Insane people exist.


In the United States, first amendment protections end at "immanent lawless action". Such writings and propaganda of the shooter in NZ, for instance, would be protected under the first amendment.


Writings and propaganda are different than advocating for terror attacks to kill groups based on their race or religion. White supremacist can speak all the pro white nonsense they want. But as soon as they call for violence, that ends. There are actually several exceptions to free speech in the US. Offensive speech is not the same as violent speech.




edit on 3 22 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Tartuffe
I'm not downplaying the white nationalism. What I'm downplaying is the assertion that we must censor something just in case someone is incited to violence by it.


Again, it's not censorship when inciting violence is not considered free speech in the first place. I know this can vary from country to country, but most western countries do have limits on freedom of speech. This isn't the same as somebody drawing a picture of Mohammed and indirectly causing a riot. It is directly offering verbal support for a terrorist attack that killed dozens. It is basically calling for more of such attacks.


If you're not incited to violence by it, why do you believe others will be?


Because every person is unique. Why would I be so audacious to assume everybody else behaves like I do? I know for a fact many people do not. Insane people exist.


In the United States, first amendment protections end at "immanent lawless action". Such writings and propaganda of the shooter in NZ, for instance, would be protected under the first amendment.


Writings and propaganda are different than advocating for terror attacks to kill groups based on their race or religion. White supremacist can speak all the pro white nonsense they want. But as soon as they call for violence, that ends. There are actually several exceptions to free speech in the US. Offensive speech is not the same as violent speech.





Excellent points Barcs, I wonder if people will read and take on board.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Again, it's not censorship when inciting violence is not considered free speech in the first place. I know this can vary from country to country, but most western countries do have limits on freedom of speech. This isn't the same as somebody drawing a picture of Mohammed and indirectly causing a riot. It is directly offering verbal support for a terrorist attack that killed dozens. It is basically calling for more of such attacks.


It is censorship by definition. "Verbal support", "calling for more such attacks", is speech, full stop.



Because every person is unique. Why would I be so audacious to assume everybody else behaves like I do? I know for a fact many people do not. Insane people exist.


But you also assume others will be incited to violence by words, and because of this assumption, advocate for censorship, which is to deny the human right of free speech based on an assumption.



Writings and propaganda are different than advocating for terror attacks to kill groups based on their race or religion. White supremacist can speak all the pro white nonsense they want. But as soon as they call for violence, that ends. There are actually several exceptions to free speech in the US. Offensive speech is not the same as violent speech.


They are not different insofar as they are matters of speech.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Tartuffe
Censorship incites more violence than free speech does. These latest white nationalist terrorists were not allowed to express their views on social media, or in some cases, in public. They get pushed to the margins of society where their ideas fester, where they gain support, and where the rest of us cannot combat them in the domain of discourse.


You can't call it censorship or free speech if somebody is inciting violence. People should not be allowed to support terror attacks and champion them on social media. The attacks should be condemned. That is far better way to gain support for an ideology. Condemn them and tell people he does not represent what you stand for.



Let me ask, could you be incited to violence by someone supporting terrorism on social media?


People are though, not by supporting terrorism but by people openly grooming and inciting them to. Don't bother asking me for 'evidence', I guess when it's when people went to (for example) Syria to join up with ISIS after being it seems indoctrinated by social media it's just passed you by completely?


Except you're advocating for the denial of a human right based on an assumptive fear. That seems to me more tyrannical than allowing speech to be free.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: Barcs




Again, it's not censorship when inciting violence is not considered free speech in the first place. I know this can vary from country to country, but most western countries do have limits on freedom of speech. This isn't the same as somebody drawing a picture of Mohammed and indirectly causing a riot. It is directly offering verbal support for a terrorist attack that killed dozens. It is basically calling for more of such attacks.


It is censorship by definition. "Verbal support", "calling for more such attacks", is speech, full stop.



Because every person is unique. Why would I be so audacious to assume everybody else behaves like I do? I know for a fact many people do not. Insane people exist.


But you also assume others will be incited to violence by words, and because of this assumption, advocate for censorship, which is to deny the human right of free speech based on an assumption.



Writings and propaganda are different than advocating for terror attacks to kill groups based on their race or religion. White supremacist can speak all the pro white nonsense they want. But as soon as they call for violence, that ends. There are actually several exceptions to free speech in the US. Offensive speech is not the same as violent speech.


They are not different insofar as they are matters of speech.





May I say, you are very naive. Sometimes it's best to take a step offline and go into the real world. If you were being violently attacked by someone, and another person started gathering up and encouraging other people to continue attacking you, hurting you more, urging them to kill you, that person could/would face criminal charges for incitement - America, UK, Europe and as far as I know, many other western countries would do that, more so if people took up the chance and continued to hurt you until you were dead.

Now, why do you think that should be different online, particularly if you were watching a stream of the crime taking place?




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join