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.

 

Freedom Of Speech Disappearing Completely In Britain -- Illegal To Insult Blair

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Many of us are aware of the hate speech laws in the UK, but were you aware it is now illegal to speak out against Tony Blair?

Police arrested a twenty-year-old woman at the Midlands Game Fair over the weekend of September 17th. What was her offence? A T-shirt that said, "Bullocks to Blair".




A tearful Denis was driven to a mobile police unit. “I asked the officers how they could arrest someone for wearing a T-shirt and they told me it was because it would offend a 70-80-year-old woman,” she said.


www.horseandhound.co.uk...

Behold the dangers of hate speech laws. If it could offend someone, it's illegal can, essentially, negate any opinion to be expressed about anything.

"I like chocolate."
"I'm allergic to chocolate, an I am offended that you would make such a comment!"

Remember, the hate speech laws are based on how any one individual takes it. The most innocuous statement could be twisted around in someone's head to mean something completely different, and that would be considered hate speech. Such as the word, niggardly.


[edit on 6-10-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by junglejake]




posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I can see where its a missapplication of hate-speach laws (quite an understatement perhaps) but on the flip side are we to allow all manners of hate and vile drivel from anyone? Its a balancing act we cant win because either extreme is bad and its impossible to find the middle ground. If we allow all manners of hate speach then we have to give a platform to the gay-bashers, racists, mysoginists and even the most dispicable of dispicable child mollesters and rapists. On the other side if we crack down completely on it then the laws get used in such a fashion as illustrated above. I believe this is one of thos slippery-slope kind of situations people love to point out, because were screwed either way we slice the pie...



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
We used to do that here in the US before people started to get fired from their jobs for their personal lives, sued, etc. It allowed us to see who the wingnuts were, who was just so out of touch with reality, etc.

I don't know if you were aware of this (not sure of your location), but there was a guy named David Duke who ran for president of the US many years ago. The guy had charisma. He had the face, he had the hair, and he could draw a crowd. Sadly, in American politics, this is a very important factor in being elected by the masses. The guy could have stood a chance. The media started digging into him. Due to our freedom of speech laws, David Duke was allowed to publicly express his hate, and didn't have any fear of recording it or anything because he couldn't be arrested for saying things. It turns out the guy was a Grand Wizard in the KKK. That ended his political career. If, however, he had not been allowed legally to say the awful things he said, he still would have said them and believed them, only underground out of public scrutiny. Had that not come out, he could have had a chance at the presidency.

Freedom of speech can hurt at times, it will offend, but it also allows people to be seen for who they really are.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
hear hear!

would prefer total fredom of speech, including both the negatives and posatives that come with it, rather than be carted off for giving my opinion. If my opinion offends someone then they can inform me of their opinion and why it is right over mine. and if they dont like it well, the old saying springs to mind, "sticks and stones may brake my bones but names will never harm me".



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Thought police are getting more aggresive with each passing day. If they succeed suppress dissenting opinions, then we shall become just automatons and drones in the grand facade of PC reality.



Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -- Thomas Jefferson



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
i am slowly feeling my collar get tighter and tighter until i cannot speak, i am saying i because i might offend someone writing on their behalf.

Are there still people denying the NWO? policestate?
oops i mentioned the state.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I think it's someone's right to talk about their hatred of me, even if racially, if they want to.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I agree with RedDragon---free speech means total freedom of speech, regardless of our own views. In fact, the views which insult or offend us personally the most are those we should defend most vociferously, because if we don't agree with free speech for or most bitter foes, then we don't agree with it for ourselves. It is funny that Blair, with all his power and might, seems so thin-skinned and afraid of criticism. Bush, as well, it very infantile and spolied-frat-boy-whining when it comes to accepting criticism, or even taking responsibility for mistakes. Fortunately, they haven't tried to pass any measures limiting freedom of speech here in the US, at least not yet---although they can monitor what we read on the internet or what books we check out from the library under the Patriot Act.
Let's face it---freedom of speech is not a right the goverment gives us, or something they allow us to have, any more than they give you the right to breathe or eat. If you have a nose and a mouth, you can breathe. If you have a working mouth and a brain, you can speak. Governments do not grant us freedom of speech! We are born with it! It is, therefore, only a right that they can take away, not on that they can "grant," no matter how they phrase it.
In America, we are taught to be so "grateful" for the fact that we have free speech. That's laughable. I won't thank any government for giving me what I already have. The government does not give us free speech, nature/God/ our creator---whatever term you wish to use---does. So remember, do not be "grateful that the government allwos you to speak freely"---you have that right regardless. But be very vigilant and be prepared to fight tooth and nail if they try to take it away, because government has no right to take from you anything that is not theirs to begin with.
---Ryan



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
can someone define bollocks ? If she was pretty, they should have just made her remove the offending shirt



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
can someone define bollocks ?


Part of the male anatomy. No below that.

But in this sense it's EXACTLY like this item where the same SENTIMENT TOWARD BUSH got a woman kicked off an airplane.

And both these cases are more about public decency than anything given the severity of the words used, (not sentiment expressed).

Not hate laws, not political correctness, not even patriotic correctness here.

People that didn't like that shirt wouldn't like "Bollocks to Bugs Bunny" in public either. It's the public use of that WORD at the fair (around children) that's offensive. Not the political commentary.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Bollocks refers to the nut sack, and can be used to tell someone off, similar to "Screw you", or can mean something is untrue, garbage, or just generally distastefull.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

Oh no the children might be corrupted earlyer then they should be... AHHHH!!!! arrest her! There is a slight diference between arresting someone and asking them to remove the shirt...



[edit on 6-10-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Double standards really if the excuse was that it's a lack of decency having such a word on a T-shirt.
How many people do we see wearing designer T-shirts with the letters "FCUK" platered across the chest. I know, it's the name of a big fashion house but, to be honest, it's a bit near the mark isn't it? Given the way the brain works, it can often be read with the middle two letters rearranged.

Surely that's a more unacceptable word than bollocks?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
A girl I once knew used to like to tell the story of how she was threatened with arrest at DisneyWorld for having pink dyed hair.

She was actually just asked to leave. I don't agree with Disney's reasons, but you can refuse entrance to private property to anyone you wish.

It's only when she got ugly (and I mean really ugly) with park officials and the police that arrest was threatened. And I'm sure she came close.

But not suprisingly that part of the story never reveals itself in the retelling.

But then she likes to do this. She had the same hair on a trip to China and couldn't believe the police refused her entrance to a country. She believed it pretty quick though when she was offered the alternative and dyed her hair black right there in customs.

There's "Freedom of Speech Disappearing Completely" and "NO FREE SPEECH AT ALL" and really the two are so far apart, one is sheer paradise.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Rant raises a good point. Are any of our members who have seen this post (or any y'all could contact) live in the vicinity of the Midlands Game Fair that could check something like a police blotter or something in the area? The entire article is from the woman’s perspective, and gets comments from two other sources that disagree with the police's actions. However, the police are not given the chance to rebut the allegations. So far as I can tell from the article, they didn't refuse to comment, they were never given the option.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols
Released October 28, 1977

The album's release was met by a hail of controversy, and an attempt was made to prosecute a record shop in Manchester for displaying the 'obscene' cover in their window. However the case was overturned when defending QC Sir John Mortimer produced expert witnesses who were able to prove that the word "bollocks" was a legitimate Old English term originally used to refer to a priest, and that in this context it meant 'nonsense'.


Funny how it can be offensive to some and the meaning gets lost over time.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Funny how it can be offensive to some and the meaning gets lost over time.


But many newspapers reporting the album's chart topping single "God Save the Queen" in 1977 still left a blank for "album" (and some I think wouldn't even print the song name).

#1 - Sex Pistols - [blank]

#2 - David Bowie - Heroes

etc.

I'm just saying. People also forget how offensive some things used to be.

And really, it's a disservice to the Sex Pistols to call them anything but revolutionary and OFFENSIVE given their time. That was the ENTIRE point. It was NOT about the music. Give them some credit. It was MEANT to be offensive.


Sorry for the caps, but I'm bbcoded out right now.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I understand your points Rant, but I rather see a little more tolerance towards the youth that felt frustrated and wanted to express her opinion.

Disarm and de-escalate should of been the primary mission of the police, rather than incite and provoke more hate. Thusly they chose to created more of the us against them mentality or as Floyd would say, "another brick in the wall".

I more apt to laugh at "Bollucks to Blair" than anything else....it's all about kids trying to find identify in this nutty world, got to love'm



[edit on 6-10-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
how many people truly take this silly superstition of "bad" words THAT far? so far that they prefer having their kids see a person arrested for displaying the word to the displayig of the word itself?

i feel it was the girl's open dissent that prompted the arrest, as a way to make an example of her. by the way, wasn't tony blair in a proto-punk band called the ugly ducklings and a much more "bollocks"-inclined person in his younger days?

i guess a sporting event is not a "free speech zone"


[edit on 6-10-2005 by victor was right]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
This trend is not just in the UK, btw.

Southwest Airlines boots woman for shirt

Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was asked to leave her flight from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., Tuesday for wearing a T-shirt with pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film title "Meet the Fockers."

The airline felt that the T-shirt was offensive and that other passengers would be outraged by it, the spokeswoman said, adding that the incident is about "decency." CNN



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I f the woman had of had a shirt on ridiculing EX President Clinton and Hillary; She would have been moved to first class and offered a free beverage.

I get shot down, ridiculed and insulted here on ats all the time; I can take it and I can also dish it out. To me it seems like the keyboard konservatives are the ones whining when you turn the tables on them. IMO

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house!

[edit on 8-10-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 8-10-2005 by whaaa]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join