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.

 

Teen charged over Facebook post on UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan#

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   


Someone can actually be arrested for

saying that?



It sounds like the average post on ATS in war threads. Anyone who agrees that he should be arrested is a menace to all freedom in society.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
UK doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Home of the thought crime against political dissidents.



Really? watch the clip on the link below, they don't even report this in our local news papers, or tv,
www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Petest205
 


the ruling british aristocracy. what a bunch of ponces.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by WarriorOfTheLight
 


Extremist Muslims have nothing to do with what the poster on facebook said. He spoke about the military murdering civilians.

Go find the thread in the ATS vault of USA soldiers throwing a puppy off a cliff. There were people wishing death on them.....should they be arrested too?





edit on 14-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

All soldiers should DIE


This part could maybe be interpreted as incinting unlawful violence.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Like someone said before, if these comments were made about Muslims, everyone would be pulling out the freedom of speech argument, but when it's against soldiers it is a criminal offense and those who made the comments should be deported? Funny how quick people are to remove the freedom of speech, when it's speech they don't like.

I guess the difference between facebook and ATS is that we have moderators to take down the more inflammatory statements. But i have seen much worse posted on here.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Seems the true face of hidden british empire has surfaced again.Pax Britannica does not tolerate dissent and the revolution will not be televised.It will shot down by the mercenaries of Rothschild and the monarchy like how the 1857 revolt was shut down in the most mass genocidal fashion.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


He wasn't inciting anything, he said they SHOULD die. People die all the time from natural and un-natural causes.
And if he thinks they should die then he has every right to believe that. You cannot police thoughts......

I figure they would have made 1984 mandatory reading in school for you all, it was here at least.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

All soldiers should DIE


This part could maybe be interpreted as incinting unlawful violence.


Thats really reaching, I don't think that would fly. He said they should "die" not be killed or beat up etc.
edit on 14-3-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

All soldiers should DIE


This part could maybe be interpreted as incinting unlawful violence.

If they felt they could charge him with that they should of. But they didn't. Why? Because the semantics suggest this statement is a wishful call, not a suggestion for inciting violence or anything imminent

he was charged with


racially aggravated public order offence



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Examples?

For someone from Ohio, you speak with some confidence on something I guarantee you know fudge all about. Also, it's not as if the US is the paragon of freedom, really...



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Examples?

For someone from Ohio, you speak with some confidence on something I guarantee you know fudge all about. Also, it's not as if the US is the paragon of freedom, really...


examples? 7/7. another example? 9/11.
uk and usa - "special" friends.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


I tend to agree that it is a stretch and would not fly. I am just trying to make sense of what could possibly be against the law in that statement.

As for this:


racially aggravated public order offence


Sounds like some made up charge that will surely be dropped, IMHO.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 


WHAT?

I ask for examples of arresting people with dissenting opinion.

You then provide two terrorist attacks as examples...

Hmmm...

Me thinks you're somewhat off target there.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


What don't I know about? Now the state you reside in somehow displays intelligence or knowledge on a subject? I'm sorry for advocating freedom of speech.

And I never said the USA was perfect it really all depends on the state you are in plus our constitution keeps getting trampled on.



edit on 14-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I agree an actually said as much earlier.

Someone made a complaint, as part of the investigation, the person was arrested and interviewed under caution, then released on bail while investigations continue.

No one has been charged.

No one has been convicted.

No one is in jail

The CPS are likely to reject any prosecution on the basis that while the remakr may have been in bad taste, it doesn't actually "incite" anyone to do anything.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


So you think that its a good thing for people to be arrested for posting their disdain of troops on their facebook page?

Do you not see freedom being trampled on? I don't understand how anyone can see this as OK.


It blows my mind.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Petest205
 


you are right.. if you spit at a police officer its assault why not the same of our troops just a thought.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by indisputable
 


If you spit on anyone it is assault.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


I tend to agree that it is a stretch and would not fly. I am just trying to make sense of what could possibly be against the law in that statement.

As for this:


racially aggravated public order offence


Sounds like some made up charge that will surely be dropped, IMHO.


So according to wikipedia he would have to put someone or a group of people in fear of violence or actually commit violence. Its not made up and I dont see him as having committed this crime. If anything the people coming after him should be charged....I doubt anyone is afraid of him.

Racially aggravated public order offence wiki


edit on 14-3-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join