UK Woman Sentenced to Year in Prison for Having al-Qaeda Magazine

And in other news:

"Foreign Secretary William Hague has said the UK has decided to recognize the Al Qaeda, oops, the Syrian opposition coalition."

www.bbc.co.uk...


(I had to... )

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by EvanB

 

No wonder people in the UK are worried about being the targets of terrorism.

From the responses in this thread it appears that most of you deserve to be bombed.

And we think YOU deserve to be bombed for disageeing...

Now do you see how ludicrous you sound?


Muppet

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by EvanB

 

No wonder people in the UK are worried about being the targets of terrorism.

From the responses in this thread it appears that most of you deserve to be bombed.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
I don't think people should be put in prison just for reading a magazine.

You sound like someone who deals with life in very simplistic terms - not everything is black and white.

Someone broke a law. Someone was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to said law-breaking. If you, Alex Jones or anyone else wants to take a speculative slant on that matter because it suits your world ideology better then fine. Just don't start making inflammatory comments because you aren't getting your way.

Click here for more information.

Freedom of speach doesnt exist anymore neither does justice. The UK is fast turning into the Soviet Republic of Britain.

I would noy be suprised if people were soon arrested for having the infowars magazine.

reply to post by TheMindWar


How tediously predictable and intellectually barren that statement is.

The UK has experience of terrorism for decades and is neither a police state nor is it some Soviet mirror. Such statements are fantasy and fly in the face of reality.

You misinterpret what free speech is. Free speech / expression does not give a person the right to deviate beyond what is considered acceptable boundaries. For example, paedophilia material goes beyond the acceptable boundary and is thus is outlawed, as is nasty material promoting the perpetration of terrorism. What’s the problem with that? You can rant and rave in the UK to your heart’s content without hindrance.

Show me a modern developed nation which does not have boundaries of acceptability and thus tempers what can be distributed.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


I can agree with most of your statement.

The comment I made about "deserved to be bombed" was just a joke.

I love how so many people think that "free speech" means they can say or write whatever they want without fear of consequences. It simply means you have a right to say or write whatever you want, but there may still be consequences.

Libel, Slander.

We have it in the UK too. We can write or say whatever we want, but in doing so we accept the consequences of whatever we said or wrote. The only difference is, here, its not called "Free Speech", its called, somewhat more accurately, "The Negative Right to the Freedom of Expression", it basically says, you can express yourself in any manner you wish, providing it does not transcend legal boundaries.

Meaning, we can be sued for libel, slander, et-al.

Exactly the same, in all but name.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by paraphi

 

I can agree with most of your statement.

The comment I made about "deserved to be bombed" was just a joke.

edit on 11-12-2012 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)

Jokes are funny , that wasnt .

reply to post by gambon


You're entitled to your opinion and so am I.

I thought it was funny and I'm not here to amuse you.

I don't really care what you think.

reply to post by MagicWand67


oh thats good , because your childish attempt at humour didnt make me laugh , so you succeeded

If you didnt care , why bother reply...hmmm