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.

 

Probe into web slurs on Hillsborough disaster and murder of James Bulger

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 


And all actions, even the expressing of thoughts, have consequences. If you choose to openly be a disgusting, gutter-minded creep, you have to take the rough with the smooth. Contrary to the description, free speech does have a price and if you want to say your piece, sometimes the fee can be more than you can afford. As Old Holborn seems to have discovered..

Oh agreed, there will be consequences and I'm pretty sure he'll deserve them but expressing your likes or dislikes, however insulting or offensive shouldn't be a legal/criminal matter.

Truebrit up there says ""worthy of nothing more than being found floating face down in a septic tank, and summarily boiled in acid.""

Now I could report that as hate speech, that is suggesting violence towards others is it not? Where do we draw the line? Do we draw a line? Or does everyone who is upset by anybody ever have the right to call for them to be boiled in acid too?




posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


as the police haven't charged anyone and haven't even assigned officers to the case why are you so sure he's broken laws?

i wish you'd stop claiming to be in favour of free speech and then making a post that states the exact opposite.

you're clearly not in favour of it as evidenced in that post you just made.

saying "I'm in favour of free speech but" means you aren't in favour of it at all.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


No. Saying "I am in favour of free speech but not in favour of outright defamation" makes me aware that one cannot be absolutist about this sort of thing. Also, you may not be aware of this, but just because a matter is not criminal, does not mean that legal proceedings cannot be bought against an individual, as I hope they will be in this case.

I enjoy my right to free speech. I enjoyed it when I raised my voice in protest when Blair was trying to get us to go to war. I enjoyed it when I spoke out at the unreasonably harsh treatment given to those who protested at the Tuition Fee Protests a few years ago. I enjoyed it when I lent my voice to the many here in my home town who tried to prevent a historic bandstand being replaced with some super-modern museum complex, bound to sink due to issues with the water table below the intended site. I appreciate that free speech is a vital tool for the common man, to be able to voice his opinion, even when it runs counter to that of his government, local or national. However, I do not accept that the use of free speech runs to protecting those who outright abuse other people.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


outright abuse like this sort of stuff?




As one who lived the aftermath of the arch cow's methods, I say good riddance to bad garbage. That woman raped my nation, destroyed the power of the majority, and removed hope from entire generations of people in this country. Im sure she will be buried with much fan fare, but there is no doubt that those who toast the Reaper and the Ferryman in celebration tonight, will do so with far more flair, and infinitely more taste, than that evil spawn of Satan is worth. May she rot in pieces, and never know a moments peace.


or is that allowed?



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


If anyone wants to start a civil action against me, based on what I said, then they will have to prove that what I said wasnt true. Good bloody luck with that. I can prove every single word of it, and I can offer entire generations worth of evidence to back my claims. My comments are not born of ignorance, nor of a desire to insult, but of a need to show that there are people who will not have the wool pulled over thier eyes by government as to the morality of the power elite.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by bates
 


If anyone wants to start a civil action against me, based on what I said, then they will have to prove that what I said wasnt true. Good bloody luck with that. I can prove every single word of it, and I can offer entire generations worth of evidence to back my claims. My comments are not born of ignorance, nor of a desire to insult, but of a need to show that there are people who will not have the wool pulled over thier eyes by government as to the morality of the power elite.

A genuine serious question, it's not supposed to be loaded but I guess it is...

You obviously believe what you say and with passion, that is to be respected BUT what of the opinions of those who liked thatcher and her government? What of those who profited and did very well, they deserve a voice too right?

So the question is this, what makes your opinion more right than others that you can dictate who has freedom of speech or not?



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by bates
 

However, I do not accept that the use of free speech runs to protecting those who outright abuse other people.



But you said this though and you've clearly just out right abused someone.

In your own words you don't think people have a right to do that, yet you've done it.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bates
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


outright abuse like this sort of stuff?




As one who lived the aftermath of the arch cow's methods, I say good riddance to bad garbage. That woman raped my nation, destroyed the power of the majority, and removed hope from entire generations of people in this country. Im sure she will be buried with much fan fare, but there is no doubt that those who toast the Reaper and the Ferryman in celebration tonight, will do so with far more flair, and infinitely more taste, than that evil spawn of Satan is worth. May she rot in pieces, and never know a moments peace.


or is that allowed?


What is meant exavtly by "free speech" nowadays, in the UK.

When i left Englands shores for the last time on the 14th of April 1999, you were still free to publicly criticise HM's government, what was on the telly, UK foreign policy, the police and nearly everything else because it was'nt illegal.

Libel is one thing, bad taste is another.

From what i can understand now free speech covers what doesn't upset what were once "racial minorities" and are now "racial majorities" and what doesn't touch the open wounds of joe public on any subject such as Hillsbrough etc etc

If someone says something distasteful, o.k., it's distasteful but doesn't merit a custodial sentance.
If it were libel, o.k. a fine.

If we were to incarcerate everyone who made a comment that someone didn't like, how many celebrities would surely have been, or now be inmates of a HMP near you...

How many of your mates would be locked up for simply saying that - "Joe Bloggs is a tosser"...

It's the begining of an Orwellian nightmare, thought and speech control.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 


It is not a matter of my dictating what is and is not allowed. The law allows for my expression of my politcal veiwpoint, and protects me from prosecution, and indeed civil action on that basis. Old Holborns comments simply do not comprise any political or artistic defense, and because the intent of them is the defamation of an entire region and its people, they are not covered by the same legal protection as my comments about Thatcher.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join