4 Arrested in UK Over Alleged Support of NZ Shooting

originally posted by: Tartuffe

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.

No, you are just naive.

You really ought to step out into the real world sometime soon if you are allowed to do so. Are you really so stupid? You aren't aware of where people have actually joined terrorist groups because of being groomed?

Deny ignorance used to be a motto on here, embracing it seems to be becoming the norm in anything politically based.

originally posted by: uncommitted

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?

That's a naive answer. People used to face criminal charges for homosexuality in the UK. The point is, laws do not teach us what is moral or not.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Tartuffe

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.

No, you are just naive.

You really ought to step out into the real world sometime soon if you are allowed to do so. Are you really so stupid? You aren't aware of where people have actually joined terrorist groups because of being groomed?

Deny ignorance used to be a motto on here, embracing it seems to be becoming the norm in anything politically based.

If you cannot face my arguments and must resort to personal attacks, then perhaps denying ignorance isn't your forte.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Tartuffe

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.

No, you are just naive.

You really ought to step out into the real world sometime soon if you are allowed to do so. Are you really so stupid? You aren't aware of where people have actually joined terrorist groups because of being groomed?

Deny ignorance used to be a motto on here, embracing it seems to be becoming the norm in anything politically based.

If you cannot face my arguments and must resort to personal attacks, then perhaps denying ignorance isn't your forte.

You don't actually have an argument, comparing homosexuality to people inciting violence and death is incredibly weak, frankly it's shockingly pathetic. It shows the logic of a 12 year old who has yet to grasp real world issues.

originally posted by: uncommitted
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?

Saying you support someone isn't 'inciting violence'.

We have Neo Nazis who support Hitler's views, they are free to express their support for him as that isn't the same as inciting violence. We don't have to like those views but they get to have them.

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

It is NOT protected free speech, so that doesn't matter. If you think that violent hate groups should be allowed to publicly advocate killing people based on race, then that is on you. Most western countries do not protect that speech in the first place and for good reasons.

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.

I don't assume anything. People have been motivated and incited to violence by words many many times. Inciting violence is not free speech, it's not a human right.

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

WRONG. Writing a book or a manifesto in your own free time is not the same as publicly advocating and calling for violence. If the person was publishing that book online and it called for violence, and was presented in that context (ie non fiction non satire) then it would be violation of free speech.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Saying you support someone isn't 'inciting violence'.

We have Neo Nazis who support Hitler's views, they are free to express their support for him as that isn't the same as inciting violence. We don't have to like those views but they get to have them.

The huge difference is that Neo Nazis aren't generally publicly calling for people to kill Jewish people, Muslims or African Americans today. Expressing public support and encouragement for a terror attack is not free speech, because that can and does incite more violence. Supporting a dead guy, isn't causing more people to be put in gas chambers unless they publicly use that argument and say it should happen today. It's not protected speech, plain and simple. Offensive speech is allowed, violent speech or encouraging violence is not.

a reply to: Barcs

It is NOT protected free speech, so that doesn't matter. If you think that violent hate groups should be allowed to publicly advocate killing people based on race, then that is on you. Most western countries do not protect that speech in the first place and for good reasons.

If it’s not protected it should be.

But you have appealed to authority, relinquished your own rights, and given someone the power to decide what constitutes incitement or not. You’ve given power to censors because you fear the effect of certain expressions, not unlike those who fear the results of insulting the prophet or denouncing their religion.

If you do not believe in free speech that’s on you.

I don't assume anything. People have been motivated and incited to violence by words many many times. Inciting violence is not free speech, it's not a human right.

And people have not been invited to violence by words, many times, as you yourself admitted. It’s your assumptions and fears that guide you to censorship.

originally posted by: Barcs
The huge difference is that Neo Nazis aren't generally publicly calling for people to kill Jewish people, Muslims or African Americans today. Expressing public support and encouragement for a terror attack is not free speech, because that can and does incite more violence. Supporting a dead guy, isn't causing more people to be put in gas chambers unless they publicly use that argument and say it should happen today. It's not protected speech, plain and simple. Offensive speech is allowed, violent speech or encouraging violence is not.

You can certainly say you wished, for example, all Jews to end up dead in a gas chamber, you just can't encourage people to do it. This is protected free speech.

originally posted by: Tartuffe
If it’s not protected it should be.

But you have appealed to authority, relinquished your own rights, and given someone the power to decide what constitutes incitement or not. You’ve given power to censors because you fear the effect of certain expressions, not unlike those who fear the results of insulting the prophet or denouncing their religion.

If you do not believe in free speech that’s on you.

I don't believe in taking the extremist position in regards to anything, free speech included. Limits make sense. Otherwise you can't have really have laws against sharing underage or bestiality porn, because it's freedom of expression. You are okay with that, then? Otherwise you do not believe in free speech.

I don't assume anything. People have been motivated and incited to violence by words many many times. Inciting violence is not free speech, it's not a human right.

And people have not been invited to violence by words, many times, as you yourself admitted. It’s your assumptions and fears that guide you to censorship.

That is irrelevant. People are, therefor we should not be doing that when possible because it can have a demonstrably harmful effect on society, unlike the inverse.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
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?

Saying you support someone isn't 'inciting violence'.

We have Neo Nazis who support Hitler's views, they are free to express their support for him as that isn't the same as inciting violence. We don't have to like those views but they get to have them.

But you, like me, don't know what the 4 people this thread about did post - support, yes, they are scum and may or may not be questioned. Inciting others to do similar acts as the killer - definite arrest, probably conviction.... your law isn't so different.

originally posted by: uncommitted
But you, like me, don't know what the 4 people this thread about did post - support, yes, they are scum and may or may not be questioned. Inciting others to do similar acts as the killer - definite arrest, probably conviction.... your law isn't so different.

They were arrested for making 'comments' and 'remarks'. I didnt see anything about incitement which is a completely different issue.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
But you, like me, don't know what the 4 people this thread about did post - support, yes, they are scum and may or may not be questioned. Inciting others to do similar acts as the killer - definite arrest, probably conviction.... your law isn't so different.

They were arrested for making 'comments' and 'remarks'. I didnt see anything about incitement which is a completely different issue.

Probably best for us all to wait on this I think, if they were just comments (as bad as they may have been) then it's unlikely there will be a prosecution.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

You can certainly say you wished, for example, all Jews to end up dead in a gas chamber, you just can't encourage people to do it. This is protected free speech.

Not here you couldn't...you'd have the plod on your doorstep before you could switch your computer off. All it takes now is for someone to claim offence and they will investigate you and all your social media posting and ascertain whether you should do jail time for hurting someone's feelings. We don't have protected free speech and to be honest I think in this current climate free speech is now a myth relegated to the annals of history

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

All it takes now is for someone to claim offence and they will investigate you and all your social media posting and ascertain whether you should do jail time for hurting someone's feelings.

Is that true?

Just out of curiosity... What's the specific charge they lay on you over there, once they've established that you've "Hurt someone's feeling"?

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport

Not here you couldn't...you'd have the plod on your doorstep before you could switch your computer off. All it takes now is for someone to claim offence and they will investigate you and all your social media posting and ascertain whether you should do jail time for hurting someone's feelings. We don't have protected free speech and to be honest I think in this current climate free speech is now a myth relegated to the annals of history
.

I said it before, colonial life awaits you.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sadly I have nothing to offer so wouldn't be accepted if I tried! Just a broke retiree....could try an arranged marriage I suppose if anyone's willing?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

All it takes now is for someone to claim offence and they will investigate you and all your social media posting and ascertain whether you should do jail time for hurting someone's feelings.

Is that true?

Just out of curiosity... What's the specific charge they lay on you over there, once they've established that you've "Hurt someone's feeling"?

There isn't such a law, there are defamation, libel and slander laws, the same is in most western countries, with the same measures applied. Incitement to violence is what people are talking about when they refer to someone being prosecuted for hate speech.

a reply to: uncommitted

It's this one:

Wiki: Malicious Comminications Act 1988

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: uncommitted

It's this one:

Wiki: Malicious Comminications Act 1988

That's a fair one, although clearly not built around social media as it predates it, but just having your feelings hurt wouldn't get you very far with that one.