Post something, go to prison.

[N0SYA]

Yep, it's that simple!

"A UK judge has jailed a man for 56 days after he posted offensive comments on twitter about a footballer who had a heart attack during a game. He's also been thrown out of his university degree course weeks from graduating. His comments may have been offensive... but do they really justify a prison sentence and ruining his life?"


http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/27/1547246/uk-man-jailed-for-offensive-tweets?sdsrc=popbyskid

Anyone care to defend this action?

[KB4BLU]

There was a similiar thing that happened in an online game called EVE. One of the leaders of a group called "Goons" was informed by a player that he had thoughts of suicide.

The leader of the goons told people in his org to harass the guy in game so he would commit suicide. He said that during a meeting that was set up by the people who run the game.

They banned him for 30 days. Seems like a slap on the wrist to me.

[2E0WHN]

Anyone care to defend this action?

So you want someone to defend a racist post on Twitter about some guy dying on a soccer field (Who by the way had his heart stopped for 80+ minutes).

Err... No. He deserves it. He knew it and basically began to cry when he knew that dropping soap will be the least of his worries.

[N0WYO]

Yep, it's that simple!

"A UK judge has jailed a man for 56 days after he posted offensive comments on twitter about a footballer who had a heart attack during a game. He's also been thrown out of his university degree course weeks from graduating. His comments may have been offensive... but do they really justify a prison sentence and ruining his life?"


http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/27/1547246/uk-man-jailed-for-offensive-tweets?sdsrc=popbyskid

Anyone care to defend this action?

I think just banning him from Twitter would have been enough.

[AF6LJ]

So you want someone to defend a racist post on Twitter about some guy dying on a soccer field (Who by the way had his heart stopped for 80+ minutes).

Err... No. He deserves it. He knew it and basically began to cry when he knew that dropping soap will be the least of his worries.


Any time you support limiting freedom of speech you limit your own freedom of speech.
I will support to the death anybody who wants to say racist, sexist or even obscenity because it's all about the First Amendment.

If you find such speech offensive that's fine.

If you advocate banning such speech I would tell you here and to your face to grow up.

[N0WYO]

Any time you support limiting freedom of speech you limit your own freedom of speech.
I will support to the death anybody who wants to say racist, sexist or even obscenity because it's all about the First Amendment.

If you find such speech offensive that's fine.

If you advocate banning such speech I would tell you here and to your face to grow up.

There's no first amendment in Great Britain. But we can help show these backwards people that there's a better way.;):p

[KI6USW]

He might be liable for slander if it did the person in question harm.

If he was arrested for discrimination; that is a really a question of UK law (think it took place in the UK anyway).

My freedom to swing my fist wildly in your direction ends when it reaches your nose - so to speak.

Think the judge should have delayed the sentence so that he can finish his studies and taken his exams.

I'm fairly certain that he did his 'time' for that too - and not disregard this individual's efforts and achievements!

[2E0WHN]

Any time you support limiting freedom of speech you limit your own freedom of speech.
I will support to the death anybody who wants to say racist, sexist or even obscenity because it's all about the First Amendment.

If you find such speech offensive that's fine.

If you advocate banning such speech I would tell you here and to your face to grow up.

Under European court we do have the right of speech. But we do have a law that states anything that promotes racial hatred is a criminal act. It comes under the Human Rights act of 1999. Anyone causing any racial, Xenophobic or homophobic tensions (like your post) can be seen as racial hatred.

BTW, since when did the USA worry about it's first amendment when it blatantly walked over it's sixth last year? Pot and kettle?

[2E0WHN]

If he was arrested for discrimination; that is a really a question of UK law (think it took place in the UK anyway).


He posted from Wales which still comes under English and UK laws.

[W9OE]

Well if you read the article it's NOT that simple. First it was a racist comment! Second, as stated in the article they have laws in the UK against making racist comments in any type of social media, which he violated. Third, he gets caught lying to the court about his account being hacked. Then the only defense he could come up with was that he was drunk when he made the posts.

Now please explain why you think anyone should defend his actions?

[N0WYO]

Under European court we do have the right of speech. But we do have a law that states anything that promotes racial hatred is a criminal act. It comes under the Human Rights act of 1999. Anyone causing any racial, Xenophobic or homophobic tensions (like your post) can be seen as racial hatred.

BTW, since when did the USA worry about it's first amendment when it blatantly walked over it's sixth last year? Pot and kettle?

So telling someone to 'grow up', 'get a life', or 'get bent' is a felony in GB?

Kettle and pot...

[AF6LJ]

Under European court we do have the right of speech. But we do have a law that states anything that promotes racial hatred is a criminal act. It comes under the Human Rights act of 1999. Anyone causing any racial, Xenophobic or homophobic tensions (like your post) can be seen as racial hatred.

BTW, since when did the USA worry about it's first amendment when it blatantly walked over it's sixth last year? Pot and kettle?

Well then you don't have Free Speech do you?
I'll even bet there is a clause buried that allows the EU to selectively enforce that so called right.

Have you ever read the so called UN Constitution, the last paragraph is a clause that allows the selective enforcement of those so called rights.

You can bet the Eu right of free speech is not as straight forward as this;

"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't get any better than this.

[AF6LJ]

Well if you read the article it's NOT that simple. First it was a racist comment! Second, as stated in the article they have laws in the UK against making racist comments in any type of social media, which he violated. Third, he gets caught lying to the court about his account being hacked. Then the only defense he could come up with was that he was drunk when he made the posts.

Now please explain why you think anyone should defend his actions?

I guess that is way I wouldn't live in the UK.
I believe in freedom of speech even if it's something I don't want to hear or don't like.

[G4ALA]

Last word?

G4ALA

[KC9IUX]

Well if you read the article it's NOT that simple. First it was a racist comment! Second, as stated in the article they have laws in the UK against making racist comments in any type of social media, which he violated. Third, he gets caught lying to the court about his account being hacked. Then the only defense he could come up with was that he was drunk when he made the posts.

Now please explain why you think anyone should defend his actions?\

What is being defended is freedom of speech.

Educate yourself and answer your own question.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about-the-first-amendment

[WF7A]

Well if you read the article it's NOT that simple. First it was a racist comment! Second, as stated in the article they have laws in the UK against making racist comments in any type of social media, which he violated. Third, he gets caught lying to the court about his account being hacked. Then the only defense he could come up with was that he was drunk when he made the posts.

Now please explain why you think anyone should defend his actions?

I agree with you completely, but...

We've all said stupid, insensitive things at one time or another--on and off-line--but to go to prison over it? That's a little over the top...at least here in the States, anyway; elsewhere, as in GB, you get punished for it whereas here we don't. Their laws, their punishment.

Yet another reason why I'm proud to be an American on American soil--I have the right to be an idiot, jerk, and/or asshat publicly and in private. *tongue-in-cheek*

[2E0WHN]

So telling someone to 'grow up', 'get a life', or 'get bent' is a felony in GB?

Kettle and pot...

Yes it is. Racial hatred is what you would class as a felony. In fact it is put there to stop people from fighting each other. If you wish you can walk with with me through town and say anything to anyone. Just do not be surprised when you get torn to shreds and the police have to step in and arrest you for incitement.


Well then you don't have Free Speech do you?
I'll even bet there is a clause buried that allows the EU to selectively enforce that so called right.

Have you ever read the so called UN Constitution, the last paragraph is a clause that allows the selective enforcement of those so called rights.

You can bet the Eu right of free speech is not as straight forward as this;

"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't get any better than this.

Under Racial and Hatred act 2006 it is unlawful in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. Exactly what you posted. It also includes the law in regards to anti terrorism. Se effectively he could be classed as a terrorist.

Section 29 of the amended Public Order Act 1986 and 29B (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offense if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

If you wish to read about UK censorship you can find it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

[2E0WHN]

I have the right to be an idiot, jerk, and/or asshat publicly and in private. *tongue-in-cheek*

I agree (not with being a asshat though). Everyone has the right. That is why the UN has laws so we can be. But local laws are local laws. And that is where our differences part.

[KC9IUX]

Enjoy your thought crimes laws.

Control language, control thought.

[2E0WHN]

Tough crime? You have a prisoner in a California jail for murder. 500 years. Charles Manson can not get let out. Here if he is lucky, 25 years per murder. Where is the tough crime laws?

[G0GQK]

Considering that the US still has the death penalty, and imprisons murderers on death row for years and years, and most Americans have little tolerance of crime, I think the comment about this bloke is misjudged. I agree the sentence of 56 days in the pokey was harsh, his sentence ought to have been 100 hours communal service. He has been removed from his university course so that's his possibility of a job knackered.

There have been so many cases in the newspapers of stupid people writing malicious remarks about their bosses, place of employment etc and sending dubious photo's that only someone with a head full of sawdust would write the crap which appears daily on these two latest social inventions for loonies. The player was black, his heart stopped functioning for two hours and had this been 50 years ago he would now be dead. The skill of surgeons and equipment brought him back to life, lets hope he fully recovers.

[M6CBJ]

I will support to the death anybody who wants to say racist, sexist or even obscenity because it's all about the First Amendment.



Are you saying you would defend people who might march calling for the murder of the citizens of the great satan (USA) ?

[AF6LJ]

Are you saying you would defend people who might march calling for the murder of the citizens of the great satan (USA) ?

That is their right.

I know that is foreign to you guys where free speech is at the pleasure of the queen.
But I wouldn't have it any other way.

[M6CBJ]

That is their right.

I know that is foreign to you guys where free speech is at the pleasure of the queen.
But I wouldn't have it any other way.

But would you defend that right was the question ?

The Queen is an irrelevance to free speech.

[AF6LJ]

Considering that the US still has the death penalty, and imprisons murderers on death row for years and years, and most Americans have little tolerance of crime, I think the comment about this bloke is misjudged. I agree the sentence of 56 days in the pokey was harsh, his sentence ought to have been 100 hours communal service. He has been removed from his university course so that's his possibility of a job knackered.

He should be able to say what he did and suffer nothing more than a scolding from his peers.



There have been so many cases in the newspapers of stupid people writing malicious remarks about their bosses, place of employment etc and sending dubious photo's that only someone with a head full of sawdust would write the crap which appears daily on these two latest social inventions for loonies. The player was black, his heart stopped functioning for two hours and had this been 50 years ago he would now be dead. The skill of surgeons and equipment brought him back to life, lets hope he fully recovers.

The rantings of someone who does not live in a free country.
Oh Well...........
We all can't be Americans.

[KI6USW]

Tough crime? You have a prisoner in a California jail for murder. 500 years. Charles Manson can not get let out. Here if he is lucky, 25 years per murder. Where is the tough crime laws?
Old Charlie Manson got put away for CONSPIRACY to commit murder. He never did the crime; but he planned and supplied those who actually did it. In this country, conspiracy alone draw the severest penalty when combined with murder (or any other felony for that matter). The tough part about a conspiracy charge, is proving it. In Manson's case, it was a slam dunk conviction for conspiracy . . .

[2E0WHN]

That is their right.

I know that is foreign to you guys where free speech is at the pleasure of the queen.
But I wouldn't have it any other way.

The Queen has nothing to do with how we speak. As a figurehead yes. But if you want to go down America is great then can France have that statue in New York back and that stone needle in Washington as well? Oh and give us back our computer we gave to the CIA after WWII that helped you develop listening in on counter intelligence during the cold war.

And also get rid of your 5,000 WMD nukes you so like to keep.

[AF6LJ]

But would you defend that right was the question ?

The Queen is an irrelevance to free speech.

I already made it clear I defended his right to free speech.

Isn't that enough?

[KC9IUX]

But would you defend that right was the question ?

The Queen is an irrelevance to free speech.

Then why was God Save the Queen banned in 1977?

[KC9IUX]

The Queen has nothing to do with how we speak. As a figurehead yes. But if you want to go down America is great then can France have that statue in New York back and that stone needle in Washington as well? Oh and give us back our computer we gave to the CIA after WWII that helped you develop listening in on counter intelligence during the cold war.

And also get rid of your 5,000 WMD nukes you so like to keep.

Good thing crying isn't banned there, lol.

[AF6LJ]

The Queen has nothing to do with how we speak. As a figurehead yes. But if you want to go down America is great then can France have that statue in New York back and that stone needle in Washington as well? Oh and give us back our computer we gave to the CIA after WWII that helped you develop listening in on counter intelligence during the cold war.

And also get rid of your 5,000 WMD nukes you so like to keep.

The queen has everything to do with it.
Your whole country is based on a monarchy.
In the end she decides if parliament's actions are appropriate.

You remember she suspended a couple members of Canadian parliament and one in Australia all in the last fifty years.

[2E0WHN]

Then why was God Save the Queen banned in 1977?

It wasn't. It was held off the top of the charts as punk was deemed socially unacceptable. But the chart did show a blank space.

[AF6LJ]

Then why was God Save the Queen banned in 1977?

You know you are not suppose to ask those questions....
They would have to admit they don't have free speech.

[AF6LJ]

It wasn't. It was held off the top of the charts as punk was deemed socially unacceptable. But the chart did show a blank space.

And that is not banning?
Then what is it???????????


Face it;
You only wish y'all had a Constitution like ours that people would die for to defend.
including me.

[2E0WHN]

The queen has everything to do with it.
Your whole country is based on a monarchy.
In the end she decides if parliament's actions are appropriate.

You remember she suspended a couple members of Canadian parliament and one in Australia all in the last fifty years.

That she did. Commonwealth is one thing: UK governing is not her remit. All she can do is dissolve the parliament if the leader of the party decides on an election for the UK. Laws has to be passed by her but it has to go through process. We are glad that saying "we hate the Queen" was no longer a arrestable offense today as it was 30 years ago.

[KC9IUX]

Take the statue, the needle in DC, hell, take DC. Please.

[2E0WHN]

And that is not banning?
Then what is it???????????


Face it;
You only wish y'all had a Constitution like ours that people would die for to defend.
including me.

Then why are you not serving like what I have done. Either get off your ass and serve or shut up being a keyboard warrior and go and fight for your "country that you hold dear". Lets see if you really do come home in a cardboard box.

And yes I did serve in the end of the cold war era. My Battalion was part of the NATO forces. If the then USSR had decided to move I was front line. You? Shouting QRZ I think.

[G4ALA]

Sue seems quite wound up this evening!

Calme! And this, too, shall pass.

G4ALA

[M6CBJ]

That is their right.




I already made it clear I defended his right to free speech.

Isn't that enough?

No because you moved the goalposts slightly.
We went from a strong "defend the right to the death" to a weak "that is their right."

Would you care to clarify, will you defend the rights of the anti-usa flag burners to the death.

What has the Queen got to do with free speech by the way?

[AF6LJ]

That she did. Commonwealth is one thing: UK governing is not her remit. All she can do is dissolve the parliament if the leader of the party decides on an election for the UK. Laws has to be passed by her but it has to go through process. We are glad that saying "we hate the Queen" was no longer a arrestable offense today as it was 30 years ago.

I've said a lot worse about your monarch maybe they should try and come get me.
They had better have some means of preventing contraction of lead poisoning.

We could always say "I hate the President" (and I do) from the day this country was founded to the present.

You still have to ask yourself "Do you live in a country that was founded on freedom?"
I think not............
The UK is by and for the ruling class.
You could change that if you wanted to.

[KC9IUX]

Then why are you not serving like what I have done. Either get off your ass and serve or shut up being a keyboard warrior and go and fight for your "country that you hold dear". Lets see if you really do come home in a cardboard box.

And yes I did serve in the end of the cold war era. My Battalion was part of the NATO forces. If the then USSR had decided to move I was front line. You? Shouting QRZ I think.

Thanks for protecting the world, Rambo!!!!!:p

That makes your opinion more important than others!

[AF6LJ]

Would you care to clarify, will you defend the rights of the anti-usa flag burners to the death.

What has the Queen got to do with free speech by the way?

Watch my lips;

You are damned right I would.
As a matter of fact I reserve the right to burn the UN and the British flag on the FOURTH OF JULY.

[G4ALA]

Tut Tut!

G4ALA

[KC9IUX]

90171-90171???















................

[AF6LJ]

Tut Tut!

G4ALA


I understand...........
Freedom;
Such an alien concept.

Keep in mind I believe in what our flag stands for.
What our Constitution says and the right of every person who is a US citizen to be a king or queen in his or her own right.


Which is why I..........

Nevermind.

A thousend years of living under the British system, you would never understand.

[M6CBJ]

The queen has everything to do with it.
Your whole country is based on a monarchy.
In the end she decides if parliament's actions are appropriate.

You remember she suspended a couple members of Canadian parliament and one in Australia all in the last fifty years.

In fact the Queen can compel the gov by law (Royal Prerogative) as you say.
What you are probably not aware is that the Lord Chancellor (I'm sure it's him) can strike her order out.

We have a Constitutional Monarchy is the point, ie a Ceremonial Monarchy
So the Queen has nothing to do with free speech.

[M6CBJ]

Watch my lips;

You are damned right I would.
As a matter of fact I reserve the right to burn the UN and the British flag on the FOURTH OF JULY.



No wonder your country is so full of hate and bile.
No protection for the weak is the way it looks.

[AF6LJ]

In fact the Queen can compel the gov by law (Royal Prerogative) as you say.
What you are probably not aware is that the Lord Chancellor (I'm sure it's him) can strike her order out.

We have a Constitutional Monarchy is the point, ie a Ceremonial Monarchy
So the Queen has nothing to do with free speech.

I won't argue the point her actions speak for themselves.

[G4ALA]

Sue,

Have you ever heard of a popular British sport called a "Wind Up"?

In it you "get someone started" on a subject where their views are firm, keep contradicting them, and watch them explode.

Do you think you may be a victim of a wind up?

Just a thought.

Peace and love

John G4ALA

[M6CBJ]

........You still have to ask yourself "Do you live in a country that was founded on freedom?"
I think not............
The UK is by and for the ruling class.
You could change that if you wanted to.

I wish we would, but I have to say that the US isn't really any different.

[M6CBJ]

I won't argue the point her actions speak for themselves.

We'll I tried to illuminate your mistake and point you in the right direction. :)

[M6CBJ]

Then why was God Save the Queen banned in 1977?

It was banned by one radio station. (BBC)

[N0WYO]

Are you saying you would defend people who might march calling for the murder of the citizens of the great satan (USA) ?

We have Nazi and skinhead (same thing) demonstrations in city streets all the time. There are people who don't like it, but then, nobody asked them out where the demonstrations are taking place. When no one listens, these people tend to go away.

There was a journalist in Chicago a while back IIRCC who said, "just as important as your freedom of speech is your freedom not to listen."

[N0WYO]

The Queen has nothing to do with how we speak. As a figurehead yes. But if you want to go down America is great then can France have that statue in New York back and that stone needle in Washington as well? Oh and give us back our computer we gave to the CIA after WWII that helped you develop listening in on counter intelligence during the cold war.

And also get rid of your 5,000 WMD nukes you so like to keep.

If you surrender your government and it's territories to the Germans...

[N0WYO]

Sue,

Have you ever heard of a popular British sport called a "Wind Up"?

In it you "get someone started" on a subject where their views are firm, keep contradicting them, and watch them explode.

Do you think you may be a victim of a wind up?

Just a thought.

Peace and love

John G4ALA



That's so....CHEEKY!!!;)

[KD8DEY]

Me, Bubba, YOU JANE!! :)

[M6CBJ]

We have Nazi and skinhead (same thing) demonstrations in city streets all the time. There are people who don't like it, but then, nobody asked them out where the demonstrations are taking place. When no one listens, these people tend to go away.

There was a journalist in Chicago a while back IIRCC who said, "just as important as your freedom of speech is your freedom not to listen."

I think there aught to be freedom of speech but I also think that a line aught to be drawn.

I think for example I should be able to say "I hate this group of people" but should I be allowed to add "come with me and lets kill them in their beds"

Difficult question really

[NY3V]

Any time you support limiting freedom of speech you limit your own freedom of speech.
I will support to the death anybody who wants to say racist, sexist or even obscenity because it's all about the First Amendment.

If you find such speech offensive that's fine.

If you advocate banning such speech I would tell you here and to your face to grow up.

The problem in the USA is that the more money you can spend funding 'Think Tanks', PACs, Newspapers, Magazines, Books, Forums, Bloggers, Speeches, Cable & Radio Programs, etc., the much More 'free speech' you have as an individual than others have.

Should Might still make it Right?

[N0WYO]

I think there aught to be freedom of speech but I also think that a line aught to be drawn.

I think for example I should be able to say "I hate this group of people" but should I be allowed to add "come with me and lets kill them in their beds"

Difficult question really

Admittedly, you would probably get questioned for a while for making that last remark. But doing time in the pokey? Not if the intent was established that you said what you said without the intent to carry the act out.

It is difficult. But as citizens of our respective nations, we need to be constantly vigilant when the government steps in and says, "You can't do that any more. it's a crime." We all have a lot to lose and very little to gain if we trade freedom of speech for security.

[WF7A]

Scratch that--N0WYO beat me to it.

[M6CBJ]

Admittedly, you would probably get questioned for a while for making that last remark. But doing time in the pokey? Not if the intent was established that you said what you said without the intent to carry the act out.

It is difficult. But as citizens of our respective nations, we need to be constantly vigilant when the government steps in and says, "You can't do that any more. it's a crime." We all have a lot to lose and very little to gain if we trade freedom of speech for security.

If by "time in pokey" you are referring to the chap here that got the 56 days I agree it was overkill. He was certainly a nasty person but jail ?? It's just politics in my opinion, he was made an example of.

Agreed that we need to watch our respective governments.

[AF6LJ]

The problem in the USA is that the more money you can spend funding 'Think Tanks', PACs, Newspapers, Magazines, Books, Forums, Bloggers, Speeches, Cable & Radio Programs, etc., the much More 'free speech' you have as an individual than others have.

Should Might still make it Right?

There is a certain amour of that is true.
If you own your own newspaper you have more freedom to speak your mind as long as your advertisers go along with it. If you own a news network you have to kiss a certain amount of Butt or you won't get invited to the next news conference a the capitol.

Now unless you have been asleep for the last four decades you know this is how things work.
This is why the alternative media is gaining an ever growing listener / viewer / readership.
The American people know they are being lied to and the establishment media serves the government. When was the last time you saw flag draped coffins in the news, or heard the kind of news reports that we all heard when were were killing women and children in Viet Nam?

Rush knows his career needs to come to an end, if he is going to cash out and retire someplace where the pending economic crash won't effect him much. Look at how got himself in all that trouble over speaking his mind. He did a Howard Stern and a few people got upset.
Even though Rush says he is an "Entertainer" he is a media outlet unto himself, even he has to toe the line when it comes to keeping some things out of the public eye.

You and I have the greatest freedom of speech of all.
We can say what we wish, we can use whatever racial or sexual pejorative we wish to describe anyone we wish. We won't have our advertisers get upset, we won't be barred from any capitol news conveyances (anymore than we are now), when a cop drives by we cay yell PHG at the top of our lungs. We can walk into our city government and demand they account for the money they have spent. We can lie and bait all we want.
We can even say line up all the politicians and shoot them, and charge their families for the bullets. We can preach the gospel in the streets, we can even stand on the corner and call people names and point at them.

Just remember those in the media have less freedom to speak than we do.

[W9OE]

\

What is being defended is freedom of speech.

Educate yourself and answer your own question.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about-the-first-amendment


Hello Chris, it has been a while.

I do understand your stance on and the defense of free speech.

I also consider myself well educated. Thank you.

However this occurred in the UK and is in the UK courts. So, an educated guess tells me that the First Amendment does not apply!

[WA6TKD]

And of course in the U.S. there is no freedom of speech to cry fire in a crowded theater, a court used that as an example on a possible limit of our freedom of speech, so it's not as absolute a right as some here might have implied. I suspect there are times when ones freedom of speech could result in being arrested and charged for incitement to riot or some such charge. But make no mistake that the burden is on the government to prove any such a limitation can stand up to Constitutional review.

But that all aside I will go out on the limb and say the British are much better at arguments then we ex-colonials are. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[W9OE]

Good, this thing is starting to cool off. I will phone the Queen and Washington and tell them to stand down. For a minute there I thought I may have to start building a shelter in the back yard. :D

[N0WYO]

Good, this thing is starting to cool off. I will phone the Queen and Washington and tell them to stand down. For a minute there I thought I may have to start building a shelter in the back yard. :D

No wars will be fought between great nations this day.;)

Again, I think the guy got off rather harshly. I do think he should have been banned from Twitter, and the university could have opted to reject his academic credits for the year, and possibly some time in a racial sensitivity environment (at his expense). I think time in prison will only harden this man into rejecting his part in this whole story, if not a rejection of the rule of law itself.

Eliminating race hatred starts with mutual understanding and respect. Mutual understanding and respect starts with respect for yourself.

[KC9IUX]

Hello Chris, it has been a while.

I do understand your stance on and the defense of free speech.

I also consider myself well educated. Thank you.

However this occurred in the UK and is in the UK courts. So, an educated guess tells me that the First Amendment does not apply!


I know where it is, I was just answering your question by pointing to a resource that might help. No matter the country, the concept of liberty is constant.

Just because rights are not recognized someplace does not mean they don't exist.

[K5FH]

Just remember those in the media have less freedom to speak than we do.

Absolutely.

"The media are controlled, controlled, controlled. Everyone [in the media] knows what you can't say and about whom you can't say it." - Fred Reed

IB4TL.

[WA6TKD]

I know where it is, I was just answering your question by pointing to a resource that might help. No matter the country, the concept of liberty is constant.

Just because rights are not recognized someplace does not mean they don't exist.

Not sure if that statement is insiteful or not, or maybe rather meaningless without putting into some context.

Here in the U.S. we have some states with right to work laws, and some that don't. I tend to think of my rights as those defined in the U.S. Constitution. But then again I know I have some 'rights' and 'protections' as defined and passed by my State government, which may be quite different then other states.

So I would tend to say a 'right' is only a right in context of the rule of law one lives under. I know there is a strong current of people wanting to believe there are some kind of world wide 'human rights', but without a sovereign rule of law to enforce and protect such 'rights', I would question that use of the word.

[KC9IUX]

Not sure if that statement is insiteful or not, or maybe rather meaningless without putting into some context.

Here in the U.S. we have some states with right to work laws, and some that don't. I tend to think of my rights as those defined in the U.S. Constitution. But then again I know I have some 'rights' and 'protections' as defined and passed by my State government, which may be quite different then other states.

So I would tend to say a 'right' is only a right in context of the rule of law one lives under. I know there is a strong current of people wanting to believe there are some kind of world wide 'human rights', but without a sovereign rule of law to enforce and protect such 'rights', I would question that use of the word.


So women in Saudi Arabia have no rights, or their rights are violated?

Jews in 1942 Germany?

Black people in 1839 Alabama?

[WA6TKD]

So women in Saudi Arabia have no rights, or their rights are violated?

Jews in 1942 Germany?

Black people in 1839 Alabama?

I would be of the opinion that they have no such rights under the government they live in. If they did have such rights and it was then abused or ignored, then their rights would be violated. Don't you see the difference? Governments and their laws are what define and make real any 'rights'. They don't exist in any practical matter outside the authority of a specific sovereign government. Or do you site a higher authority that defines, protects, and enforces such rights?

[KC9IUX]

I would be of the opinion that they have no such rights under the government they live in. If they did have such rights and it was then abused or ignored, then their rights would be violated. Don't you see the difference? Governments and their laws are what define and make real any 'rights'. They don't exist in any practical matter outside the authority of a specific sovereign government. Or do you site a higher authority that defines, protects, and enforces such rights?


Then there are NO rights, only privileges. What ever government wants to do, it'll do and it is always right.

Yes I do cite a higher authority. The Creator, or for atheists, natural rights. That creator gal/guy is mentioned in The Declaration of Independence.....


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


What an idea, born free and maybe keep that liberty.

I want it for all.

[WA6TKD]

Then there are NO rights, only privileges. What ever government wants to do, it'll do and it is always right.

Yes, that is the world we live in. The hope is that eventually all governments will reflect the desires, needs, and will of the citizens they serve. The world is not there yet, however I believe that the number of democratic governments is higher then at any other time in history, so progress is continuing, I'm not a pessimist in this matter, but I do appreciate that human evolution, like natural evolution, is on a time scale that can be disappointing for any one specific persons lifespan. Maybe in say 10,000 years there might be but one sovereign world government that defines and enforces a single set of rights on all the worlds citizens, and their population will look back in history at our present nation states not unlike we look back upon tribal states as interesting but so primitive.

Yes I do cite a higher authority. The Creator, or for atheists, natural rights. That creator gal/guy is mentioned in The Declaration of Independence.....

Well as a atheist I guess (by agreement more then by membership) I would ask what are those natural rights specifically? Does natural rights allow us to feed off of other life forms? I'm not sure there is a well defined set of natural rights written down anywhere where we can look for common agreement or disagreements.

Things like property rights are very important from a practical and personal point of view, but I would not expect to find much wisdom in nature to guide us in such definitions. And for the religious wanting to site a creator source for a such a set of rights, then first we would have to agree which religion to use in citing for that authority to create such a list of rights, which of course as history has taught us, is impossible.



What an idea, born free and maybe keep that liberty.

I want it for all.

I'm not much into slogans, as they tend to lead to lazy thinking. I do believe in personal freedom and liberty, but understand that with those come limitations, sacrifices, and personal responsibility. While I'm thankful to have had the luck to be born in the U.S. But I don't think we have a monopoly on good government that serves it's citizens as it should, there are other good examples in the world that their people can be equally proud of. I also know that one can't export democracy to a country, it has to be learned, earned, and implemented from within a given people.

[KC9IUX]

I'm not much into slogans, as they tend to lead to lazy thinking.

I agree. One must learn what ones rights are, if you don't how can you exercise or define them? History is the best teacher of the failures and triumphs of the human condition and an accurate predictor of of such. Without at least some understanding of how we got here it is meaningless slogans and groupthink.

I do believe in personal freedom and liberty, but understand that with those come limitations, sacrifices, and personal responsibility.

I agree again.

While I'm thankful to have had the luck to be born in the U.S. But I don't think we have a monopoly on good government that serves it's citizens as it should, there are other good examples in the world that their people can be equally proud of.

I also know that one can't export democracy to a country, it has to be learned, earned, and implemented from within a given people.

I wish the warmongers could understand that. The typical reaction to force is to resist. We should get our act together so we can be an example to the world, something to strive for than to fear.



I think I understand your posts on rights, you see it more as a practical matter while I see it as a philosophy.

[KC9IUX]

Well as a atheist I guess (by agreement more then by membership) I would ask what are those natural rights specifically? Does natural rights allow us to feed off of other life forms? I'm not sure there is a well defined set of natural rights written down anywhere where we can look for common agreement or disagreements.

I hope there is no membership for atheists, who wants to pay dues?;)

I consider natural rights to be those that no other person has to give you anything to exercise.

I can say things, nobody has to print them or listen.

I can fight back when attacked. Any animal can do that with no piece of paper. Initiation of force on another person is wrong.

I can trade with my fellow human as long as we agree on the terms.

As far as other life forms go, yes we can feed off of them. To do otherwise is to deprive ones self of life. We do have a responsibility to do it in an ethical manner.

A complete list would be too long, I'm sure you understand my point.

[WA6TKD]

I hope there is no membership for atheists, who wants to pay dues?;)

Well I might consider it if they would form an active political party. I think the worst thing about our present government is that it's been hijacked by our two political parties (the Ds and the Rs) that while claiming each to be the sworn enemy, work as the closest allies to keep any other party from gaining a voice. Winner take all in state electoral votes rather then being proportionally assigned (as but just one or two states allow I believe) keeps both our present two parties with a stronghold hold on both the people and the government. It's not as the framers desired and there is a reason that there is not a single word about political parties in our Constitution, the founders had a sincere mistrust of them.

I consider natural rights to be those that no other person has to give you anything to exercise.

OK, not sure that would cover all possible natural rights, but maybe it does if one squints and holds their face just right.

I can say things, nobody has to print them or listen.

Well one should listen first to others speech before placing judgement on that speech to ignore or QSO. Holding one's hands to cover their ears and just repeating la la la isn't a person that really respects the freedom of speech as a right, just their own speech. Exchanging ideas is one way a person can learn and grow, except for those that consider they learned it all and allow no external ideas to change their present beliefs.

I can fight back when attacked. Any animal can do that with no piece of paper. Initiation of force on another person is wrong.

While not a religious person, I've always thought the old 'golden rule' treat others as you would have them treat you, is about as simple a way to cover my thoughts on 'rights'.

I can trade with my fellow human as long as we agree on the terms.

Assuming there is a rule of law that helps enforce contracts, controls common currencies, allows for free competition and so many other rights and rules to make trade a fair and viable system of exchange of goods and services. We couldn't have a society as we do today based just on barter and handshakes, those times are long gone and cannot support the bandwidth.

As far as other life forms go, yes we can feed off of them. To do otherwise is to deprive ones self of life. We do have a responsibility to do it in an ethical manner.

Ah ethical, there is another great subjective word. We all know what it means, except when we start to get specific about it or allow someone else to define it for us.

A complete list would be too long, I'm sure you understand my point.

Yes I do, and I have enjoyed the interchange of ideas and thoughts, even though we probably haven't solved anything for anyone.



I am very interested to find out how the Supreme Court rules on the new health care law. While swamped in political rhetoric from both sides it does have a direct bearing on individual freedom. As one justice said in oral arguments (Kennedy?) it seemed to him that the law tries and define a new relationship between a citizen and his government.

[KC9IUX]

Well I might consider it if they would form an active political party. I think the worst thing about our present government is that it's been hijacked by our two political parties (the Ds and the Rs) that while claiming each to be the sworn enemy, work as the closest allies to keep any other party from gaining a voice. Winner take all in state electoral votes rather then being proportionally assigned (as but just one or two states allow I believe) keeps both our present two parties with a stronghold hold on both the people and the government. It's not as the framers desired and there is a reason that there is not a single word about political parties in our Constitution, the founders had a sincere mistrust of them.

While I could not think what an Atheist Party would stand for, you describe the current system as I see it. Well put.


OK, not sure that would cover all possible natural rights, but maybe it does if one squints and holds their face just right.

I have no natural right to your property or restriction on your freedom as long as you do me no material harm. Governmental force to make you pay me indirectly is still theft.


While not a religious person, I've always thought the old 'golden rule' treat others as you would have them treat you, is about as simple a way to cover my thoughts on 'rights'.


That was in reference to self defense, I think. That rule does not preclude defending yourself from another that acts otherwise. I do try to abide by it.


Assuming there is a rule of law that helps enforce contracts, controls common currencies, allows for free competition and so many other rights and rules to make trade a fair and viable system of exchange of goods and services. We couldn't have a society as we do today based just on barter and handshakes, those times are long gone and cannot support the bandwidth.

I think that maybe the rise of corporate entities, the influence they have in a growing central power and the mindset of the same have made the "handshake" deal obsolete. I hope that hasn't corrupted the dealing of individuals as much.



Ah ethical, there is another great subjective word. We all know what it means, except when we start to get specific about it or allow someone else to define it for us.

Ethical is very simple, profit complicates it. Use the power of your consumerism, refuse to buy from those that fail to meet your standard. Not easy, but we can try.


Yes I do, and I have enjoyed the interchange of ideas and thoughts, even though we probably haven't solved anything for anyone.

Thank you for challenging me, it's the only way a person can decide to embrace another point of view. My way of thinking has evolved quite a bit as I have been exposed to information that is new to me. So if I can admit that I have been wrong in the past, I have to consider that I may be wrong today.

[N0SYA]

Well if you read the article it's NOT that simple. First it was a racist comment! Second, as stated in the article they have laws in the UK against making racist comments in any type of social media, which he violated. Third, he gets caught lying to the court about his account being hacked. Then the only defense he could come up with was that he was drunk when he made the posts.

Now please explain why you think anyone should defend his actions?

I heard the other day about a news reporter in the UK who was arrested for saying some members of a group were homosexual, wich apparently was true, no disparaging or any other comment, and was arrested for it. I'm sure that makes sense to you.

[KI4NGN]

There is a certain amour of that is true.
If you own your own newspaper you have more freedom to speak your mind as long as your advertisers go along with it. If you own a news network you have to kiss a certain amount of Butt or you won't get invited to the next news conference a the capitol.

Now unless you have been asleep for the last four decades you know this is how things work.
This is why the alternative media is gaining an ever growing listener / viewer / readership.
The American people know they are being lied to and the establishment media serves the government. When was the last time you saw flag draped coffins in the news, or heard the kind of news reports that we all heard when were were killing women and children in Viet Nam?

It makes the news when soliders are killed, but flag draped coffins are not news.


Rush knows his career needs to come to an end, if he is going to cash out and retire someplace where the pending economic crash won't effect him much. Look at how got himself in all that trouble over speaking his mind. He did a Howard Stern and a few people got upset.
Even though Rush says he is an "Entertainer" he is a media outlet unto himself, even he has to toe the line when it comes to keeping some things out of the public eye.

You and I have the greatest freedom of speech of all.
We can say what we wish, we can use whatever racial or sexual pejorative we wish to describe anyone we wish. We won't have our advertisers get upset, we won't be barred from any capitol news conveyances (anymore than we are now), when a cop drives by we cay yell PHG at the top of our lungs. We can walk into our city government and demand they account for the money they have spent. We can lie and bait all we want.
We can even say line up all the politicians and shoot them, and charge their families for the bullets. We can preach the gospel in the streets, we can even stand on the corner and call people names and point at them.

Just remember those in the media have less freedom to speak than we do.

[M6CBJ]

I heard the other day about a news reporter in the UK who was arrested for saying some members of a group were homosexual, wich apparently was true, no disparaging or any other comment, and was arrested for it. I'm sure that makes sense to you.

I'm not sure if that is true to be honest.

There would be a massive fuss about it I'd imagine.

[G0GQK]

Three men have been arrested today regarding the publication on Twitter of the name of a young girl who was raped by a football player and has been sent to prison for five years. Those arrested were obviously aware of the girls name and posted offensive messages, the bone heads unaware that the police can trace them, which they did.

Seems to me that there are those who regard Facebook and Twitter as places where they can publish vulgarities and cause people severe worries and do this with impunity. I remember a case in New York where some woman called another woman a skank, a term not used in Britain but which caused concern to the woman, she contacted the police and the insulter I believe was arrested

[VK6ZGO]

The queen has everything to do with it.
Your whole country is based on a monarchy.
In the end she decides if parliament's actions are appropriate.

You remember she suspended a couple members of Canadian parliament and one in Australia all in the last fifty years.

Sorry,Sue,it didn't happen quite that way,in the Australian case.

In the Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975,the Governor-General dismissed the Labor Government of the the time,because the Opposition blocked the passage of the Supply Bill.which effectively meant the Government would run out of money.
They did this to try to force a General Election.

The Prime Minister decided to "tough it out",assuming the Opposition would give in.
In the Governor-General's opinion,that wasn't going to happen,so he dismissed the Labor Government,& asked the Opposition to form a "caretaker" Government until a General Election could be held.
In my opinion,he acted prematurely,but others have different opinions.

The PM appealed to Her Majesty,but her Constitutional advice was that,under the Australian Constitution,the authority in this matter was solely that of the Governor-General,& she had no legal right to intervene.
So the Queen was quite blameless in the matter!
I am far from a Royalist,but fair is fair!

The Governor-General occupies a peculiar position under the Australian Constitution.
He/she is quite similar in role to that of the "Non-Executive Presidents" in some European countries,but is a non-elected official.
The "G-G"actually possesses greater reserve powers in Australia,than the Queen does in the UK.

All of the above fuelled the Republican movement in Australia,but as we get further away from the events of that time,Republicanism has "run out of steam" a bit.

73,VK6ZGO

[G8ADD]

In one on Heinlein's books a character says that there is no such thing as rights, only opportunities...and he was a conservative American, there can be no doubt of that, but he often wrote things that were designed to make the reader think.

Clearly all Americans are utterly devoted to the concept of free speech, although at least some recognise that there are certain limits. Over here it is not so clear-cut. Laws regarding slander and libel recognise that unbridled use of free speech can do actual harm to people and organisations and allow for redress where appropriate. In the case of the expression of extreme racist views, the law under which the prosecution under discussion took place, and its predecessor law, was intended to control the fomentation of racial tensions in the wake of race riots, and I think we can say that they have been pretty effective. This guy was prosecuted, quite correctly under the law, for words which could contribute to disharmony leading to the type of violence which we have largely put behind us. His conviction was justified by the evidence, and his punishment reflects the serious view that is taken of this type of crime. Was the sentence harsh? Perhaps, but no harsher than meted out to looters in the recent riots, and for the same reason - deterrance.

I do not think that the UK is less free than the USA, although those freedoms are expressed differently - after all, we have the right to do it our way, and our way has evolved over a long time. Actually, to stir the pot, I think we have some freedoms that are a long, long way from being gained in the USA - Google the "Right to Roam"!

73

Brian G8ADD

[KA5S]

...Under Racial and Hatred act 2006 it is unlawful in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. Exactly what you posted. It also includes the law in regards to anti terrorism. Se effectively he could be classed as a terrorist.

Interesting people, humans; laws of physics are universal, laws of conduct are less so. Decades ago, there were demonstrations in France against Richard Nixon, and some American demonstrators were arrested for insulting a head of state, an offense in that country. I've noted before that Christianity says failure to convert earns eternity in Hell and that, considering the Nazi's could only burn us once, and Hell is forever, those parts of SCRIPTURE could be called actionable hate speech in the US. However, we Americans tend to assume our Constitutional rights travel with us, and at any given moment, some are probably peering through the bars in a free nation's gaol somewhere, wondering what happened. In authoritarian nations, they should have known better.

Finally (heh) I believe that even if an inoculation that rendered hatred impossible were given to everyone, there would still be hate crime prosecutions.


Cortland
KA5S

[AF6LJ]

Sorry,Sue,it didn't happen quite that way,in the Australian case.

In the Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975,the Governor-General dismissed the Labor Government of the the time,because the Opposition blocked the passage of the Supply Bill.which effectively meant the Government would run out of money.
They did this to try to force a General Election.

The Prime Minister decided to "tough it out",assuming the Opposition would give in.
In the Governor-General's opinion,that wasn't going to happen,so he dismissed the Labor Government,& asked the Opposition to form a "caretaker" Government until a General Election could be held.
In my opinion,he acted prematurely,but others have different opinions.

The PM appealed to Her Majesty,but her Constitutional advice was that,under the Australian Constitution,the authority in this matter was solely that of the Governor-General,& she had no legal right to intervene.
So the Queen was quite blameless in the matter!
I am far from a Royalist,but fair is fair!

The Governor-General occupies a peculiar position under the Australian Constitution.
He/she is quite similar in role to that of the "Non-Executive Presidents" in some European countries,but is a non-elected official.
The "G-G"actually possesses greater reserve powers in Australia,than the Queen does in the UK.

All of the above fuelled the Republican movement in Australia,but as we get further away from the events of that time,Republicanism has "run out of steam" a bit.

73,VK6ZGO
It's been my understanding the Governor General works for the Queen.

[VK6ZGO]

It's been my understanding the Governor General works for the Queen.

In theory,anyone in a Constitutional Monarchy,in Government,or working for the Government works for "The Crown"!

The concept of "The Crown",as distinct from the real person,is full of legal barbed-wire entanglements,mainly designed to distance
the Queen from any real political power.

The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen,on advice from the elected Prime Minister of Australia,& is paid by the taxpayers of Australia.

The "G-G"is supposedly the Queen's Representative,but he/she does not have to,& in fact rarely does,take advice from the Queen.

The idea of a "Governor-General"was set up when communications were a lot slower than today,as the Queen couldn't have instant contact with Canberra.
These days,we could dispense with the "G-G".& the PM could talk to the Queen via Skype,but that would be completely politically unacceptable to the Australian voter,(or to those of the UK,it it came to that!).

The post was really a sop to the Royalists anyway,as in day to day politics,all they do is sign stuff,open Parliament,& various other ceremonial acts.

Originally,the "G-Gs" did,in theory,have the duty to represent the Queen directly,& the British Parliament had residual legislative powers,but the "Dominions" were in practice,ignoring these points.
In the early '30s,the Brits realised that they couldn't stuff the "Genie" of Independence back into the bottle,& these remnants of Colonial days were removed.

On a very few occasions,British Governments have tried to presume upon a non-existent role in Australian affairs,& have been sent on their way "with a flea in their ear" by the Australian Government of the day.

In the early days Governor-Generals were often prominent Brits,but these days the convention is to appoint prominent Australians,often Judges,Medical Doctors,Generals etc.

The Constitutional Crisis of 1975 was wholly a "home-grown" thing,with no contributions from the Queen,the CIA,or anyone else!

Some years back,we had a Referendum in this country on whether to remain a Constitutional Monarchy,or to become a Republic.
As it happened,the choice was to stick to the status quo,but that is all it takes in this country,a simple vote of all those eligible,to change our system of Government.
OK,it's not quite that simple,there have to be a majority of States---After all,we are a Federation.

Many Americans seem to believe that the "Westminster" system of Government has remained static since the days of
George III,but that is far from correct.

The American War of Independence was a great shock to the system,both in the UK,& particularly in the "Colonies",where the Brits could no longer rely upon the expectation of a compliant population thousands of miles away from Britain.
Along with this,& subsequent to it,was the evolution of this form of Government,as the power of the Crown diminished,& the economic power of new industrial classes increased.

In Australia,early advocates of Independence looked to the USA ,as much as to Britain,hence,our Houses of Parliament are the
House of Representatives & the Senate.
The concept of an unelected Upper House was pushed by some,who thought of themselves as an aristocracy.but that was laughed to scorn by most people.

Australia is a proud & independent Nation in its own right--OK,we share the Queen with the Brits,Canadians,New Zealanders,etc,but decisions made in the Australian Parliament are made by freely elected representatives of the Australian People.

[N0SYA]

Here is where it (censorship) leads to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_H%C3%BCbener

What happens when you speak truth to power.