Britain ending free speech
 

In case our non-Brits were not aware:

Previously a comedian filmed his girlfriend's pug giving a Nazi salute, in a hilarious style, and was charged with hate crimes

Yesterday a girl posted Snoop Dogg lyrics to Instagram and is charged with hate crimes

Context? PURPOSEFULLY IGNORED. Intent? NOT CONSIDERED.

This is using Fascist approaches to fight Fascism. How far will it go?

The other day an old friend of mine (who is British, working in the US) said that he considers Nazis and Capitalists to be "sub-human". After a few days of thinking about it, I realized the full implications of what he said. And how horrible it is that he believes it. Classing your enemies as sub-human? In 2018? It's one of the most alarming things I've ever heard someone say. In our tribal era, I expect to hear a lot more of it.

Can you get arrested for hating hate crimes?

The second case with the girl posting rap lyrics is ludicrous. It is clearly not the intended target of hate speech laws.

The first one was pretty predictable given we have had laws about that sort of thing since the mid-80s. Posting a video where a dog does nazi salutes in response to someone saying 'gas the jews' would have drawn prosecution at any time in the last 30 years, had that sort of thing been possible. Distributing that same scenario in cartoon form on leaflets would have put you at risk of prosecution - telling it as a joke on stage - whether the authorities wuol have chosen to pursue a prosecution or not is a bit of a moot point, but the legal framework was there - and the potentially anti-semitic nature of it (as opposed to, say, a paki joke) would have made that far more likely.


This is not a case of Britain ending free speech - this is new media bringing individual, user-made content to a mainstream audience and butting up against very well-established laws.



As to your second point - labelling your opponent as sub-human is a frightening direction to go in. There is no good outcome to that sort of thinking.

It's the prelude to a Free Speech Tax.

You'll have to have a Snoop Dogg user-made content party.

That's when you counter-accuse the government of dog/Dogg hate crimes and dump their censorship into the Channel.

When is the last time somebody paid to speak freely? And how much money did it cost?

We already pay the public safety costs collectively through our taxes. The point is, there're those who would have it happen, one way or another, more selectively. For instance those who attempted to do so in Pennsylvania last year. You must've forgot.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...ay-free-speech

Nazi pug video results in £800 fine

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8317751.html

if he monetized his youtube video, he may have earned more than that with all the publicity

I imagine he'd be paying a lot higher fine if he had left it up.

Undertoad, thoughts on Fosta / Sesta ??

https://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=1006827

I would have thought, highly germane to someone running an open, public forum?

I haven't put much time in on it, and can't definitively say which side I'd wind up on. I've believed in a lot of libertarian crises in my day that turned out to be not much at all, so it takes something pretty nasty to sway me.

~

This is not an open forum. It's moderated. Sex trafficking is strictly forbidden. Rule number one: "Do not try to break the law using the Cellar". It's rule number one for reasons!

~

There is some confusion over what is meant by freedom of speech. Having certain rights doesn't allow us to violate other people's rights. The example always given is, you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater.

Because the limit on freedom of speech is whether it affects other rights, the fact that you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater is not a dilution of freedom of speech. It's a protect of all our rights.

UNLESS we invent new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.

I was pretty susceptible to libertarian slippery slopism. I see the world differently now, more of an ongoing negotiation. If we screw up, we can change course.

http://northyorkshire.police.uk/news...jammer-prison/

Of course you don't have to actually speak. A gesture or dance is also a form of speech.

What do you figure is the right level of punishment for someone who fits their vehicle with a laser jammer to stop the cops from detecting what speed he's going?

Okay, now what is the right level of punishment for someone who gives the finger to the mobile speed detection van as he drives past?

(UT note: the finger? One middle finger? What happened to the standard backwards two-finger flip? Has even North Yorks become Americanised?)

If you said "eight months in prison" you have listed the Brit punishment for such a thing. EIGHT MONTHS!!

But it's not about the finger, right? Because that part is speech.

(Giving the finger to speed detection devices and red light cameras should be considered hardy tradition in the states!)

The middle finger is only the clickbait headline. I'm sure the gesture did him no favors, but he lied to the cops and attempted to destroy evidence, in addition to using the banned device in the first place. Another case of the coverup being worse than the crime.

This.


And yes, th middle finger is commonly used here. Even in Yorkshire :P

I think 2 fingers nowadays is more of a kid thing. Though you still see it sometimes from adults. I thing the middle finger is generally seen as a more serious insult than the two finger salute - but also context driven - it's like .... if you are insulting an individual you'd usually go with the middle finger - if you're insulting the police at a demonstration then it would be two fingers

:eek:
:confused::neutral:

...I anticipated that objection, which is why I specified what nasty is: inventing new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.

It's not a slippery slope, it's a problem right now: people are being prosecuted right now for saying things.

*sigh* What is left of traditional culture.

Pies.


We'll always have pies. Proper pies. Proper British pies.

Actual problem is rarely discussed. Why is Trump so popular? Because he is routinely offensive. Most adults respect a bully; not the honest and informed. Throughout history, that is how ignorant bullies - who are destructive to their supporters - are so popular and gain so much support and power.

It goes right back to a fundamental problem. Many adults are still children. They make conclusions from their emotions - fail to use a pre-frontal cortex.

An adult acting like an adult will first collect facts and then make a logical conclusion. Supporters of bullies make an immediate conclusion from their emotions. Automatically believe a first thing told. And then are so emotional as to deny any realities and facts that expose the lie.

We all saw this with Saddam's WMDs. Facts clearly stated WMDs did not exist. But fears, lies, and other emotional hype even claimed Saddam was a threat to the US mainland.

Obviously that was impossible. Even countries adjacent to Iraq said he was not a threat. But emotions were embedded in so many who made decisions based only in their fears and other emotions.

That explains why offensive speech is so dangerous. Even successfully used by Hitler to define Jews as evil. It was so easily used by Hitler to justify racism - a superior blue eyed, blond haired superior German race. Those lies were believed because so many adults thought emotionally like children.

Obviously those claims were bogus to adults who were thinking like adults. It also explains the entrenched and obviously ignorant support for The Donald.

It is not just Trump who plays this emotion card. Bernie Sanders was doing same. Yes, his objectives were admirable. But his solutions had no basis in reality. Even his supporters, when challenged to explain their support, would recite myths. A classic one was the Federal Reserve is a private corporation harmful to the economy.

Tea Party was created on another lie - that TARP was evil to enrich the elitists (ie Rockefellers). Basic economics were irrelevant to their emotions. Many adults think like children - making offensive speech so dangerous.

So we address offensive speech rather then the reason why offensive speech creates so much evil. Unfortunately, it is not possible to require adults to think like adults - even if they use emotions to create a crime - like the launch of the Challenger. It usually takes something like murder (ie drag racing on public streets) to address this problem.

How about the right not to be offended by consenting adults who are sharing/communicating explicit material via the internet which does not objectify much less "traffic" anyone, and specifically only involves (in ANY way) the willing, consenting, adult participants?

Offensive speech even in tonight's news. Rather than do research for a Veterans Administration secretary, the Donald did (last month) what the emotional do. He promoted his White House doctor.

Turns out this doctor (Jackson) was demeaning, offensive, an over aggressive pill pusher, and may have come to work drunk. Rather than admit he did not do what an adult does (do the research), the Donald instead attacked to so many who came forward with facts. It took about a month for reality to get to the Donald.

How many citizens so hate America as to believe the Donald's offensive accusations rather than learn facts? Too many.
What would an adult do? Learn how this president makes decisions only based upon his first emotions. He promoted someone he knows (but not very well) and without doing any homework. He could not bother to find a person who is best and qualified for the job.

Ironically, he fired the previous (and well respected) administrator via a Tweet. This president does not have the balls to fire anyone personally - and with facts that justify that decision.

How do bullies obtain support and power? How does he justify his ignorance? He offensively attacks others. That makes hiim popular among adults who are still children.

That represents about 30% of Internet traffic, as of a few years ago. The Internet is For Porn.

"Nazi pug" comic -- makes his point, better than it's ever been made before.

I can't follow their accents... he's saying "You just said the sentence 2 minutes ago, why should I consider your context if you won't consider mine," but what illegal/offensive sentence did the journalist say? Was it the "You said 'gas the Jews' 23 times" bit?

Yes. The journalist spoke the exact same words, but as a quote. Nobody will think the journalist is anti-Semitic, because of the context of the phrase being a quote. Therefor context matters.

Much ado about nothing. :rolleyes:

Note: It's not Snoop Dogg lyrics, apparently there's also a Snap Dogg.

What is the line between "porn" and consensual sex work, such as "cam girls" --are the operators of those websites "trafficking" the participants, or are they consenting adults?

There is no line.

That's not what Obama said, but it turned out there wasn't.

Presented without comment

I'd just post the image (SFW) but I never got the hang of posting images that I don't host and youtube videos.

outrageous...

Count Dankula reports this excellent story. Not excellent for free speech, but excellent fun to hear about.

Lecturer reported to police for hate crime after saying 'English are wankers'

Link to Dankula's youtube on the story

Dankula: "If I call an Englishman a wanker, I demand that he call me one back, because that means we're friends."