Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech. I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment. We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech. We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas." We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.
Great Britain doesn't see things our way.
I think we bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions. But I wouldn't have it any other way.
And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.
I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.
You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.
That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.Taxpayers fund roads too. Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.
Free speech based on who pays?
I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation. She is wrong, of course.
What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech. I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment. We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech. We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas." We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.
Great Britain doesn't see things our way.
I think we bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions. But I wouldn't have it any other way.
And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.
I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.
You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.
At the risk of being serious for a second longer, I find your post encouraging.
That said, I still believe that the Brits have a different notion of what "free speech" is intended to cover.
Hell, for that matter, my own understanding of the First Amendment is different than that of many other dedicated American Constitutional loyalists.
You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.
At the risk of being serious for a second longer, I find your post encouraging.
That said, I still believe that the Brits have a different notion of what "free speech" is intended to cover.
Hell, for that matter, my own understanding of the First Amendment is different than that of many other dedicated American Constitutional loyalists.
For the whole notion of free speech to enjoy any semblance of credibility/integrity, there should be no disparity whatsoever wherever it's enshrined. But, like I said, the London Olympcis is being used as a tool by the parasitic UN to impress upon everyone the importance (in their opinion) of "diversity" and "enrichment" because they're afraid of all the mounting support the European right-wing is enjoying as a result of the Eurozone collapsing for all to see.
The whole event has been politicised beyond compare. Any dissenting voices are being stamped on and the shame lies at our door for allowing it to happen.
Yea.
A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
Good.
Fuck him.
So, L.K.Eder. By that should I assume you believe that free speech should be applied as selectively as it's being at the London Olympics?
The basketball federation secretary general doesn't have any police powers, so his opinion is merely an opinion.That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.Free speech based on who pays?
I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation. She is wrong, of course.
The British government has a duty to protect the people participating in and watching the Games. They thus have a very pronounced, legitimate say in matters of SECURITY. But hateful speech (like Nazi salutes and racist grunts) doesn't truly represent any security risk.
No. They didn't fine the guy on the basis of the notion that his "speech" constituted a security risk. They fined him on the basis that his KIND of speech was deemed hateful or otherwise worthy of suppression on a NON-security basis.
"This is about respecting their opponents, it is about respecting the games, the Olympic values, and it is a celebration of friendship between people from all over the world." -- quoting, evidently, International Basketball Federation secretary general Patrick Baumann in the article cited in the OP: News from The Associated Press.
Here's an interesting legal analysis from the British "Crown Prosecution Services" web site. Racist and Religious Crime: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, hate speech that incites violence -- it becomes apparent thateven a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.Therefore, much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.
Yea.
A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.
Behavior like that should NEVER be acceptable.
Britain has been doing this for awhile.
A fan at a soccer game was arrested for making a monkey gesture at a black player a year or so ago. The guy is a brain-dead idiot but political correctness has gone way, way too far when that happens.
Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are pretty tolerant with free speech.
Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are pretty tolerant with free speech.
Exactly! Head on the nail! That is just one more reason why the law is BS! Where's their 4K fines?
Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are pretty tolerant with free speech.
The basketball federation secretary general doesn't have any police powers, so his opinion is merely an opinion.That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.
The British government has a duty to protect the people participating in and watching the Games. They thus have a very pronounced, legitimate say in matters of SECURITY. But hateful speech (like Nazi salutes and racist grunts) doesn't truly represent any security risk.
No. They didn't fine the guy on the basis of the notion that his "speech" constituted a security risk. They fined him on the basis that his KIND of speech was deemed hateful or otherwise worthy of suppression on a NON-security basis.
"This is about respecting their opponents, it is about respecting the games, the Olympic values, and it is a celebration of friendship between people from all over the world." -- quoting, evidently, International Basketball Federation secretary general Patrick Baumann in the article cited in the OP: News from The Associated Press.
Here's an interesting legal analysis from the British "Crown Prosecution Services" web site. Racist and Religious Crime: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
Well the Brits tolerate all those Muslims walking around screeching DEATH TO THE UK and demanding Sharia law, so I would say they are pretty tolerant with free speech.
Juxtaposing that with this story, I'd say you have that wrong. I'd say they are selectively tolerant with free speech.
