UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

[RWNJ]

NO! You aren't.

UK police warn man to stop criticizing Islam on Facebook

What did he write?

Does it matter? If it is critical of Islam, it's hate speech.

We have the word of one aggrieved individual that all he did was post something that was critical of Islam.
It would be interesting to have a look at what he wrote.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

 

[RWNJ]

OK. Let's get back on topic here.

The British government has rejected a petition calling for a Free Speech Act and an end to laws against so-called ‘hate speech’.

“For several years now the government has been infringing people’s most basic rights to speak freely on matters, by deeming their speech ‘offensive’ or ‘hateful. and declaring that such speech, even online, warrants being fined or jailed,” the petition suggests.

Do you agree with the government on this one? Are you against free speech?

 

[RWNJ]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

There is no free speech without the freedom to offend.

 

[RWNJ]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

May and her cronies would be appalled at being described as liberals. They are a bunch of right wing shits.
However your ignorance of the UK cannot be calculated by any method known to mankind.

Take a moment and tell me what you are not allowed to say in the UK.

One again, a vivid demonstration of why we Americans kicked the British out of our country more than two centuries ago, and support for our reasons for having done so remaining valid to this very day.

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

Does it matter? If it is critical of Islam, it's hate speech.

We have the word of one aggrieved individual that all he did was post something that was critical of Islam.
It would be interesting to have a look at what he wrote.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

Well what is the point of this thread ?

You complain about people being persecuted over hate speech but cant tell us what was written.

Perhaps we should take your unbiased word that it was very mild and unlikely to provoke violence. ?

Why not just admit that you dont know and crawl back under that rock ?

Once again, it doesn't matter what he wrote, as long as he did not incite violence. There is another man on trial for the same thing. All he did was tear the pages out of the Koran at a sporting event. They can't prosecute him for religious persecution, so they're going for a charge of racism. Which is silly because Islam is not a race.

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

Maybe YOU should do some research on what is actually happening over there.

 

[BradVesp]

It's also ok for the police to warn you about something. They can talk to you. Did they arrest or imprison him?


This quote:

However your ignorance of the UK cannot be calculated by any method known to mankind.

is funny because it's intent, I assume, is to be belittling, but in all actuality it's a truthful statement for everyone, right? Ignorance cannot be calculated.

I know, I'm off topic.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

No you are wrong. you cannot spew out any shit that you want.
This is the reasonable position.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that the act of a society under tyranny ?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

 

[RWNJ]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

No you are wrong. you cannot spew out any shit that you want.
This is the reasonable position.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that the act of a society under tyranny ?

But in the UK, ANY criticism of Islam, no matter how mild, is considered hate speech.

 

[RWNJ]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that yoru society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

Margaret Thatcher is turning in her grave.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

No you are wrong. you cannot spew out any shit that you want.
This is the reasonable position.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that the act of a society under tyranny ?

But in the UK, ANY criticism of Islam, no matter how mild, is considered hate speech.

Ive proven that to be false.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

No you are wrong. you cannot spew out any shit that you want.
This is the reasonable position.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that the act of a society under tyranny ?

You funny this but you cant disagree with it.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that yoru society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

Margaret Thatcher is turning in her grave.

May is a weak woman not very Conservative Conservative and obsessed with the Diversity thing, the British need a strong leader and Margaret Thatcher was their best Prime Minister of the 20th Century of course the Left Wing conservatives of the paedophile Edward Heath variety stab her in the back because she stood up to the EU Dictatorship and they replace her with a pathetic weak man John Majors.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ive [sic] proven that to be false.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

You're the one who is claiming that there was a specific instance of speech that needed to be suppressed. You keep moving the goalposts back and forth between claiming that it was inciting violence, and merely claiming that it was “hateful”. I do not even know what instance it is that you are referencing, but it does not matter.

It's not my burden to prove that a particular instance of speech ought to be allowed. In a truly civilized society, that's a given. Freedom of speech is one of the most basic and essential of human rights. That your degenerate society has not yet caught up to where my society was over two centuries ago is no excuse.

If you are going to argue that a particular instance of speech should be suppressed, then the burden is wholly on you to describe the content of thought speech, and to prove that it is so harmful that society's need to suppress it is greater than an individual's right to express it.

 

[idb]

What did he write?

Does it matter? If it is critical of Islam, it's hate speech.

We have the word of one aggrieved individual that all he did was post something that was critical of Islam.
It would be interesting to have a look at what he wrote.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what he wrote. Any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech.

You're prepared to take the word of one individual that he was merely 'criticising Islam' without judging for yourself what he wrote?
I'm sure there's an appropriate word for that.

Again, it doesn't matter what he wrote as long as he did not try to incite violence. Any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy.

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

If they stand on any British street and shout DEATH TO ISLAM they will be arrested for hate speech, but the 7th Century Death Cult get British police protection when they stand on British streets with this type of thing which according to Mega Cucked Britain is NOT hate speech or incitement:

^^^^ And display ISIS flags and British Soldiers Burn In Hell.

What do you expect their capital city in control of a Paki Kebab pro-Jihadi Haji, when a nations capital city is in the control of The Enemy of everything Western Civilisation stands for then that nation is Cucked and Fucked:

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How do you know he didn't try to incite violence?
That's my point.
He says he was merely being critical and you're prepared to take that at face value.

It is not anyone's responsibility to prove that there was no intent to incite violence. If you want to claim that there was such an intent, then the burden is completely on you to prove it.

See also: “Innocent until proven guilty.”

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Hey Bob !! Do you know what your little nazi mate wrote ?

I do not know who you are referring to, nor what he wrote, but it doesn't matter, anyway. In a free society, one has the right to hold whatever opinions and beliefs one will, and to freely express them, no matter how disagreeable someone else may find those expressions. In a tyranny such as you favor, such rights are not upheld.

That's why we kicked your ancestors out of our country; because you were (and still are) backward savages who are content to let your rulers tell you what you are allowed to believe and to say. And in more than two centuries, your wretched society has yet to catch up to where we were back then. You haven't even tried.

There is no free speech without the freedom to offend.

All Hate Speech laws everywhere should be destroyed and burned, there is no thing that is Hate Speech all there is is different opinions and every one has the right to express their own opinions and if some Bedwetting Snowflakes are offended then they should go to their Safe Space and get some Play Doh and crayons and hug a puppy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Now you are making stuff up. How could I make any claims when I do not know what was said ?

What I have quoted is this.

"embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Is that unreasonable ?

Heckler's veto - Wikipedia