UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet 360
mooterSkooter writes A 19-year-old Uk man has been arrested over an "offensive" tweet about an accident in which six people died. From the article: "The tweet, which has since been deleted along with the account that posted it, joked about the tragedy, in which the driver lost control of the vehicle and drove on the pavement, hitting Christmas shoppers 'like pinballs.' The tweet said: 'So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day.'"
WTF UK? (Score:5, Informative)
It's like the damn island hasn't heard of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"
Mario Balotelli, a black football player with a Jewish mother is suspended a game and fined 25k pounds for posting an anti-racist picture about a multicultural Super Mario [eurogamer.net].
Luis Suarez was essentially forced out of England for using the word negrito while speaking Spanish because it happened to sound like nigger. (While John Terry was given a sentence of half the time for using the word nigger in English.)
Crazy arse porn rules. [independent.co.uk]
A man is threatened with life in jail for swearing too much. [bbc.co.uk]
And what the fuck is an Anti-Social Behavior Order? [wikipedia.org]
How can the nation that brought us Locke also be bringing us this?
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Offense: (Score:5, Insightful)
No one has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a collective, or a group, or a society, or a community; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (collective, society, community) may not offend another; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another. And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not. Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. Law that bans something based upon the idea that some group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.
Conversely, when people are truly harmed (not just offended) without their informed consent (and legitimate defense is not the cause), then the matter is one that should arguably be considered for law. Otherwise, no.
Re:Offense: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Offense: (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Offense can surely be given. But trying to magically legislate it away is a horrific, cowardly, hubris-ridden mistake. Offense arises because of difference in opinion and grasp of fact, intentional or not.
Because of this, it can and will always arise, no matter how narrow you choke down the channel of discourse, unless or until all have the same opinions and grasp of facts, which, one hopes, will never, ever come about.
The most productive course is to try not to give offense, and if received, to assess it and take value (warning, insight, stance, new information) from it if possible — otherwise, let it go.
Restricting opinion by legal means is one of the worst ideas ever. Offense is not a legitimate mitigating factor for censorship and repression. When enacted into law as justification for anything, what it tells us is that we need new legislators, because the ones we have demonstrated fundamental incompetence.
Re:Offense: (Score:5, Informative)
You are free to express you opinion no matter how nasty but it must be expressed as an opinion.
In the UK, this is simply and completely not true, and the entire point of the news story. The UK "Communications Act 2003", section 127 (1) [legislation.gov.uk] states (and I directly quote):
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
So yes, sending an offensive message in the UK is a crime, no matter if the message is true or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:WTF UK? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can the nation that brought us Locke also be bringing us this?
It is the same nation that gave us George Orwell. Sadly they seem to have taken 1984 to be an instruction manual vs. a work of fiction.
Re: (Score:3)
It was a prediction of the future, so don't be shocked that this one is close to the truth. Just don't be surprised that room 101 is full of web logs of all the bad things you said on the internet.
Orwell (Score:2)
Oblig/meta: Orwell was an optimist [fyngyrz.com]
Re: (Score:2)
also the same nation that gave us The Prisoner (tv series). interestingly, one of the episodes was about 'anti social behavior' and how number six was shunned by the village when he didn't play by their rules.
the UK seems obsessed with 'anti-social behavior' problems. ie, they INSIST you be social (huh??)
Tree of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Well, as they say, the tree of liberty needs to occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It appears that their tree is in need of some watering.
Besides that, top gear's Stephen Fry:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
And from Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
Re: (Score:3)
I think the first quote is attributed to Jeremy Clarkson (of Top Gear) but otherwise is an acceptable opinion on the subject.
Re:Tree of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
It was Stephen Fry but he's not on Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson is on Top Gear and he's very fond of offending people.
Re: (Score:2)
He was a guest on Top Gear, that counts right?
Re: (Score:3)
1:54, wet.
Re: (Score:2)
The writing style looks more like Fry.
Clarkson, in a bookshop?
Re:Tree of liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm offended by people who are easily offended.
Re: (Score:2)
You must find yourself offensive....
Re: (Score:3)
And how!
Re: (Score:2)
>Besides that, top gear's Stephen Fry
He was a guest on Top Gear once. Is that what you mean?
Re:Tree of liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tree of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Actually European human rights do give people some right not to be offended in certain, very limited circumstances. For example, someone who has just been bereaved has a right to a certain amount of peace, e.g. not having people standing outside their homes screaming abuse all day. See, in Europe there are both positive and negative freedoms, i.e. your right to scream abuse vs. everyone else's right not to listen to it in their own homes.
Arresting someone for posting something on Twitter is way, way, way beyond what little protection people have though. The victim's families are not forced to read these tweets, and in fact it's somewhat doubtful if they would ever have heard about them if the police hadn't turned it into a media circus by being their usual moronic selves.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, why are you all complaining?
Obviously a lot of people in this thread are offended by laws in other countries, and their application.
The german constitutions first paragraph(amendment?) Says: the dignity of the human being is untouchable.
The guy who made the post insulted the dead and dying and injured to be 'garbage'. That is obviously an attack on their dignity
I believe people comming from a country where black people get shot left and right for nothing (and the culprits obviously have a letter of ma
Re: (Score:2)
If you did not read bejond the line you quoted you did mot get my point.
The rest of your post is wrong. There was no arrest and there was no violation of free speech (because the tweat was not directed against the rulers/politicians/government but citizens ... go damn read your constitution!)
And for some reason you seem to feel offended, so read the rest of my post, you answered to.
Re: (Score:2)
when did Stephen fry join top gear?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a bloody revolution is needed in England. The SJW leftists need to be murdered. One murder for every "Anti social" order they've enforced.
There needs to be blood. They need to be culled.
So your solution to people who go way over the line in one direction is to go way over the line in another direction. How's that working for you so far?
They are riding high as they imprison their idealogical enemies.
[citation needed].
Re: (Score:2)
They are riding high as they imprison their idealogical enemies.
[citation needed].
Here's a good start: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/24/1821208/uk-man-arrested-over-offensive-tweet [slashdot.org]
He's not in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I challange your reading skills. The tweet and the account of the gay are deleted meanwhile.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what happens when you have social justice warriors being perpetually offended, and little to no free speech laws. You get the march to authoritarianism, and it's happening in every western country. The difference between the UK and the US or Canada, is people are now saying "enough."
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a mistake in conflating social justice to a reaction like this. Defense/defence of social justice and free speech are highly compatible.
The post is about control of hideous, if free speech. I'm on the side of both free speech and social justice. Many others are, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Could you explain then why there's a sudden up swing in said "social justice warriors" trying to ban media, video games they disagree with, speech they disagree with, and censor content. I get that "feelings" are easier to make an argument with, but I don't live in a world of feels vs reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Could you explain then why there's a sudden up swing in said "social justice warriors" trying to ban media, video games they disagree with, speech they disagree with, and censor content. I get that "feelings" are easier to make an argument with, but I don't live in a world of feels vs reality.
Ignorance and/or poor education? People, corporations, politicians trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator?
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Informative)
Ignorance and/or poor education? People, corporations, politicians trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator?
So you're saying that the various people in say...san fran which is a mecha of sjw's are ignorant and/or have bad education? These aren't folks with a lack of education, many if not all are university grads. I believe the problem stems from a lack of real world experience.
You and I actually agree... There's book learning and learning. Having a degree doesn't make one educated in all, or even many, things. One can know a lot about one or several things and not really know much at all. For the enlightened, this means: The more I know, the more I realize what I don't know. Sadly, many people are not that enlightened and many take what they hear on outlets like Fox News (to name *one* egregious source - don't get bent out of shape Fox News fanbois) as gospel w/o any further serious thought or research.
Most people on the planet range from ignorant to very ignorant (in the non-derogatory sense of simply not knowing) including myself.
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Insightful)
people are NOT saying 'enough' ! they should, but they are sheeply accepting everything that is told to them and forced upon them.
its some of us geeks that object; but we are a tiny minority, pretty much entirely powerless in this world (where it counts).
the UK folks are not pushing back at all, from what I can tell. but then, the US and canadians aren't doing much in that direction, either. the difference is that, in the US, we do have a formal set of laws that allow free speech. many other countries don't have that on their laws.
Re:WTF UK? (Score:4, Insightful)
social justice warriors
This is the new Godwin. And in this case, you are wrong. This is the police being dumb fucks, as usual. They have been given specific advice about this sort of thing, but are ignoring it.
It's actually the people who oppose the social justice warriors who are calling for this kind of things: the Daily Mail readers. The ones who wanted the porn filters. The ones were are permanently offended about everything, especially other people people's offence.
Re: (Score:2)
Tge free speach laws are more or less the same all over the world where countries grant them.
Only the lible and protection laws in europe are stronger than in the USA, and that is what that guy stepped over.
Free speach is mainly considered a contract between the government and its citicens, giving the citicens a right to attack the government (with speach) without being prosecuted.
Free speach does not give one citizen or visitor the right to insult other citicens. Nor does it give the, the right to spread h
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Informative)
John Terry was suspended because the FA had a grudge against him, he had already been cleared in an actual judicial court of the same offence but the FA decided that they were better than the Crown Court and found him guilty - but he had been subject to a long running series of issues with the FA regarding captaincies etc.
The Suarez case was totally different.
Also you seem to be deliberately mixing up actions by private bodies (the FA) with judicial court actions. Private bodies can do whatever they damn well please, within reason - there is a zero tolerance approach to racism in English football, hence the action against Suarez and Balotelli.
And the "man threatened with life for swearing too much" had a slew of breached orders behind him, so he escalated that himself.
Re: (Score:3)
Human rights pffft who needs them, Cameron's getting rid of them soon:
Cameron's pledge to scrap Human Rights Act angers civil rights groups. [theguardian.com]
Misdirection (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the police have anything else to investigate, like, perhaps anything from institutionalized paedophilia to common burglaries, is it?
This is all about taking people's attention away from the documented failings of the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article, the guy turned himself in, from the sound of it, most likely because he had threats against himself. It's unlikely the police would have even heard of this if he hadn't gone to the station and said he'd done something stupid. It had the benefit (to him) of exposing the threats against himself, which also fall under the anti-troll and cyber bullying laws, so the people who'd threatened him will also be lined up for a big slap on the wrist.
If this had been randomly picked up by a police trawl, I'd have been worried.. As it stands (someone turning himself in and admitting he'd be stupid, and asking for protection), it's looking like far less.. Good tabloid fodder.
Re:WTF UK? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are still big problems with this.
1. The police were warned not to go after people for this kind of thing, with specific advice from the Attorney General. Yet, they carry on doing it.
2. They don't seem to understand Twitter. The laws they are using are anti-harassment laws, designed to stop people trolling the families of victims and the like. This guy didn't send his joke to those people, and they would probably have never heard it if the police hadn't brought it to their attention.
3. While the tweet was public, so are billions of others made every day. It's akin to saying something distasteful but not illegal to your friends while walking down the street, and being arrested because someone somewhere could have been offended by it.
Re: (Score:2)
1. An advice of the atorney general only lets the police ignore stuff they stumble over themselves.
If I go to the police with an accusation, they habe no way to ignore me legaly, regardless what the artorney general 'ordered' them.
And if they do anyway my lawyer will file the case directly at the prosecution office or the next best court: then they get a court order to investigate!
Your points 2. and 3. are just nonsense. Read the damn OP and links.
Re: (Score:2)
There's freedom of speech, but then there's speech that's so offensive that no eyes should read it. It's misused. Totally. Some audio cds have to carry a notice to warn parents/buyers that the contents is unsuitable for children. Welcome to 2014, the internet is a scary place, watch your children whilst they use it - don't arrest every user who posts something they may regret later as there was a humour failure.
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Quit trolling, GP never said anything about the US being a paragon of free speech protections.
Yep. The US Government is usually far behind most technological trends, but you can bet there's a good reason that the US has been archiving every tweet to the Library of Congress [businessinsider.com]. They may not be using it for witchhunts right at this moment, but you can bet your keister it's gonna be trawled big-time for political fodder whenever it's expedient to perform a good ol' fashioned character assassination or simply to throw someone in jail.
Re: WTF UK? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF UK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, somebody should have said it — and I applaud you for saying it fairly well. Thank you.
The US is a paragon of free speech — not because there is no room for improvement, but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard. And though various Illiberals do come up from time to time with seductively-sounding proposals to ban "hate" speech [amren.com], and even claim, the Constitution is outdated and "people can’t really protest like that anymore" [dailycaller.com], the prevailing opinion remains, that any speech should be allowed and countered only with one's own speech.
Back to the question about UK, that country is certainly sliding farther away from liberty — along with the rest of the Western world. When a fatwa was issued calling for death of Salman Rushdie, for example, over his insulting Islam [wikipedia.org] in an otherwise unremarkable book, the man received police protection and other support from his government. Nobody — except, maybe, that valiant Illiberal Jimmie Carter — blamed the victim for "deserving" the danger.
Years later, reaction to Mohammed-mocking cartoons is rather more mixed [wikipedia.org]. And while it is still legal to burn American flag [umkc.edu], if you decide to burn Koran [wikipedia.org], everybody from local to federal authorities will be on your case pressuring you to abandon your exercise of free speech.
Re:WTF UK? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is a paragon of free speech â" not because there is no room for improvement, but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard.
European countries consider themselves more free than the US, it's just that they have a different concept of what freedom is.
In Europe freedom is seen as a two sided coin. You have negative freedom, that is freedom from interference and limits on your behaviour. That includes freedom of speech. Then you have positive freedom, the freedom to participate in society and to prosper. That includes things like the right to vote, the right to a family life, and the right to education.
In the US you can protest loudly outside someone's home day and night. Some people go and protest at the funerals of soldiers, and good natured bikers have to come and form a line to keep them away. In Europe that kind of thing would clash with a person's freedom to have a private life, i.e. to privately grieve for their loved on at the funeral.
We also see the right to a private life clashing with US company's desire to profile everyone and use their personal data for commercial gain, which Europeans consider to be a massive loss of freedom but Americans consider to be a corporation exercising its free speech rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Free Speech in the states has never been interpreted as a right ... to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
OK, where to start? Firstly it's to "falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"; secondly it wasn't law, it was part of a judges opinion; thirdly that opinion was given while suppressing a very clear cut case of protected political speech; fourthly that precedent has been overturned by later judgements; fifthly the judge who wrote that accepted that it's wrong and, sixthly, in many cases shouting fire in a crowded theatre, even falsely, is protected speech. Please stop using that quote.
https://www.popehat [popehat.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We Americans see the British as our cultural brethren, owing to the long intertwined history of our two nations. As England goes, so too shall America go. Thus we mourn for the Brits' loss of the freedoms that inspired our own. So too do we fear that our own regime may follow the UK down the path to open tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, we see it the other way round.
We never really had McCarthyism but I'm sure we'll get our version of the Patriot Act soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it's a troll. But not positive. Someone get me a picture of Fry squinting.
Re: (Score:3)
People on the streets couldn't defend themselves as they were hit like #pinballs.
Its all about the timing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone needs some perspective ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did it warrant an arrest? If it did, then every late-night TV host and stand-up comic would be in jail.
UK vs Free Speech (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What caught my eye is he turned himself in. Was he getting death threats? Or does it say something a bit scary about the UK that someone would tweet an offensive joke, erase it, and then turn themselves into the police?
I would have turned myself in too.
Nobody likes being woken up at 5 AM by a bunch of police thugs breaking down their door, manhandling them, and confiscating all their computers for evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
they're - there - their
Thanks, I feel better now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not people finding him tasteless that caused this.. It's the guy who wrote it turning himself into the cops under the law that's there to protect from cyber bullying and trolling.. Sounds like he did it to protect himself from equally (or more) tasteless and irresponsible trolling.. All silliness that's got out of hand..
First they came... (Score:2, Redundant)
First they came for the rude and annoying, and I did not speak out—
Then they came for the offensive and off-color, and I did not speak out—
Then they came for the opinionated and observational, and I did not speak out—
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak (or Tweet) for me.
Apologies to Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org]
And, seriously, UK, WTF? It's unlawful to simply be rude?
Thank God your Empire is over.
(He said, understanding the full irony of speaking as a citizen of the United States.)
Re:First they came... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reality proves you wrong. If obscene speech was NOT illegal, then Paul Little wouldn't have been convicted of obscenity.
OR are you arguing that reality is wrong because it contradicts your opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
No, reality proves you're confused.
that was a court ruling on "extreme porn", not on anyone speaking. Right or wrong, porn in the United States and its legality is often seperate matter than "free speech".
Re: (Score:2)
Same as the US. Obscene is illegal. Obscene is illegal because it's offensive. So "rude" is illegal in the US, same as the UK. But it's funny to see all the Americans assert they have more rights than those in the UK, when the rights are roughly equal, but exercised slightly differently.
What this guy tweeted would, in no way, be illegal in the US. It's not obscene (no swearing, nudity, or violence); it's not threatening or even, I would argue, "offensive" (in the general sense); it's just rude and insensitive. Obviously, some with thinner skins may disagree, but it certainly should not be an arrestable act anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the cops to do when someone turns themself in (as the guy did from the article)?
Statehood for England (Score:5, Funny)
If England is ever going to be accepted as a state they'll have to learn to respect the first amendment rights of citizens. Oh, and while we're at it, they should be citizens not subjects. Drop the monarch.
Re: (Score:3)
First amend what? This is the UK here!
Anyway, the US amendments can be amended at any time, or totally removed. The clue is in the name, "amendment".
Re: (Score:2)
Well my comment was sort of tongue-in-cheek. I just realized the actual event was in Scotland. Well, they could apply for statehood too I suppose.
Yes, amendments can be amended. But the 1st has been holding up nicely since 1791. We reserve the right to say offensive things because speech that isn't offensive to anyone doesn't need protection.
Lately, we seem to be having trouble keeping our 4th amendment. Some of us were hoping the world would notice and point it out, in the same way that you'd point ou
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the world does not know more about your amendments than you know about the german or french constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeppers.
Of course, it requires the vote of 2/3 of the House of Representatives, plus 2/3 of the Senate. Then it requires 38 States to approve the change.
Good luck on getting 2/3 of Congress to approve of toilet paper, much less repealing the First Amendment.
And we're likelier to see another Civil War than we are to see 38 States approve such a thing.....
Re: (Score:2)
That's the idea. It's made to be difficult so it can only happen under dire circumstances, and with widespread support.
In practice it's usually simpler to subvert the constitution than alter if. The law says the government cannot ban X, then don't ban X... but just pass enough regulations and restrictions upon X that it becomes impossibly expensive, impractical or unavailable.
Re: (Score:2)
You kind of lost the moral high ground a long time ago.
Difficult to lecture people on free speech when your government spends its time torturing people to get them to talk.
That's not an argument in favour of censorship, just highlighting what happens when you have double-standards: people don't listen to you any more.
Re: (Score:2)
If England is ever going to be accepted as a state they'll have to learn to respect the first amendment rights of citizens.
Do you even realise how f***ing bloody stupid that claim is?
You are making two mistakes here that only a bloody imbecile could make: You assume that England has any interest to be accepted as a state, when everybody in England is just fine with the United Kingdom being accepted by everyone. Second, that England would have the slightest interest in any amendment to the US constitution.
Explanation for us non-UKians? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dead are also a protected class. At least for a time. It's a temporary status, until they are completly faded from living memory plus one generation. That's why it's forbidden to insult the dead of WWI, but perfectly OK to insult the dead of any war older than that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is Glasgow filled with some sort of protected class? Lot of Africans, or Muslims? Was the joke meant to be racist?
No more than any other major city. Anecdotally I'd say far less so than the south of the UK, but I don't have numbers to hand, so take that as opinion rather than fact.
Or just anti-life?
Basically, this. It could be construed as "classist", as Glasgow's primary reputation is being something of a rough city (or a tough/hard city from a local's point of view). - however the irony isn't lost on me that Sunderland (where the 'tweeter' resides) isn't exactly god's kingdom either. An argument could also be made that Scots thems
Where can I Sign Up (Score:2)
Offence (Score:2)
Lots of people offend me, but I recognize that I can't stop them from being offensive.
Though I do get a disproportionate joy from making them confront their own hypocrisies.
Re: (Score:2)
'Murica
Wait what?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean that you should be arrested for saying something unpleasant?
I didn't say anything about intending harm, that's all you.
Oh, so "intending harm" isn't "unpleasant"? Sounds like you said something so general as to be wrong, and when I called you on it, you changed what you said. That's the great thing, I can look back and see that you implied that saying "something unpleasant" shouldn't be arrestable. But never is there a "I misspoke, I meant..." statement, but asserting that I mis-read your plain and direct statement.
The OP suggested that people should get their "head caved in" for saying something disagreeable.
I didn't read it that way. I read it as you should expect to get your head caved in, not that you "should"
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with defending free speech. However, as all the Americans (who know deep in their heart that "free speech" is not a right that they have in practice) will tell you, speech isn't free of consequences. If that kind of speech leads to some time in a cell, or to loss of teeth, or to a face being smashed in, nobody in Scotland will feel one bit bad about it.
Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Like real life, the internet should be a place where people can speak their minds without a bunch of pantywaists shutting down their free speech rights out of insecurity. Of course, in the west, we have a growing problem where these people are gaining political power and using it to censor speech they don't like. No one should be arrested for a fucking internet post...at least not in a free country.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing walking into a memorial service in Glasgow and telling a joke on this, but I'm happy to tell jokes on this topic to my friends.
Jokes should never be censored.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you haven't spent much time in American airports.
Re:USA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
- Let's start with the effing muslims. They are not British.
Three points for single-handedly making the anti-censorship side almost as unpalatable as the government's actions.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not classful, we're stateless.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not classful, we're stateless.
Personally I haven't made it to stateless yet. People still address me as CDIR, but your point still remains.