- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Go on. What have I missed.
Discrimination -
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
Go on. What have I missed.
Sponsored Links
B
blightymam
Please don't start that again.
I can answer the question again, if it's asked again.
Sponsored Links
It may not actually be against the law. I never said it was.
This topic is being discussed but the subjects are not discussed in public.
Why has Farron resigned?
Because his view is not seen as acceptable, therefore he is not allowed to have that view in his position.
I realise you will agree that it is not acceptable and you are right - but it cannot be discussed in public.
This topic is being discussed but the subjects are not discussed in public.
Why has Farron resigned?
Because his view is not seen as acceptable, therefore he is not allowed to have that view in his position.
I realise you will agree that it is not acceptable and you are right - but it cannot be discussed in public.
B
blightymam
It is considered bad form.
Remember, (JD that is) my thread is about this no longer being true:
When Hawkeye was a boy, it was acceptable for the owner of the Daily Mail to have publicity photographs taken with Adolf Hitler, and for his paper to trumpet the slogan "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"
It was acceptable for a British political leader to pledge to a public meeting in 1934 to rid British Industry of foreigners "be they hebrews or any other form of alien."
It used to be quite normal for people to claim there was a secret cartel of financiers running the world for the benefit of their religion.
Today, when such things are said, as they are, they are likely to be contradicted and objections raised.
Even if you are in a country where it is not illegal to spout Nazi propaganda, or where it is not illegal to use the same rhetoric about a different target, rather than about jews.
Remember what "Free Speech" means.
It means that you can't be arrested and imprisoned by the government for expressing your opinion (unless, for example, you are trying to stir up violence or hatred).
It doesn't mean people have to agree with you, or listen to you, or to sit quietly while you rant.
It was acceptable for a British political leader to pledge to a public meeting in 1934 to rid British Industry of foreigners "be they hebrews or any other form of alien."
It used to be quite normal for people to claim there was a secret cartel of financiers running the world for the benefit of their religion.
Today, when such things are said, as they are, they are likely to be contradicted and objections raised.
Even if you are in a country where it is not illegal to spout Nazi propaganda, or where it is not illegal to use the same rhetoric about a different target, rather than about jews.
Remember what "Free Speech" means.
It means that you can't be arrested and imprisoned by the government for expressing your opinion (unless, for example, you are trying to stir up violence or hatred).
It doesn't mean people have to agree with you, or listen to you, or to sit quietly while you rant.
The next time you see a black, Asian, female, gay or disabled comedian on TV, transpose the words to those applicable to a straight abled white man and see if it would be unacceptable on TV.
If that is the case, then why are they allowed to do it?
If that is the case, then why are they allowed to do it?
As I haven't posted in this thread I'm unclear as to why you used my name in your rant.
And there is the problem with your concept of free speech. Violence is not the same as hatred. Hatred is an opinion. If you can outlaw hate speech then you can outlaw love speech; the very concept of making hate a lawful rather than social matter is patently absurd, and yet here we are. Saying that Muslims are all smelly Arabs or that ni**ers should go back to where they came from, are both hateful opinions, but neither incite violence. Yet under our current PC laws you can be convicted for both. And there are coutries with much stricter anti-free-speech laws that our administration would love to copy; creeping erosion of our freedom to offend.
You cannot be convicted of a crime for saying "I hate methodists, they smell"
However if you make a speech to a mob and say "let's round up all the methodists and lynch them" then you can.
What is the law that you think prevents you from saying "all plumbers should go back to Surrey?"
However if you make a speech to a mob and say "let's round up all the methodists and lynch them" then you can.
What is the law that you think prevents you from saying "all plumbers should go back to Surrey?"
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,742
- Reaction score
- 2,634
- Country
I would think those plumbers who don't live in Surrey might be a bit upset.
Sponsored Links
