A victory for freedom of speech.... and sanity

Hep said:
Nobody got taken away, just advised to not be offensive on twitter.
Click to expand...
Had away, they came to his work place and told him he'd committed a thought crime. This is absolutely unacceptable in England. They've got history of this on tbe continent, but we've always been a free thinking nation. Too right it's been kicked in to touch, who the fuck did they think they were?!
 


Aituk7 said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Police compared to Stasi and Gestapo by judge as he rules they interfered in freedom of speech by investigating 'non crime' trans tweet

Judge says that the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's workplace "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Police compared to Stasi and Gestapo by judge as he rules they interfered in freedom of speech by investigating 'non crime' trans tweet

Judge says that the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's workplace "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".

For those who aren't aware this man was investigated by police for a non-crime hate incident because he posted a limerick that contained a joke about transgenderism in.

A police office called him up to say the tweet had been reported and later literally said to the man "you have not committed a crime but we do need to check your thinking"

The UK judiciary has been on a slippery slope when it comes to police chasing people for this nonsense over the past few years and finally we've seen a pushback.

Well done to Harry Miller.
Click to expand...

Next time I hear a politician or policeman use the excuse of manpower or time shortages I will wonder again how much time and money the stupid case and its preparation took.

Good lad Harry, and congratulations to the judge.
Curlyteeth said:
So is it the police who are in the wrong here cos they over reacted? If he'd been criticising gay men would that have been okay?
Click to expand...
The police are in the wrong because they should not have reacted at all. It is nothing to do with them. That is why we have a legal system.

The Gestapo comment about the police behaviour is a lesson to all of us. Regardless of our preferences or beliefs in any of these areas, as long as they are covered by our legal system.
Harry Angstrom said:
:lol: For you Herr Angstrom ze Var against drippy liberals is over.
Click to expand...

Frijj said:
What did the Nazis do with attention-seeking contrarians with inflated egos but not the intellect to back them up? Not nice things I would have thought so a return to fascism wouldn’t end well for you.

Easy Frijj. They made him Chancellor of Germany. If you have forgotten his name it was Adolf Hitler.
 
Last edited:
Hep said:
Just the opinions that discriminate against the protected attributes as defined in law today.
  • race
  • colour
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
  • age
  • physical or mental disability
  • marital status
  • family or carer's responsibilities
  • pregnancy
  • religion
  • political opinion
  • national extraction
  • social origin.
That's the standard we've set. Just as we no longer allow racist jokes on TV or racist chanting at football matches.

I'm all for reasoned respectful debate on any of those but people just posting stuff which is designed to upset or hurt others isn't acceptable. We don't allow it in the workplace or schools, so why should it be ok elsewhere.
Click to expand...
When you say that's the standard... do you ever think it's gone too far?
 
Aituk7 said:
When you say that's the standard... do you ever think it's gone too far?
Click to expand...

So you think a landlord should be able to deny someone a home purely because they’re black, or an employer a job because someone is Muslim?

Why is it you, an educated, young, professional, straight, white, atheist man have such an issue with laws that protect vulnerable minorities from discrimination, hatred and abuse?
 
Frijj said:
So you think a landlord should be able to deny someone a home purely because they’re black, or an employer a job because someone is Muslim?

Why is it you, an educated, young, professional, straight, white, atheist man have such an issue with laws that protect vulnerable minorities from discrimination, hatred and abuse?
Click to expand...
As the saying goes.
Oh the irony.
 
Last edited:
Hep said:
answer the question man.

You said has it gone too far, I said which bit, you can't answer.
Click to expand...
No actually I said "When you say that's the standard... do you ever think it's gone too far? "

I will answer your question though, you know... "the one I can't answer " ;)

So last year a teenage girl was found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message because she quoted a snoop dogg song on her instagram

I think that's too far
 
Last edited:
Aituk7 said:
No actually I said "When you say that's the standard... do you ever think it's gone too far? "

I will answer your question though, you know... "the one I can't answer " ;)

So last year a teenage girl was found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message because she quoted a snoop dogg song on her instagram

I think that's too far... for example
Click to expand...
I posted a list of things, which of those on the list are too far.

It was you that replied to that list saying it went too far.

Your usual predictable trait of finding an extreme to justify the norm is nothing to do with this question.

What on the list is too far?
 
Hep said:
I posted a list of things, which of those on the list are too far.

It was you that replied to that list saying it went too far.

Your usual predictable trait of finding an extreme to justify the norm is nothing to do with this question.

What on the list is too far?
Click to expand...
Well first off your list is bullshit, we don't censor speech against marital status for example.

Secondly, I don't see why we need to censor speech on any of those issues

I mean you listed political opinion ffs..... censoring speech on political opinion.... in a democracy :lol:
 
Aituk7 said:
Well first off your list is bullshit, we don't censor speech against marital status for example.

Secondly, I don't see why we need to censor speech on any of those issues

I mean you listed political opinion ffs..... censoring speech on political opinion.... in a democracy :lol:
Click to expand...
The list is enshrined in UK law.

It not about censoring debate on those subject it's an about prejudice to those groups. For example, you cannot consider if someone is pregnant when you interview them for a job. This is a good thing.

No one is stopping free speech, but abuse is not free speech it's abuse without any good or points coming from it.
 
Hep said:
The list is enshrined in UK law.

It not about censoring debate on those subject it's an about prejudice to those groups. For example, you cannot consider if someone is pregnant when you interview them for a job. This is a good thing.

No one is stopping free speech, but abuse is not free speech it's abuse without any good or points coming from it.
Click to expand...
So two entirely seperate things then, nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Thanks for your input to the thread again hep lad :lol:

Nothing if not consistent
 

Back
Top