andrew_nixon said:
Yup, proves we and no other country has it.
For anything you can prosecuted for what you say, contradicts "freedom of speech".
We don't have it, no country does, not even the USA who have it in the Consitution/ammendment.
Man jailed over racist messages
- Thread starter barmyarmy
- Start date
Yup, proves we and no other country has it.
For anything you can prosecuted for what you say, contradicts "freedom of speech".
We don't have it, no country does, not even the USA who have it in the Consitution/ammendment.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Well you are free to say what you want, but if what you have said breaks an existing law, then you will be prosecuted for it. You are basically free to say whatever you want, providing it doesn't break the law. Considering the laws are mostly in place for our benefit, what's the problem?
If you disagree with something the government has done, you have every right to protest, however that doesn't allow you to go down the routes of racial or terror abuse, as that then breaks existing laws.
If you disagree with something the government has done, you have every right to protest, however that doesn't allow you to go down the routes of racial or terror abuse, as that then breaks existing laws.
rickyp
International Coach
lol, you arent free to say what you want then are you?
cricketmad09
International Coach
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Thats giving the black people preferential treatment. Its not OK to abuse the hell out of one dead guy, and it be allowed, just because they are white, not black.puddleduck said:
tassietiger
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
puddleduck said:
Just like I'm free to rob a bank - they'll jail me for it, but I can still do it.
It's not freedom of speech if you can be jailed for speech. Still reckon this guy has been given a rough deal, no matter how much of a ****** he is.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
cricketmad09 said:
I seriously hope you re-read what you've typed, from where I'm sitting that looks massively like someone with some deep seated racist prejudices.
If the abuse directed at Steve Irwin had been racial, then it would have not been allowed. The abuse to the coloured kid is not being condemned because it was abuse, but because the tone of it was massively racist. Try not to further the stereotype that Aussies are racist, it does the rest of your countrymen no favours, especially since most of them are not.
Do not forget that this chap was also done for indecent images of kids, so he has gotten exactly what he deserved, even if the two punishments were sort of the wrong way round.
To put something to the people complaining that this isn't free speech. Would you want two terrorists to be able to sit in a Starbucks (don't ask why a starbucks, I like the irony I guess
) discussing what targets they are going to hit, how, and when. Except noone is allowed to stop them because until they act, they are within their rights under the law of free speech to say whatever they want? Should Abul Hamza ( was that his name, Mr Hookman from Finsbury park) have been allowed to stay in Finsbury Park spouting his rubbish? According to all those advocating a broader free speech he was again within the realms of free speech to say whatever he wanted, however the fact that he was essentially looking to incite racial hatred and violence meant it was wrong, and he was eventually stopped.
Free Speech means you are free to express your views without compromising other peoples safety. There has to be limits and laws in place for everything, including speech otherwise the world descends into Anarchy, and if that were the case we wouldn't all be sitting here discussing the merits of free speech in a nice civilised way on a forum.
