Online Now 554

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

On this Board 133
Record: 1479 (5/20/2013)

Online now 703
Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)

Boards ▾

Fighton247 Board

The home for discussion on USC athletics

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

Trojan News on the Net

Latest USC headlines from around the net

Reply

UK can no longer consider itself a free society

  • http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/welsh-footballer-suspended-and-arrested-for-homoph

    How the fuck can someone get arrested for this? These kinds of affronts to freedom will lead to gov't buildings and workers getting blown up, by a freedom fighter.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/welsh-footballer-suspended-and-arrested-for-homoph

    How the fuck can someone get arrested for this? These kinds of affronts to freedom will lead to gov't buildings and workers getting blown up, by a freedom fighter.

    No First Amendment. This is not new, as shown by Terry's case recently in the news.

    John Terry trial verdict: NOT GUILTY! Chelsea captain acquitted of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand | Mail Online

    The former England captain marched out of court in silence yesterday after a judge said it was impossible to prove he was guilty of abusing Queens Park Rangers player Anton Ferdinand.

    www.dailymail.co.uk

    The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

    901Club

  • There was a big debate about this in Britain a few years ago when the Labour Government wanted to pass legislation banning religious hatred and the like. Rowan Atkinson and a few comedians made a big stink about it.

    Clearly the guy is a hateful bigot and I welcome any chance to stamp this kind of thing out, but creating a martyr out of morons like this is also not exactly helpful. One of those big conservative vs. progressive debates (in the true sense of those terms) of whether legislation should be passed to change social mores or merely to keep up with them. I actually am not sure that legislation is the right answer as I come down on the free speech side.

    New law could make gay jokes illegal

    The right to be rude about homosexuals could fall victim to new government laws to stamp out behaviour, says Rowan Atkinson.

    www.telegraph.co.uk

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22

  • Deep rooted issue. the muslims are trying to get the UN to make "hate Speech" illegal. The irony is that, one could certainly make the case that if hate speech were made illegal, the koran would be a banned book.

    Should never be such a thing as a thought crime in a free society.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    Deep rooted issue. the muslims are trying to get the UN to make "hate Speech" illegal. The irony is that, one could certainly make the case that if hate speech were made illegal, the koran would be a banned book.

    Should never be such a thing as a thought crime in a free society.

    My guess is that it isn't the Muslims you are pointing at trying to get homophobic language made illegal. And, as recent events show, there are certainly anti-Muslim folks around and their community feels targeted. I agree with you on the importance of free speech but let's not go around making claims about who's pushing these things when there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

    This post was edited by swr22 on 8/6/2012 at 7:29 PM

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22

  • swr22 said...

    My guess is that it isn't the Muslims you are pointing at trying to get homophobic language made illegal. And, as recent events show, there are certainly anti-Muslim folks around and their community feels targeted. I agree with you on the importance of free speech but let's not go around making claims about who's pushing these things when there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

    No evidence? OIC sponsored.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CG0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fabigailesman%2F2011%2F12%2F30%2Fcould-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure%2F&ei=u2EgUPP4EISq2QW80oDQAQ&usg=AFQjCNH7LVBgf6qk-UcqZ9BsBJYwMHJ5EA&sig2=xHXk7J4PnSmE9Q1uhB4WXQ

    Of course the muslims are not trying to get homophobic language made illegal, just a by-product on their version of anti-hate speech.

    This post was edited by MJRuffalo on 8/6/2012 at 7:34 PM

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    No evidence? OIC sponsored.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CG0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fabigailesman%2F2011%2F12%2F30%2Fcould-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure%2F&ei=u2EgUPP4EISq2QW80oDQAQ&usg=AFQjCNH7LVBgf6qk-UcqZ9BsBJYwMHJ5EA&sig2=xHXk7J4PnSmE9Q1uhB4WXQ

    I thought you meant in the UK. Interesting link, though. Seems like the imminent violence bit is to try and fit it within the 'fire in a crowded movie theater' part which separates incitement from otherwise free speech.

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22

  • swr22 said...

    I thought you meant in the UK. Interesting link, though. Seems like the imminent violence bit is to try and fit it within the 'fire in a crowded movie theater' part which separates incitement from otherwise free speech.

    Or perhaps to follow more closely the 1969 US Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio which came up with a First Amendment limitation for speech that would provoke an "imminent lawless action".

    This post was edited by 901Club on 8/6/2012 at 9:41 PM

    The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

    901Club

  • 901Club said...

    Or perhaps to more follow more closely the 1969 US Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio which came up with a First Amendment limitation for speech that would provoke an "imminent lawless action".

    Too much ambiguity for me there. Obviously we are dealing with different degrees of provocation.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    Too much ambiguity for me there. Obviously we are dealing with different degrees of provocation.

    Yes, they tend to do that, be ambiguous.

    "Imminent lawless action" is when the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. Per Hess v. Indiana (1973), speech that "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" does not meet the imminence requirement.

    Not a great more guidance, but that's what Supreme Court cases give you. A brick-by-brick approach to building the law.

    The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

    901Club

  • 901Club said...

    Or perhaps to more follow more closely the 1969 US Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio which came up with a First Amendment limitation for speech that would provoke an "imminent lawless action".

    Yes, that is much better. +1.

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22

  • I have no problem with gay people, and I think his tweet is moronic, but this is absurd. The UK is getting really out of hand with this PC policing

    trojans2015

USC
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports