FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Freedom of speech and opinions

Freedom of speech and opinions

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

What opinions are we ok to share? Which subjects are acceptable to discuss?

We may think that some opinions are positive but other people will see them in a negative way.

Is this the death of debate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Debate in itself is healthy.

The problem lies with people expressing toxic opinions in an offensive manner.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

People free to say whatever they like, but be prepared to be be challenged if others disagree with those opinions.

That’s the trouble - some people seem to think that freedom of speech means having the right to say anything, unchallenged and without consequence. It isn’t.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What opinions are we ok to share? Which subjects are acceptable to discuss?

We may think that some opinions are positive but other people will see them in a negative way.

Is this the death of debate?"

When a bloke dresses as a woman and feels the need to point out to everybody on every other thread that he's a bloke dressed as a woman but when somebody else points out that he's a bloke dressed as a woman he goes off crying about it.

More of an observation than an opinion but I thought I'd put it out there anyway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"What opinions are we ok to share? Which subjects are acceptable to discuss?

We may think that some opinions are positive but other people will see them in a negative way.

Is this the death of debate?"

Any subject is open to debate or discussion, the key word there is debate. Putting forward an opinion as fact isn't debating, nor is making personal attacks. This is the issue with sensitive topics being discussed on the forums; many people take the issue personally or react emotively to having their viewpoint challenged or questioned.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

We should be more like America with freedom of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"People free to say whatever they like, but be prepared to be be challenged if others disagree with those opinions.

That’s the trouble - some people seem to think that freedom of speech means having the right to say anything, unchallenged and without consequence. It isn’t."

Could not agree more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People are so quick to show their hatred to someone’s opinions to feel loyal to their own.

Just appreciate people’s views first, and try to understand preferences.

I’ve had enough of this forum for now, it’s been hard to read people’s post for a while, this place is obsessed with competition between each other, including conflicting opinions.

I come away thinking those that were “successful’ are those that seem like nice people in here.

Thanks Op.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I have the right to my opinion"

Yeah well I have the right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no right to you opinion!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The probelm is with certain subjects people get in their emotions too much...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *innie The MinxWoman over a year ago

Under the Duvet

Debate and discussion are healthy.

Some people use the term Freedom of Speech as an excuse to harangue and abuse others.

Debate needs an open mind.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"Debate in itself is healthy.

The problem lies with people expressing toxic opinions in an offensive manner."

This!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Problem is it’s all too easy for people to spout vitriolic nonsense online where they feel they are untouchable, I’m sure most don’t believe in their more extreme thoughts enough to speak them face to face they just get a kick out of causing offence. Freedom of speech is a necessity but speak don’t type!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"Debate and discussion are healthy.

Some people use the term Freedom of Speech as an excuse to harangue and abuse others.

Debate needs an open mind."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

""I have the right to my opinion"

Yeah well I have the right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no right to you opinion! "

Everyone has a right to their opinion and to express it, the issue is where people express that opinion and take umbrage with having it challenged or questioned. Respect for the other side is the basis for any healthy debate. Silencing dissenting voices or opposition isn't debate, neither is using dismissive tags like 'snowflake' which is a popular one I've noticed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *evil_u_knowMan over a year ago

city

I think its okay to say whatever you want.

But liberal americans are actually authoritarian socialists, so force you to comply.

People think left wing is the opposite of hitler, but there is more than one left wing.

Liberal - Conservative

Deomocratic - Authoritarian

Socialist - Capitalist.

So Antifa are (Left) Socialist, (Right) authoritarian, and (Left) Liberal.

Trump is (right) capitalist, (left) democratic, and (right) conservative

Hitler was (left) socialist, (right_ Authoritarian, and (middle) liberal/conservative.

So we get tricked by the "left" and "right" markings, and we allow far right groups (liberal american groups) to tell us what is okay to say or not, and to ruin our lives if we say anything else by hiding behind the (left) label.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You can choose to comment or not.

Some subjects are banned on the forum anyway , rightly so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Debate in itself is healthy.

The problem lies with people expressing toxic opinions in an offensive manner."

And also the fact that people use the word offended too quickly.

We have the right to offend as well as be offended. I'm not saying it's good to offend, but it's part of free speech. Too many people seem to live their lives looking for offense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elma and ShaggyCouple over a year ago

Bedworth

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

I was just gonna say that opinions are like arseholes, we’ve all got one. But, your saying trumps mine by a mile........I may ‘borrow’ it one day

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *utmegsMan over a year ago

Closer than you think

"People free to say whatever they like, but be prepared to be be challenged if others disagree with those opinions.

That’s the trouble - some people seem to think that freedom of speech means having the right to say anything, unchallenged and without consequence. It isn’t."

This.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

I was just gonna say that opinions are like arseholes, we’ve all got one. But, your saying trumps mine by a mile........I may ‘borrow’ it one day

I gift it to you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!"

Its my middle name

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

My philosophy entirely

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"People free to say whatever they like, but be prepared to be be challenged if others disagree with those opinions.

That’s the trouble - some people seem to think that freedom of speech means having the right to say anything, unchallenged and without consequence. It isn’t."

Couldn't say it better myself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *evil_u_knowMan over a year ago

city

Free speech does mean free from consequences. The UK has never had it, so its hard for UK people to understand. The only country ever to have had it is America, but they are letting it slip away, as people believe they can attach consequences and retribution to words that were spoken.

the heart of free speech is "I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

NOT, NOT, NOT!

"He can say what he wants but must be prepared to face the consequences"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

What gets me is the idea that anyone's opinion is as good at anyone else's. It isn't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness! "

Damn your smooth

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness! "

Both, Bella Just Awesome Smith.... how did you know?!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Free speech does mean free from consequences. The UK has never had it, so its hard for UK people to understand. The only country ever to have had it is America, but they are letting it slip away, as people believe they can attach consequences and retribution to words that were spoken.

the heart of free speech is "I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

NOT, NOT, NOT!

"He can say what he wants but must be prepared to face the consequences""

"freedom of speech" in the USA means that the state will not impose sanctions for what you say. It doesn't mean that private persons can't impose sanctions like refusing to talk to you, boycotting your business etc etc.

It's the latter that people mean when they talk about consequences

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

My philosophy entirely "

Its a dog eat dog world my friend

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Debate in itself is healthy.

The problem lies with people expressing toxic opinions in an offensive manner."

And who decides what is 'toxic' or offensive?

And here is the problem.

Unfortunately Britain has never had freedom of speech, you can be charged for shouting too loudly in the street. We should be like the United States when it comes to speech.

You shouldn't want the state to decide and enforce what speech is acceptable otherwise you're just a fascist using hurt feelings as a means to curb others freedoms.

The world isn't rainbows and butterflies nor should it ever be.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

the heart of free speech is "I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

NOT, NOT, NOT!

"He can say what he wants but must be prepared to face the consequences""

Yes, but that right has never been unfettered and consequences have always been a given. The US first amendment is not about being an arsehole without any social repercussions, it's about the *government* not suppressing speech. The US is much bigger on people losing their jobs for political opinions or social activities, for example.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *evil_u_knowMan over a year ago

city

""freedom of speech" in the USA means that the state will not impose sanctions for what you say. It doesn't mean that private persons can't impose sanctions like refusing to talk to you, boycotting your business etc etc.

It's the latter that people mean when they talk about consequences "

How very far right of them. Whats next burning books they dont agree with?

The spirit of free speech is how the government approaches it, not the far right people you mention.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Consequences for speech is not an inherently political act, although it can be. If someone insults my mother, I might choose to spend less time with them. That's a consequence for speech. That's not tyranny, that's... the way society functions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Consequences for speech is not an inherently political act, although it can be. If someone insults my mother, I might choose to spend less time with them. That's a consequence for speech. That's not tyranny, that's... the way society functions. "

People may have freedom of speech, but there's also a freedom to ignore or disassociate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

People may have freedom of speech, but there's also a freedom to ignore or disassociate. "

Quite. Or use your speech in return. People seem to think that they have a right to unlimited unchallenged speech, which is garbage. And often applied unevenly. Many of my views are regularly and heatedly contested by those who claim that challenging their views infringes their freedom of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? "
Yeah, how it should be.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be. "

I can think of some truly vile examples, but I don't want a time out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison? "
Because these "liberals" are becoming fascist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison? "

You're the only one who has mentioned prison.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be. "

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison? Because these "liberals" are becoming fascist."

Shhhh defending Freedom of Speech is a Right Wing Neo Nazi White Supremacist talking point now you know.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile? "

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws."

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison? Because these "liberals" are becoming fascist.

Shhhh defending Freedom of Speech is a Right Wing Neo Nazi White Supremacist talking point now you know.

"
Oh I know, me being blonde doesn't help either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws."

Sufficient evidence? A limit!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison?

You're the only one who has mentioned prison. "

What do you think the debate of Freedom of Speech is? It's the right to be able to say as one pleases without fear of the Government throwing you in prison.

We aren't arguing for freedom of consequences from society as a whole.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison?

You're the only one who has mentioned prison.

What do you think the debate of Freedom of Speech is? It's the right to be able to say as one pleases without fear of the Government throwing you in prison.

We aren't arguing for freedom of consequences from society as a whole.

Can I get my mob to chant outside your house all day?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

It's funny how the terms change.

Some people: you guys are mean about my opinions!

Other people: If you say something, we have a right to reply and think that your opinion is bad. Maybe even that you're bad.

First people: why do you want to put me in prison you fascist?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile? "

No that's Harassment. Something totally different.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want? "
You're using an extreme example. Who would go around doing that if they didn't have some reason to believe?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

No that's Harassment. Something totally different.

No its not, it's freedom of speech.

Or are you saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Why do you want to prevent someone from speaking by throwing them in prison?

You're the only one who has mentioned prison.

What do you think the debate of Freedom of Speech is? It's the right to be able to say as one pleases without fear of the Government throwing you in prison.

We aren't arguing for freedom of consequences from society as a whole.

Some people are clearly arguing that telling someone that their opinion sucks or is unwelcome infringes upon their freedom of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's funny how the terms change.

Some people: you guys are mean about my opinions!

Other people: If you say something, we have a right to reply and think that your opinion is bad. Maybe even that you're bad.

First people: why do you want to put me in prison you fascist?

Nice strawman

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want? You're using an extreme example. Who would go around doing that if they didn't have some reason to believe?"

I am trying the illustrate the absurdity of the argument that the state should never interfere with freedom of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want? You're using an extreme example. Who would go around doing that if they didn't have some reason to believe?"

No limits means no limits. Protesting is generally included in political freedom of speech.

I had worse in mind...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want? You're using an extreme example. Who would go around doing that if they didn't have some reason to believe?

I am trying the illustrate the absurdity of the argument that the state should never interfere with freedom of speech. "
But that isn't freedom of speech like it has been said that is harassment. That isn't just hate speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"It's funny how the terms change.

Some people: you guys are mean about my opinions!

Other people: If you say something, we have a right to reply and think that your opinion is bad. Maybe even that you're bad.

First people: why do you want to put me in prison you fascist?

Nice strawman"

Find the word "prison" (or any synonym or variant) before your comment. Please.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entlemanDevilMan over a year ago

London and Newcastle

We shouldn't be more like America in any way!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah' "

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

No that's Harassment. Something totally different.

No its not, it's freedom of speech.

Or are you saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech? "

It's harassment and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I am quite diplomatic in debate. I am not so arrogant as to believe that I am right all the time. There is nothing worse than debating with someone who is incapable of listening to any other point of view.

Here ... someone else hold my talking stick

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want? You're using an extreme example. Who would go around doing that if they didn't have some reason to believe?

I am trying the illustrate the absurdity of the argument that the state should never interfere with freedom of speech. But that isn't freedom of speech like it has been said that is harassment. That isn't just hate speech."

I am saying what I want to say in the manner I want to say it. You think the state should stop me doing that because you think it's harassment.

Hence you are in favour of restrictions on freedom of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entlemanDevilMan over a year ago

London and Newcastle

"Debate and discussion are healthy.

Some people use the term Freedom of Speech as an excuse to harangue and abuse others.

Debate needs an open mind."

Agreed. Freedom of speech shouldn't be seen as freedom so spout hatred etc, without consequence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want? You're using an extreme example. Who would go around doing that if they didn't have some reason to believe?

I am saying what I want to say in the manner I want to say it. You think the state should stop me doing that because you think it's harassment.

Hence you are in favour of restrictions on freedom of speech. "
No, if they are threatening violence that is different.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

No that's Harassment. Something totally different.

No its not, it's freedom of speech.

Or are you saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech?

It's harassment and has nothing to do with freedom of speech."

I want to say something. You want the state to stop me. How can that not be restricting my free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""I don't agree with what he said but will fight to the death for his right to say it"

You either support Freedom of Speech or you don't it's really that simple.

No limits at all? Yeah, how it should be.

So I can get a mob together to stand outside your house 24/7 chanting that you're a paedophile?

Don't say that about me. If there was sufficient evidence people could do that but still have to abide by other laws.

Why do I need sufficient evidence, you said we be able to say whatever we want? You're using an extreme example. Who would go around doing that if they didn't have some reason to believe?

I am saying what I want to say in the manner I want to say it. You think the state should stop me doing that because you think it's harassment.

Hence you are in favour of restrictions on freedom of speech. No, if they are threatening violence that is different. "

I'm not threatening violence. I'm just chanting.

But also, if you won't allow people to threaten violence, that's a second restriction on free speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

How do you feel about defamation? No threats or incitement to violence, not bothering you, just telling everyone bad things about you that cause you social and/or material harm. It's just speech, yeah?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's funny how the terms change.

Some people: you guys are mean about my opinions!

Other people: If you say something, we have a right to reply and think that your opinion is bad. Maybe even that you're bad.

First people: why do you want to put me in prison you fascist?

Nice strawman

Find the word "prison" (or any synonym or variant) before your comment. Please. "

Are the consequences of some speech not prison or a criminal realated charge?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

Depends on the medium. But defamation or slander. Just speech, yeah?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? "
Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irginieWoman over a year ago

Near Marlborough

when people listen to understand rather than listen to reply then debate becomes valuable. Otherwise it’s just a list of people’s opinion without debate.

V x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They do what they wanna do

Say what they wanna say

Live how they wanna live

play how they wanna play

The addams family

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose."

I asked you if there should be no limits on free speech. You said there shouldn't be. Now you have agreed three areas where you think there should be limits.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"It's funny how the terms change.

Some people: you guys are mean about my opinions!

Other people: If you say something, we have a right to reply and think that your opinion is bad. Maybe even that you're bad.

First people: why do you want to put me in prison you fascist?

Nice strawman

Find the word "prison" (or any synonym or variant) before your comment. Please.

Are the consequences of some speech not prison or a criminal realated charge? "

Not necessarily. Some consequences are social, from a dirty look through to losing friends or a job. Look at the example about insulting my mother above. I'm not advocating the law get involved, I'm just getting away from that kind of person.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

I asked you if there should be no limits on free speech. You said there shouldn't be. Now you have agreed three areas where you think there should be limits. "
Where they are actually committing a crime yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose."

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's funny how the terms change.

Some people: you guys are mean about my opinions!

Other people: If you say something, we have a right to reply and think that your opinion is bad. Maybe even that you're bad.

First people: why do you want to put me in prison you fascist?

Nice strawman

Find the word "prison" (or any synonym or variant) before your comment. Please.

Are the consequences of some speech not prison or a criminal realated charge?

Now you're just splitting hairs. We both know certain words and speech can land someone in prison.

So let's not pretend that freedom of speech but not of consequences doesn't include police knocking at your door.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. "
Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

I asked you if there should be no limits on free speech. You said there shouldn't be. Now you have agreed three areas where you think there should be limits. Where they are actually committing a crime yes. "

It's a crime to say the holocaust never happened in certain countries. Is that OK?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid."

But all speech should be free! No limits!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"when people listen to understand rather than listen to reply then debate becomes valuable. Otherwise it’s just a list of people’s opinion without debate.

V x "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

... And I think it's extremely likely that this thread was started because people don't like being told that insulting people's weight isn't nice (in more robust terms). The goalposts have pissed off to another bloody stadium at this point, and are playing a different sport.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... "

So the government could declare saying "vote Conservative" a crime and the free speech warriors would be fine with that as it not an interference with free speech if what you say is a crime.

I never knew it was that easy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... "
Look up the definition of slander says in the first sentence it is a crime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... Look up the definition of slander says in the first sentence it is a crime."

It isn't in this country. Its a civil matter.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"It's funny how the terms change.

Some people: you guys are mean about my opinions!

Other people: If you say something, we have a right to reply and think that your opinion is bad. Maybe even that you're bad.

First people: why do you want to put me in prison you fascist?

Nice strawman"

If it's a strawman - ie no one is worried about being threatened with prison for stating their opinion - then there is no 'freedom of speech' debate to be had.

'Freedom of speech' means not having your opinion punished by force. It doesn't mean a right to having your opinion free from challenge, and it doesn't mean a right to be heard and listened to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! "
To a point of not committing a crime, yeah.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! To a point of not committing a crime, yeah."

So like I say, if the government passed a law which made saying "vote Conservative" a crime, you'd be fine with that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Fuck it! Mr smooth meet miss awesome. Can't we all just get along? ??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... Look up the definition of slander says in the first sentence it is a crime."

Source?

My understanding was that it was a tort, where a claimant sues. A civil wrong, not a crime. When does the CPS get involved?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! To a point of not committing a crime, yeah.

So like I say, if the government passed a law which made saying "vote Conservative" a crime, you'd be fine with that? "
No because that is fascism. You're examples are poor.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

What's a crime? What the government decides what a crime is. That's the very opposite of what free speech advocates want.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said. "

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... Look up the definition of slander says in the first sentence it is a crime.

Source?

My understanding was that it was a tort, where a claimant sues. A civil wrong, not a crime. When does the CPS get involved? "
The Dictionary!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! To a point of not committing a crime, yeah.

So like I say, if the government passed a law which made saying "vote Conservative" a crime, you'd be fine with that? No because that is fascism. You're examples are poor."

If you want no limits no exceptions, then fascism, harassment, slander/ defamation, etc are all allowed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Figggght!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... Look up the definition of slander says in the first sentence it is a crime.

Source?

My understanding was that it was a tort, where a claimant sues. A civil wrong, not a crime. When does the CPS get involved? The Dictionary!"

Which one, and is it a specialist legal text? Are you a lawyer?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! To a point of not committing a crime, yeah.

So like I say, if the government passed a law which made saying "vote Conservative" a crime, you'd be fine with that? No because that is fascism. You're examples are poor.

If you want no limits no exceptions, then fascism, harassment, slander/ defamation, etc are all allowed. "
No because we still have laws. Just not stupid hate speech laws for having an opinion on something.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! To a point of not committing a crime, yeah.

So like I say, if the government passed a law which made saying "vote Conservative" a crime, you'd be fine with that? No because that is fascism. You're examples are poor."

Eh?

A crime is something the government says is a crime in a law that it passes. You said it wasn't interference with freedom of speech if what you say is against the law.

Let's take a real example. In Germany it's against the law to just say the holocaust never happened. Is that OK?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech? "

What on earth are you on about?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!"

Haha, yeah,now fock off

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... Look up the definition of slander says in the first sentence it is a crime.

Source?

My understanding was that it was a tort, where a claimant sues. A civil wrong, not a crime. When does the CPS get involved? The Dictionary!

Which one, and is it a specialist legal text? Are you a lawyers? "
Just Google slander ffs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Figggght!! "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You should be allowed to say whatever you like, free from punishment. Your associated actions and approach with the speech however should be taken in to consideration.

Freedom of speech should always come with consequence. What that consequence is depends on the situation.

If you feel the right to say something offensive to somebody, that person has the right to their opinion to disagree, discuss, or just kick the shit out of you.

Neither side may be right but the consequence of one's actions, verbal or not, is just natural.

Consequence, yes.

Punishment in the form of silencing or imprisonment, no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *emini ManMan over a year ago

There and to the left a bit

As others have said, having an opinion is every person's right, expressing that opinion is also their right (within legal restraints), where issues arise is where people are not prepared to have that opinion evaluated and challenged by others who may hold a different opinion through any form of debate (and there are some good examples of exactly that happening on this very thread).

When I post an opinion on here, I always try to make it both balanced and reasoned, and always expect to have it challenged and as a result am prepared to back it up if necessary, or back down if that challenge should make me question my own opinion.

Sadly there are some who offer an opinion, refuse to accept that it might be flawed and the more they defend it the louder and more aggressive they get.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!"

My kinda people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! To a point of not committing a crime, yeah.

So like I say, if the government passed a law which made saying "vote Conservative" a crime, you'd be fine with that? No because that is fascism. You're examples are poor.

Eh?

A crime is something the government says is a crime in a law that it passes. You said it wasn't interference with freedom of speech if what you say is against the law.

Let's take a real example. In Germany it's against the law to just say the holocaust never happened. Is that OK? "

No. That's exactly what I'm against.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

This really made me laugh

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"As others have said, having an opinion is every person's right, expressing that opinion is also their right (within legal restraints), where issues arise is where people are not prepared to have that opinion evaluated and challenged by others who may hold a different opinion through any form of debate (and there are some good examples of exactly that happening on this very thread).

Sadly there are some who offer an opinion, refuse to accept that it might be flawed and the more they defend it the louder and more aggressive they get."

I think this is actually the heart of the issue vis a vis Fab.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

"
I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

But Where's the line as to what should be a crime? Should we loosen that if it involves speech.

And defamation/ slander isn't a crime... Look up the definition of slander says in the first sentence it is a crime.

Source?

My understanding was that it was a tort, where a claimant sues. A civil wrong, not a crime. When does the CPS get involved? The Dictionary!

Which one, and is it a specialist legal text? Are you a lawyers? Just Google slander ffs."

Why would I when I have access to legal texts? Google spews all sorts of shit and doesn't sort nonsense from truth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? "
Because it is slander if it isn't true.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

This really made me laugh

Then my work here is done.....

I'm here all week!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Harassment is usually speaking (including actions to facilitate that speech). Threatening violence almost always involves speaking. Limiting them means limiting freedom of speech.

You're you are in favour of a third restriction on free speech? Behave, can be sued in America for that. You're using extreme examples. Not the kind of stuff that this government wants to impose.

America has always restricted freedom of speech. Fire in a crowded theatre, classically, or more recently, I think doctors can be prosecuted for asking parents about gun safety in some states. Yeah but they are slack on other things which we aren't that are stupid.

But all speech should be free! No limits! To a point of not committing a crime, yeah.

So like I say, if the government passed a law which made saying "vote Conservative" a crime, you'd be fine with that? No because that is fascism. You're examples are poor.

Eh?

A crime is something the government says is a crime in a law that it passes. You said it wasn't interference with freedom of speech if what you say is against the law.

Let's take a real example. In Germany it's against the law to just say the holocaust never happened. Is that OK?

No. That's exactly what I'm against.

But people who do that in Germany are committing a crime and you said that if your speech is a crime then it's OK to restrict that speech.

You now appear to be saying that you should be able to speak freely even if what you say is a crime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? "

I wouldn't want you arrested for that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

Isn't that another restriction on free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"People free to say whatever they like, but be prepared to be be challenged if others disagree with those opinions.

That’s the trouble - some people seem to think that freedom of speech means having the right to say anything, unchallenged and without consequence. It isn’t."

Exactly!

Everyone is free to say whatever they like and everyone else is free to respond to them and adjust their affiliations to them within legal limits.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I am the law

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. "
With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

So speech must be absolute and people must be protected from government interference except:

When it's dangerous (presumably as defined by the government)

When it's a crime (crimes are by definition defined by the government)

When it's not true (I wonder who'd figure that out?)

When it's slander/ defamation (who defines the limits there? There'd have to be a law. Who makes laws?)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc."

What makes a law good or bad, old enough or new enough? What legal evolution (inevitable in our system) is acceptable or not? How is that decided impartially across the board?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc."

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"So speech must be absolute and people must be protected from government interference except:

When it's dangerous (presumably as defined by the government)

When it's a crime (crimes are by definition defined by the government)

When it's not true (I wonder who'd figure that out?)

When it's slander/ defamation (who defines the limits there? There'd have to be a law. Who makes laws?) "

You missed "when it's harassment"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!"

Free speech? Or the impression we have free will which gives us the belief we have free speech?

Shit! It's catching!! I can feel my awesomeness slipping away

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? "
We didn't even have proper laws back then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

What makes a proper law?

Are you saying that the UK didn't have proper laws until 2008 (when blasphemy was abolished)? I thought new laws were bad?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then."

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

[Removed by poster at 15/02/19 14:46:41]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? "

But he doesn't exist

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then.

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008"
That law wasn't exactly enforced it became redundant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Why is a law that's not used a good, proper law? When did the UK get proper laws and how is that defined?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Why is a law that's not used a good, proper law? When did the UK get proper laws and how is that defined? "
Old laws going out the window is 1 thing but new stupid laws is another.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then.

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008 That law wasn't exactly enforced it became redundant."

Someone was convicted as recently as 1979 for saying that one of the guards at Jesus crucifixion might have fancied him.

Was that an interference with free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!

Free speech? Or the impression we have free will which gives us the belief we have free speech?

Shit! It's catching!! I can feel my awesomeness slipping away

Bells just Smith it is then.

Now you've gone and done it, throwing a petrol bomb like free will on the fire of debate! You minx!

I think I like you!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Why is a law that's not used a good, proper law? When did the UK get proper laws and how is that defined? Old laws going out the window is 1 thing but new stupid laws is another."

What's a stupid law, and how do you apply that definition without ideological slant with regard to the rule of law?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then.

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008 That law wasn't exactly enforced it became redundant.

Someone was convicted as recently as 1979 for saying that one of the guards at Jesus crucifixion might have fancied him.

Was that an interference with free speech? "
40 years ago? Recent.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

Have I said that? Quote me. Go ahead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!

Free speech? Or the impression we have free will which gives us the belief we have free speech?

Shit! It's catching!! I can feel my awesomeness slipping away

Bells just Smith it is then.

Now you've gone and done it, throwing a petrol bomb like free will on the fire of debate! You minx!

I think I like you! "

Bella Just Smith, we don't even get free speech on our phones! Bloody predictive text!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then.

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008 That law wasn't exactly enforced it became redundant.

Someone was convicted as recently as 1979 for saying that one of the guards at Jesus crucifixion might have fancied him.

Was that an interference with free speech? 40 years ago? Recent.

It's in my lifetime.

Anyway your point was that old laws restricting free speech are fine. The blasphemy law existed for over 600 years, so I assume you must think that law was fine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then.

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008 That law wasn't exactly enforced it became redundant.

Someone was convicted as recently as 1979 for saying that one of the guards at Jesus crucifixion might have fancied him.

Was that an interference with free speech? 40 years ago? Recent.

I thought you liked old laws.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/02/19 14:52:16]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!

Free speech? Or the impression we have free will which gives us the belief we have free speech?

Shit! It's catching!! I can feel my awesomeness slipping away

Bells just Smith it is then.

Now you've gone and done it, throwing a petrol bomb like free will on the fire of debate! You minx!

I think I like you!

Bella Just Smith, we don't even get free speech on our phones! Bloody predictive text!"

Are you dwayne dibbly

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then.

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008 That law wasn't exactly enforced it became redundant.

Someone was convicted as recently as 1979 for saying that one of the guards at Jesus crucifixion might have fancied him.

Was that an interference with free speech? 40 years ago? Recent.

It's in my lifetime.

Anyway your point was that old laws restricting free speech are fine. The blasphemy law existed for over 600 years, so I assume you must think that law was fine. "
These possible new laws are not good is what I'm saying.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

But you think the government should decide what speech amounts to harassment and should be prohibited.

Why do you want the government to decide what is and isnt free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

Have I said that? Quote me. Go ahead. "

I was asking questions, I didn't single anyone out.

Feel free to answer them though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/02/19 14:54:32]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r.BlondeMan over a year ago

Chester/Wirral

"Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

But you think the government should decide what speech amounts to harassment and should be prohibited.

Why do you want the government to decide what is and isnt free speech? "
The government already determined those laws. Not the new 1's.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!

Free speech? Or the impression we have free will which gives us the belief we have free speech?

Shit! It's catching!! I can feel my awesomeness slipping away

Bells just Smith it is then.

Now you've gone and done it, throwing a petrol bomb like free will on the fire of debate! You minx!

I think I like you!

Bella Just Smith, we don't even get free speech on our phones! Bloody predictive text!

Are you dwayne dibbly"

Close but no cigar, Wayne Dribbly, with a silent F.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"What don't you understand? There should be no restrictions on speech.

Harassment and slander etc are all criminal offences which has nothing to do with the restrictions on what can and can't be said.

What?

So if I want to say you're a serious criminal and the government must be in prison if I do, please explain how that isn't restricting my speech?

What on earth are you on about?

Sorry mistype.

I really want to say something untrue and defamatory about you.

However the law says that if I do I will go to prison.

Thus the government is stopping me saying what I want.

How can that not be a restriction on my free speech? Because it is slander if it isn't true.

So? The government is still telling me what I can and can't say. With laws that have been made ages ago. Not new legislation for hate speech etc.

For hundreds of years it was illegal to say God didn't exist. Was that an interference with free speech? We didn't even have proper laws back then.

The Blasphemy law was abolished in this country in 2008 That law wasn't exactly enforced it became redundant.

Someone was convicted as recently as 1979 for saying that one of the guards at Jesus crucifixion might have fancied him.

Was that an interference with free speech? 40 years ago? Recent.

It's in my lifetime.

Anyway your point was that old laws restricting free speech are fine. The blasphemy law existed for over 600 years, so I assume you must think that law was fine. These possible new laws are not good is what I'm saying."

So let me get this straight.

1. Restricting speech is fine if the speech is a crime.

2. But not crimes defined by new laws

3.or crimes defined by old laws.

I'm confused.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

Have I said that? Quote me. Go ahead.

I was asking questions, I didn't single anyone out.

Feel free to answer them though."

I don't see a workable alternative to government working out what is or is not acceptable speech. That's how laws are made, by those we elect.

I think that this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument, because freedom of speech cannot be absolute in any functional society by very definition. Where limits lie is a matter for political debate, which isn't what I'm doing right now. I'm talking in terms of broad definitions and basic civic education.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

But you think the government should decide what speech amounts to harassment and should be prohibited.

Why do you want the government to decide what is and isnt free speech? "

I've looked up some examples of harassment defined by UK law. And I've now changed my stance in regards to harressment law.

So no I don't support that either now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Why would you support the Government in deciding what is or isn't free speech?

And why do you want the Government to police what people can and can't say?

But you think the government should decide what speech amounts to harassment and should be prohibited.

Why do you want the government to decide what is and isnt free speech? The government already determined those laws. Not the new 1's."

Why is that government good and this government bad? What do you think about the fact that laws are interpreted by the courts every single day, sometimes changing the law?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!

Free speech? Or the impression we have free will which gives us the belief we have free speech?

Shit! It's catching!! I can feel my awesomeness slipping away

Bells just Smith it is then.

Now you've gone and done it, throwing a petrol bomb like free will on the fire of debate! You minx!

I think I like you!

Bella Just Smith, we don't even get free speech on our phones! Bloody predictive text!

Are you dwayne dibbly

Close but no cigar, Wayne Dribbly, with a silent F. "

I'm starting to feel like a kid at a wedding, sliding around on my knees whilst the adults frown disapprovingly! But ask yourselves, who's having the fun times. Cheers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Opinions are like orgasms, mine are more important and I'm not bothered if you have one

Awesome!! Just awesome!

Its my middle name

Awesome or just?

I can quite believe it's awesome!

I bow down to ur awesomeness!

Damn your smooth

You're smooth

Noooooooo I was on about the guy who said 'I bow down blah blah'

I know, I was correcting your grammar

Which is actually quite a cunty thing to do..... so, soz

It's sorry actually

Mic drop!!

Haha, yeah,now fock off

I'm not taking the bait! Good effort.

I'm too busy watching the adults get all knotted up.

There's no such thing as free speech anymore. Get over it folks!

Free speech? Or the impression we have free will which gives us the belief we have free speech?

Shit! It's catching!! I can feel my awesomeness slipping away

Bells just Smith it is then.

Now you've gone and done it, throwing a petrol bomb like free will on the fire of debate! You minx!

I think I like you!

Bella Just Smith, we don't even get free speech on our phones! Bloody predictive text!

Are you dwayne dibbly

Close but no cigar, Wayne Dribbly, with a silent F. "

Ahhhhh that expl......oh look a shiny thing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I agreearntrich

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm waving the White flag and conceding my position.

I will agree that in the most extreme cases in which the threat of violence or death is a legitimate outcome of said speech then their should be restrictions on a case by case basis.

That being said simply not using the correct gender pronouns as in Canada or asking uneasy questions about a historical event as in Germany should not and ever be punishable offensives under law.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *itty9899Man over a year ago

Craggy Island

Healthy debate is welcome as long your opinions are backed up by your interpretation of facts or feelings and not just abuse, because you have to be right and you are prepared to listen and be open to other options and opinions and is mindful of people feelings.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"Why is a law that's not used a good, proper law? When did the UK get proper laws and how is that defined? Old laws going out the window is 1 thing but new stupid laws is another.

What's a stupid law, and how do you apply that definition without ideological slant with regard to the rule of law? "

Exactly this!

When people discuss or posit that the legality of a situation is ridiculous its often because it impinges on their actions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)