Freedom Of Speech.

[JFKvsNixon]

You agree then, Freedom of speech does not exist.

 

No, the freedom to say whatever we would like to in any situation whatsoever has never existed. What you're suggesting is anarchy.

 

For example, do you believe I should be allowed to hang around your work place and tell everyone that you're a paedophile? Or should I be allowed to shout something that would alarm a crowd to such an extent that people were seriously injured or killed by the crowd's actions?

 

That would depend on the level of evidence available to the police, with video evidence he could well have ended up in the same trouble.

 

I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because we will be going around in circles. We have both stated our case.

[Lucy75]

No, the freedom to say whatever we would like to in any situation whatsoever has never existed. What you're suggesting is anarchy.

 

For example, do you believe I should be allowed to hang around your work place and tell everyone that you're a paedophile? Or should I be allowed to shout something that would alarm a crowd to such an extent that people were seriously injured or killed by the crowd's actions?

 

 

 

I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because we will be going around in circles. We have both stated our case.

 

I haven't suggested that people should be allowed to say anything they like, I have just pointed out that freedom of speech doesn't exist and you appear to agree with me, but for some strange reason you also appear intend on arguing about things I haven't said.

[Mister M]

I found you an example which hopefully won't break forum rules, and is not my opinion.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.

 

Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.

 

During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

 

After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

 

The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.

 

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

 

The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.

 

At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab.

 

He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.

 

Mr McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing on Friday at Workington magistrates court and is now awaiting a trial date.

 

The case was 5 years old. Charges against Mr McAlpine were dropped.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8687395.stm

 

As a gay man I feel comfortable with the charges being dropped.

If however Mr McAlpine was inciting violence or hate against gay people that would be a different matter.

 

There are bigger threats to free speech and assembly than some people 'feeling they can't say what they think'.

For example....http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/07/climate-change-marchers-private-security-protest-police

[Lucy75]

The case was 5 years old. Charges against Mr McAlpine were dropped.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8687395.stm

 

As a gay man I feel comfortable with the charges being dropped.

If however Mr McAlpine was inciting violence or hate against gay people that would be a different matter.

 

There are bigger threats to free speech and assembly than some people 'feeling they can't say what they think'.

For example....http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/07/climate-change-marchers-private-security-protest-police

 

Because the CPS were no longer satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, it does not mean that it is was lawful for Mr McAlpine to say what was claimed.

[tinfoilhat]

Because the CPS were no longer satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, it does not mean that it is was lawful for Mr McAlpine to say what was claimed.

 

It sort of does. And didn't some bunch of Christians put a similar message on a bus?

[JFKvsNixon]

I haven't suggested that people should be allowed to say anything they like, I have just pointed out that freedom of speech doesn't exist and you appear to agree with me, but for some strange reason you also appear intend on arguing about things I haven't said.

 

Everything has become a lot clearer.

[Lucy75]

It sort of does. And didn't some bunch of Christians put a similar message on a bus?

 

It sort of doesn't, if there was no case to answer the CPS would have said so, but instead they say there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Lots of people get away with unlawful acts because there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, and that doesn't mean that they didn't break the law.

[tinfoilhat]

It sort of doesn't, if there was no case to answer the CPS would have said so, but instead they say there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Lots of people get away with unlawful acts because there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, and that doesn't mean that they didn't break the law.

 

So, presumably he could go and do the same thing and not get nicked then.

[Lucy75]

So, presumably he could go and do the same thing and not get nicked then.

 

 

If he does the threat of arrest and conviction still exists, therefor he does not have freedom of speech.

Lots of people break the law without being nicked, the fact they get away with breaking the law does not mean their actions are lawful.

[ANGELFIRE1]

When my old man was in the RAF he had a mate with a nickname of, 10 to. No need to guess why, he was a rather dark coloured person, hence 10 to, 10 to midnight. Simply to describe his colour, with no offence meant, and no offence taken either by the coloured guy. I suggest nowadays my old man would have been in serious bother using such terminology to a coloured guy, even if they were best mates.

 

Angel1.