Freedom Of Speech To Be Banned Near Abortion Clinics

[melthebell]

9 hours ago, Mister M said:

Worth pointing out that many of these 'protests' came to public attention because of the harassment and intimidation of patients seeking medical advice or information, and staff at many of the clinics were also subject to harassment and intimidation too.

Protecting people at a vulnerable point in their lives from intimidation and bullying isn't 'virtue signalling' either. A complete misuse of the term in this context.

 

 

Indeed, it's about harassing and intimidating

[Magilla]

10 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

I'm a bit torn on this.

The right to free speech vs peoples feelings?

Rights have always come with associated responsibilities.

 

Quote

Banning free speech anywhere seems like a slippery slope to me.

Not when that free speech entails threats and intimidation... see point one above.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Magilla

[Chekhov]

12 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Good .  Have your free speech but don't upset / offend others 

Is that satire ?

 

11 hours ago, Mister M said:

Worth pointing out that many of these 'protests' came to public attention because of the harassment and intimidation of patients seeking medical advice or information, and staff at many of the clinics were also subject to harassment and intimidation too.

Protecting people at a vulnerable point in their lives from intimidation and bullying isn't 'virtue signalling' either. A complete misuse of the term in this context

This is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If people are protesting anywhere in an aggressive or violent manner prosecute them but do not use that as an excuse to ban all protest, that's just a cobblers argument.

Back in the bad old days of SF power hungry moderators it was relatively common for posters who wanted a thread censored (by having it locked or even deleting it) to deliberately troll, insult whatever to achieve that end. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Chekhov

[hauxwell]

I’m all for having a buffer zone around abortion clinics to help protect the woman and healthcare staff.   

 

The protesters can stand outside Parliament with their placards if they feel they need to protest.

 

 

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

Rights have always come with associated responsibilities.

Not when that free speech entails threats and intimidation... see point one above.

So prosecute those making threats or intimidating people. To use the fact that could occur to ban free speech is totally unacceptable in a so called free country. Is this a free country any more ? Will it remain a free country ? 

Benjamin Franklin's word's don't even cover this as it would never even have occurred to him that free speech would ever be banned "because it might upset someone" :

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." 

 

Modern version :

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety or avoid anyone getting upset, deserve neither liberty, nor safety, nor the absence of upset." 

 

3 minutes ago, hauxwell said:

I’m all for having a buffer zone around abortion clinics to help protect the woman and healthcare staff.   

The protesters can stand outside Parliament with their placards if they feel they need to protest.

What does that even mean ?

 

Protect meaning :

keep safe from harm or injury.

 

Harm meaning :

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Chekhov

[Delayed]

13 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

If people are protesting anywhere in an aggressive or violent manner prosecute them but do not use that as an excuse to ban all protest, that's just a cobblers argument.

 

You're in luck. No one is banning all protests.

[HeHasRisen]

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

So prosecute those making threats or intimidating people. To use the fact that could occur to ban free speech is totally unacceptable in a so called free country. Is this a free country any more ? Will it remain a free country ? 

Benjamin Franklin's word's don't even cover this as it would never even have occurred to him that free speech would ever be banned "because it might upset someone" :

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." 

 

Modern version :

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety or avoid anyone getting upset, deserve neither liberty, nor safety, nor the absence of upset." 

 

What does that even mean ?

 

Protect meaning :

keep safe from harm or injury.

 

Harm meaning :

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

As said in another thread: please let us know what school your children attend, so that any reading paedophiles can go and protest outside it to legalise paedophilia. Cheers.

[Chekhov]

Just now, Delayed said:

You're in luck. No one is banning all protests.

No peaceful protests should be banned, and the idea that protests should be banned because they might upset someone is just total BS, the world is slowly going mad.

If any protest might upset me, or anyone else, * can I apply to have it banned ?

 

* Like any pro lockdown protests, they would upset me and many others. Oh, there weren't any were there (I wonder why ?), apart from the odd group of virtue signalling students, who, ironically, would be just the sort of people who would want this ban introduced. Effin' hypocrites.

[Delayed]

Just now, Chekhov said:

No peaceful protests should be banned, and the idea that protests should be banned because they might upset someone is just total BS, the world is slowly going mad.

If any protest might upset me, or anyone else, * can I apply to have it banned ?

 

* Like any pro lockdown protests, they would upset me and many others. Oh, there weren't any were there (I wonder why ?), apart from the odd group of virtue signalling students, who, ironically, would be just the sort of people who would want this ban introduced. Effin' hypocrites.

Again, protests aren't being banned, peaceful or otherwise 

[Magilla]

19 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

So prosecute those making threats or intimidating people.

The protest itself, right outside a facility that offers very personal medical treatment... is the intimidating part!

 

Talk about missing the wood for the trees!

 

Also, am pretty sure anyone having to run a gamut of baying protesters might find the experience threatening... I know I would.

 

Quote

To use the fact that could occur to ban free speech is totally unacceptable in a so called free country. Is this a free country any more ? Will it remain a free country ?

Get a grip!

 

Free speech is not banned. They're quite free to protest where it will not intimidate people!

 

Quote

Benjamin Franklin's word's don't even cover this as it would never even have occurred to him that free speech would ever be banned "because it might upset someone" :

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." 

 

No liberty has been given up, you were never at liberty to abuse, threaten or intimidate.

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Magilla