No free speech in England.
- Thread starter MidKnight
- Start date
Or read.
Up until now, everything was just fine. I have to admit that new proposals are worrying. It boils down to not being able to voice your opinion. However, you could compare that to not being able to burn a flag, or not being able to join the KKK, Combat18, or other "political" groups.
Up until now, everything was just fine. I have to admit that new proposals are worrying. It boils down to not being able to voice your opinion. However, you could compare that to not being able to burn a flag, or not being able to join the KKK, Combat18, or other "political" groups.
MicroBalrog
New member
We could. The KKK, the American Nazi Party, AND flag-burning are luckily protected by the First. At least that's what SCOTUS says.
The UK has a long tradition of being more restrictive concerning free expression (and other liberties, as well) than the US; this date back to time when the Crown’s power was absolute and is expressed today in laws such as the Official Secrets Act.
With this said, it is relevant to consider if the UK’s democratic policies may make more sense in a WARTIME environment than our own. Americans value our individual liberties and TFL members are more adamant than most that freedoms should not abridged. However, we are at war and that begs questions, including:
a) Does freedom of religion extend to the point where a mosque can become the venue for sedition and/or for meetings of clandestine cells that are actually planning terrorist action?
b) Does freedom of the press extend to the point when formulas for “homemade” explosives should be readily available on the Internet or in published books and magazines?
c) Does freedom of speech extend to the point where clerics -- and other Muslim leaders -- can incite their audiences to commit violent, illegal acts?
d) Does the privacy freedom extend to the point were communications directly linked to terrorist activities should be protected?
e) Does freedom of association permit groups of young Islamic, Arab males to meet to discuss anti-US actions?
I am not attempting to answer these -- and MANY similar -- quetions; rather, only to suggest that our society needs to resolve them soon and that our beloved tradition of more freedom always being better may not universally apply. No one wants a “big brother” society of draconian oversight; however, we would all like to take a bus or subway, get a cup of coffee at a café, go to work, take airplane flights -- in essence, go about our everyday lives -- without legitimate fear and without excessive inspection (and the substantial costs (financial and others) associated with such examinations). Finally, less severe methods may work, but they may also be VERY expensive (how much would it cost to perform 27/7 surveillance of even a hundred young Arab, Muslim men?) and we have to trade-off the opportunity costs we -- as a nation and a society -- accept.
With this said, it is relevant to consider if the UK’s democratic policies may make more sense in a WARTIME environment than our own. Americans value our individual liberties and TFL members are more adamant than most that freedoms should not abridged. However, we are at war and that begs questions, including:
a) Does freedom of religion extend to the point where a mosque can become the venue for sedition and/or for meetings of clandestine cells that are actually planning terrorist action?
b) Does freedom of the press extend to the point when formulas for “homemade” explosives should be readily available on the Internet or in published books and magazines?
c) Does freedom of speech extend to the point where clerics -- and other Muslim leaders -- can incite their audiences to commit violent, illegal acts?
d) Does the privacy freedom extend to the point were communications directly linked to terrorist activities should be protected?
e) Does freedom of association permit groups of young Islamic, Arab males to meet to discuss anti-US actions?
I am not attempting to answer these -- and MANY similar -- quetions; rather, only to suggest that our society needs to resolve them soon and that our beloved tradition of more freedom always being better may not universally apply. No one wants a “big brother” society of draconian oversight; however, we would all like to take a bus or subway, get a cup of coffee at a café, go to work, take airplane flights -- in essence, go about our everyday lives -- without legitimate fear and without excessive inspection (and the substantial costs (financial and others) associated with such examinations). Finally, less severe methods may work, but they may also be VERY expensive (how much would it cost to perform 27/7 surveillance of even a hundred young Arab, Muslim men?) and we have to trade-off the opportunity costs we -- as a nation and a society -- accept.
Baba Louie
New member
disarming their subjects. Once that's done, the rest is quite easily accomplished, isn't it?
In response to RWK
a) a Mosque/Church/Synagogue/Temple whose member conspire to commit crimes are indictable. Conspiracy to commit crimes is not excusable under the umbrella of rights.
b) only if the intent is to supply information to one who wants to commit crimes. If I use the information to blow up some rock to access the the gold then, no. This parallels the question of what I do with a gun after I buy it and if the manufacturer is liable for those actions.
c) back in the late 60's and early 70's we passed a law about "inciting to riot." In this country, you incite others to riot, commit mayhem whatever, you'll go down.
d) of the three branches of government, the Justice branch arrests and prosecutes criminals and the LEO have the power to gather evidence by whatever means necessary; some of which is governed by a Judge.
e) if that association is to discuss crime, it is a conspiracy.
Under American law, we have the right to deal with these people as we see fit. If UK law is simular, let them have at it.
One more thing I might add which has nothing to do with this discussion, some of the clerics who preach hate and discontent suck up the welfare the UK provides. The nerve of some to bite the hand that feeds them.
a) a Mosque/Church/Synagogue/Temple whose member conspire to commit crimes are indictable. Conspiracy to commit crimes is not excusable under the umbrella of rights.
b) only if the intent is to supply information to one who wants to commit crimes. If I use the information to blow up some rock to access the the gold then, no. This parallels the question of what I do with a gun after I buy it and if the manufacturer is liable for those actions.
c) back in the late 60's and early 70's we passed a law about "inciting to riot." In this country, you incite others to riot, commit mayhem whatever, you'll go down.
d) of the three branches of government, the Justice branch arrests and prosecutes criminals and the LEO have the power to gather evidence by whatever means necessary; some of which is governed by a Judge.
e) if that association is to discuss crime, it is a conspiracy.
Under American law, we have the right to deal with these people as we see fit. If UK law is simular, let them have at it.
One more thing I might add which has nothing to do with this discussion, some of the clerics who preach hate and discontent suck up the welfare the UK provides. The nerve of some to bite the hand that feeds them.
Oh ho ho ho ho ho.
Don't get me started. Try a google.co.uk for "D Notice", that'll get you all hacked off.
The UK is in the middle of imploding. Don't mind us. Just airdrop a few crates of beans and any old M1911A1s you have doing nothing, OK? Cheers... don't forget to include manuals.
Don't get me started. Try a google.co.uk for "D Notice", that'll get you all hacked off.
The UK is in the middle of imploding. Don't mind us. Just airdrop a few crates of beans and any old M1911A1s you have doing nothing, OK? Cheers... don't forget to include manuals.
