No freedom of speech in England.

[Gadarene]

Like I said, it would be great if we could discuss every opinion and POV and its nuances, but there comes a point where, for pure practical reasons, lines must be drawn.

Again - re. cases like the topic of this thread - due process.

It's literally a case by case discussion of the matter.

 

[Armoured]

Again - re. cases like the topic of this thread - due process.

It's literally a case by case discussion of the matter.

Again, I'm talking broadly.

 

[TerranceL]

Like I said, it would be great if we could discuss every opinion and POV and its nuances, but there comes a point where, for pure practical reasons, lines must be drawn.

I'll take talking about our differences over the alternative any day of the week.

 

[MrSpikey]

I don't believe any of the people I mentioned have ties to terrorist groups, I could be wrong, I'm not going to check because it's irrelevant. I know people myself with criminal convictions who've visited England.

The regulations I quoted were for entry to the US, not the UK. The governments of both countries decide on the standards they wish to impose to allow entry or not. You complain that those you suport are unfairly denied entry to the UK; I'd make the same argument for the US. The bottom line is that sovereign states make the decisions on who can enter or not, and there is no global right to enter any such state. Strangely enough, many of the people who you listed have made the same argument, often very forcefully. They only seem to get annoyed when such standards are subsequently applied to them.

 

[Chesterton]

The regulations I quoted were for entry to the US, not the UK. The governments of both countries decide on the standards they wish to impose to allow entry or not. You complain that those you suport are unfairly denied entry to the UK; I'd make the same argument for the US. The bottom line is that sovereign states make the decisions on who can enter or not, and there is no global right to enter any such state. Strangely enough, many of the people who you listed have made the same argument, often very forcefully. They only seem to get annoyed when such standards are subsequently applied to them.

What does that have to do with my post? I said the U.K. denies some people entry because of their speech.

 

[The_Laconic_Dead]

The issue is that they deny the wrong people because of their speech. They equate dissent against pet groups as hate speech.

The entire notion of hate speech is the death of free thought and expression. Who decides what is hate? In any political or religious discussion, emotions can run high. Things can be said, based of biases of experience.

You want the police showing at your door for what you said on facebook? Because that's what they have in most other western nations. Hate speech codes just waiting to be used against dissidents.

 

[MrSpikey]

What does that have to do with my post? I said the U.K. denies some people entry because of their speech.

Let me simplify it for you then.

Your freedom of speech as defined in your constitution stops at your borders. You don't have the same right anywhere else in the world, the parameters are defined by the country you are in. Those countries can set whatever standards they like, just as your own government does, and can include standards you think are wrong.

You listed people who were coming to the UK specifically to try and persuade its residents to deny entry to others and suppress the rights of existing citizens based on what they consider to be extreme worldviews. They then were denied entry due to their own extreme worldview, as defined by our elected government. They seem reluctant to appreciate this irony, but in any case, they aren't visiting us to promote their own ideology of denial of speech. I have so far failed to lose any sleep over this.

 

[JustOneWay]

I'm honestly trying to figure this out. It seems an Orwellian definition of freedom. How are you free to do something when you are punished for doing it? You could say I'm free to commit murder, it's just that I will face consequences if I do it.

There is no freedom of speech here at Christian Forums.

This place may as well be England.

 

[Chesterton]

Let me simplify it for you then.

Your freedom of speech as defined in your constitution stops at your borders. You don't have the same right anywhere else in the world, the parameters are defined by the country you are in. Those countries can set whatever standards they like, just as your own government does, and can include standards you think are wrong.

You listed people who were coming to the UK specifically to try and persuade its residents to deny entry to others and suppress the rights of existing citizens based on what they consider to be extreme worldviews. They then were denied entry due to their own extreme worldview, as defined by our elected government. They seem reluctant to appreciate this irony, but in any case, they aren't visiting us to promote their own ideology of denial of speech. I have so far failed to lose any sleep over this.

I underlined the part that I don't think is true, but otherwise we agree that the U.K. lacks freedom, it's just that I find it disturbing and you don't mind it. I think you should mind it because one of the reasons we codified it over here is because things can and do change, and someday the repression can be aimed at you and not just people you don't like. Better to outlaw repression as we did.

 

[JohnLocke]

No freedom of speech?

snip

But what freedom of speech does not mean, is say whatever you like with no consequences. If I were to post a link to my company's biggest competitor on Facebook, with a comment about how great they are, I would probably get the sack. Equally, if you attend a university, you sign up to their rules. Which evidently forbid spreading homophobic messages.

Do you have a copy of the rules? How do you know that there was an explicit rule against the post? Can you prove that the statement is homophobic? I don't think you can, unless you torture the definition of homophobic into something more akin to "anything that might be construed as anti-homosexual."

In the United States, there are rules that limit expression by faculty in the public arena where those statements may be construed as authorized or reflecting upon the college or university. We'll see what happens, but I'm not sure that a facebook post, by an employee of a university, without more (like claiming to speak for the university or perhaps wearing distinctive clothing that identifies the university) would be governed by such a contract clause, and even if so determined, there are many arguments that call into question the enforceability of such a contract clause (vagueness, Free Speech, etc.)

All that said, I've no idea what the state of the law in the UK is these days.

 

[MikeGlosterIII]

The issue is that they deny the wrong people because of their speech. They equate dissent against pet groups as hate speech.

The entire notion of hate speech is the death of free thought and expression. Who decides what is hate? In any political or religious discussion, emotions can run high. Things can be said, based of biases of experience.

You want the police showing at your door for what you said on facebook? Because that's what they have in most other western nations. Hate speech codes just waiting to be used against dissidents.

Here is an example here in America : http://www.aol.com/article/2016/03/17/shocking-facebook-photo-gets-police-office...

 

[MrSpikey]

I underlined the part that I don't think is true, but otherwise we agree that the U.K. lacks freedom, it's just that I find it disturbing and you don't mind it. I think you should mind it because one of the reasons we codified it over here is because things can and do change, and someday the repression can be aimed at you and not just people you don't like. Better to outlaw repression as we did.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were coming to address an English Defence League rally. Terry Jones was coming to address an England is Ours rally. These were anti-Muslim demonstrations, decrying Islam in all forms and not merely limited to extremists, including existing UK citizens.

I have no problem with excluding non-citizens from entry to the UK who want to come here and publically advocate that UK citizens should be censored or driven out due to their beliefs. If you think that is a "free speech" issue, I'd say freedom of belief is a more fundamental and intrinsic right than that.

Savage was banned at an unspecified point in time (in or before 2009) for "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence". You may call that free speech, incitement to criminal acts is a crime here, as indeed it is in your own country in many cases.

Julien Blanc was banned because “To allow this man into the UK legitimises sexual assault and predation, and sends a message that women are playthings or objects without agency.”. To pick one quote that I feel summarizes him quite nicely, he refers to his time in Japan as: “If you’re a white male, you can do what you want. I’m just romping through the streets, just grabbing girls’ heads, just like, head, pfft on the d**k.” If he wasn't a citizen, would he be allowed in the US? Some of his own descriptions of his actions are descriptions of sexual assault, as defined by US law.

Say what you like about free speech in the UK, at least we don't have any apparently popular candidates for government proposing that those of a certain faith face a blanket entry ban due to their faith alone. I'd classify that as a speech issue. It seems to me you don't?

 

[TerranceL]

Yes, your government has done a very good job protecting it's populace from scary ideas.

When do they hand out the coloring books and crayons?

 

[Chesterton]

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were coming to address an English Defence League rally. Terry Jones was coming to address an England is Ours rally. These were anti-Muslim demonstrations, decrying Islam in all forms and not merely limited to extremists, including existing UK citizens.

I have no problem with excluding non-citizens from entry to the UK who want to come here and publically advocate that UK citizens should be censored or driven out due to their beliefs. If you think that is a "free speech" issue, I'd say freedom of belief is a more fundamental and intrinsic right than that.

Savage was banned at an unspecified point in time (in or before 2009) for "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence". You may call that free speech, incitement to criminal acts is a crime here, as indeed it is in your own country in many cases.

Julien Blanc was banned because “To allow this man into the UK legitimises sexual assault and predation, and sends a message that women are playthings or objects without agency.”. To pick one quote that I feel summarizes him quite nicely, he refers to his time in Japan as: “If you’re a white male, you can do what you want. I’m just romping through the streets, just grabbing girls’ heads, just like, head, pfft on the d**k.” If he wasn't a citizen, would he be allowed in the US? Some of his own descriptions of his actions are descriptions of sexual assault, as defined by US law.

Say what you like about free speech in the UK, at least we don't have any apparently popular candidates for government proposing that those of a certain faith face a blanket entry ban due to their faith alone. I'd classify that as a speech issue. It seems to me you don't?

The details of what you dislike aren't important. You've made it known that you don't mind other people telling you what you can and can't say (and by extension what you should and shouldn't think). If you're okay with that then you just are.

 

[loveofourlord]

Well, as he put it: Biblical slavery is more like indentured servitude.

man I'm so sick of this lie, and sad thing it just shows how few christians even read the bible.

 

[MrSpikey]

Yes, your government has done a very good job protecting it's populace from scary ideas.

When do they hand out the coloring books and crayons?

Narendra Modi, Gerry Adams, Tariq Ramadan, Kirt and Elisabeth Waldheim, Tarek Saab, etc. etc.

Your government also does a great job of supressing those whose ideas they don't like.

I met Gerry Adams once. He never mentioned receiving colouring books or crayons. I guess it works both ways.

 

[MrSpikey]

The details of what you dislike aren't important. You've made it known that you don't mind other people telling you what you can and can't say (and by extension what you should and shouldn't think). If you're okay with that then you just are.

The details are important.

Should the US allow e.g. Daesh recruiters entry to try and influence the population in their favour?

That would be a ban on their freedom of speech, surely? You can't tell them what to say or think, right?

You know as well as I do that your country applies a totally different set of rules in terms of freedom of speech to citizens than it does to non-citizens who want to enter the country and have their speech heard. So do we. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[TerranceL]

Narendra Modi,

Look how suppressed he is!

Gerry Adams

He's not forbidden from the country, he's just got delayed getting into the white house, so he threw a fit and left.

It's probably not a good idea to let a terrorist there. Just saying.

Tariq Ramadan

Wasn't allowed in the country because he gave money to Hamas. Imagine that. Giving money to terrorists is a no-no.

Secretary Clinton allowed him in eventually.

Kirt and Elisabeth Waldheim

The government forbid a Nazi from entering the country.

Tarek Saab

Ties to a terrorist group.

Your government also does a great job of supressing those whose ideas they don't like.

Oddly enough there is a small difference between the two lists of people... one group is denied entry because of what they've done, the other because of what they've said.

I met Gerry Adams once. He never mentioned receiving colouring books or crayons. I guess it works both ways.

Huh. Did you ask him what it felt like to order the murder of civilians?

 

[Catherineanne]

http://www.christianheadlines.com/b...rsity-for-quoting-bible-on-homosexuality.html

It's so sad that years of study and hard work can be wiped out for posting Biblical views on your FB account.

What is more sad is that bigotry is equated with 'Biblical views.'

How did that happen?

The construct of Homosexuality as an aberration from a human norm dates from the 19th century. Whatever it is that the Bible talks about, it ain't that.

 

[Catherineanne]

A few years ago a distinguished gentleman was charged with a crime for publicly reading the words of Winston Churchill. I wonder if they don't have more freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia.

Really, Google is your friend. This person many or may not be distinguished, but with 0.1% of the vote he was not elected. And as I understand it the arrest was for public order offences, not for quoting Churchill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weston_(politician)