PSNI warns to prosecute Facebook users who post "grossly offensive" messages
87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=faze;27936074]Whatever, I stated my opinion; which everyone is entitled to.
If Obama's so good, why is the GOP trying to repeal the healthcare bill?[/QUOTE]
If civil rights are so good, why is the GOP trying to ban gay couples from receiving benefits?
[QUOTE=TH89;27940490]If civil rights are so good, why is the GOP trying to ban gay couples from receiving benefits?[/QUOTE]
You're arguing with a 9/11 truther. They accept opinion sources as facts and don't accept the truth.
[QUOTE=RBM11;27940735]You're arguing with a 9/11 truther. They accept opinion sources as facts and don't accept the truth.[/QUOTE]
9/11 truther?
[QUOTE=chewgo;27940292]Because his original bill didn't get passed, it was changed then passed. And the new version is shit.[/QUOTE]
the bill that was passed is still better than the status quo
[QUOTE=Sporkfire;27935379]I'm for freedom of speech and all, but stuff like this can be an exception in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
i hope you die
*dragged off by secret internet police*
Rated faze's posts artistic. They are indeed a work of art.
[QUOTE=Mr Dinosaur;27943121]Rated faze's posts artistic. They are indeed a work of art.[/QUOTE]
The finest example of dadaism I have ever seen
[QUOTE=Mr Dinosaur;27943121]Rated faze's posts artistic. They are indeed a work of art.[/QUOTE]
where is the autistic rating
[QUOTE=Sporkfire;27935379]I'm for freedom of speech and all, but stuff like this can be an exception in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
The problem with that is that if it's not an absolute, then the line will be drawn in different places by different people. The law must have no debatable meanings.
[QUOTE=faze;27935892]See above link, edited the post.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
Obama on Freedom of Speech: [URL]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28906[/URL]
And the deficit under Obama: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html[/url][/QUOTE]
You lunge at anything with Obama and Deficit in the same title.
Clearly Obama has done no good since going into office, right? Here's a challenge, avoid using opinion articles. They aren't reputable sources. Go by the rule of thumb. If a high school/college professor wouldn't accept it as a source, don't use it. I know it's hard because the mainstream media doesn't bias and generalize as much as you'd like, but you'll survive.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
Even better, the deficit article is a year old.
[QUOTE=JohnRockefeller;27935410]then you're not for freedom of speech[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not be publicly defaced.
clocks welcome
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;27945605]Wrong. Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not be publicly defaced.
clocks welcome[/QUOTE]
and your rights end when you die
in this day and time it feels like freedom is overrated.
[QUOTE=Sporkfire;27935379]I'm for freedom of speech and all, but stuff like this can be an exception in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
"I like freedom of speech as long as it's not in bad taste."
That's not how it works.
You're all advocating free speech, yet I bet none of you would defend the Westboro Baptist Church? Free speech and harassment are very different things. You're also defending racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism and many other unsavory things. Though if you were to make a law regarding one of those, it'd be impossible to enforce. Personally I find shit like this pretty low, you can defend freedom of speech all you like but lines have already been drawn, and I wouldn't be surprised if more laws were to come in the future.
[QUOTE=FredTheBed;27950780]You're all advocating free speech, yet I bet none of you would defend the Westboro Baptist Church? Free speech and harassment are very different things. You're also defending racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism and many other unsavory things. Though if you were to make a law regarding one of those, it'd be impossible to enforce. Personally I find shit like this pretty low, you can defend freedom of speech all you like but lines have already been drawn, and I wouldn't be surprised if more laws were to come in the future.[/QUOTE]
I [i]have[/i] defended the WBC's freedom of speech on multiple occasions.
Defending freedom of speech isn't the same as defending racism, homophobia, etc. That's like saying that if I think cars are nice, then I'm defending people who run over other people with cars.
I think people are nice, am I defending murderers? What about the weather? That kills a lot of people too.
My Irish brethren have no shame. :(
wait what i thought faze was a super pro obama person???
[QUOTE=Rubs10;27950999]I [i]have[/i] defended the WBC's freedom of speech on multiple occasions.
Defending freedom of speech isn't the same as defending racism, homophobia, etc. That's like saying that if I think cars are nice, then I'm defending people who run over other people with cars.
I think people are nice, am I defending murderers? What about the weather? That kills a lot of people too.[/QUOTE]
Defending all freedom of speech: "Words can do no harm, you should be allowed to say what you want!"
Not defending racism/homophobia: "These words hurt people, you shouldn't say them!"
Do you see the dilemma there?
You can't have both of those stances, Pick one.
Streisand effect. Good job Northern Ireland.
-
[QUOTE=Daemon;27957875][I]Fuuuuck off[/I]. You don't use freedom of speech in this kind of context. Are you that 2 dimensional? Like any freedom we have must be limited to be enjoyed and for the sake of mankind stop it from being defeated by abuse. this is for it's benifical values towards society and the equality of men, combining consciences and understandings of with at least some kind of intellectual composition. Not defend some fucks on the internet.[/QUOTE]
This is an example of the [b]wrong[/b] way to defend this. You don't say freedom of speech is limited, you say it doesn't truly exist.
The latter argument has the added benefit of being the correct one, as well.
[QUOTE=Daemon;27957875][I]Fuuuuck off[/I]. You don't use freedom of speech in this kind of context. Are you that 2 dimensional? Like any freedom we have must be limited to be enjoyed and for the sake of mankind stop it from being defeated by abuse. this is for it's benifical values towards society and the equality of men, combining consciences and understandings of with at least some kind of intellectual composition. Not defend some fucks on the internet.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I have to do things the way that you deem right. Calling the people fucks on the internet is subjective and judgmental.
-
[QUOTE=Daemon;27964537]So... It doesn't truly exist theres nothing to defend whether any of it is right or wrong. The motives or idea is soly dependent on social acceptance and tolerance whether they reject it or not. You could say a productive society is one that chooses to be productive which is in our natural behavour. This could mean ruling out all counterproductive intentions that could jeopardize the standard way of how we live effectively. Reference to some examples are such as the 10 commandments within the bible. Murdering, thieving, adultery are all bad for society. Without stepping into the biological mind frame for why people don't do this, it still is effective reason why we don't do it where negative consequences can occur (counterproductive again). It is not necessary to go into law and order if people know why it exists and the polices motives, for these individuals are going to be faily trialed through freedom of speech + human rights, even though i doubt they even have a foundation to support their dispicable actions.
If this is wrong, i would like your opinion on how i can defend against it not existing thankyou. I do know freedom of speech can go both ways but i guess my other post was about its universal meaning.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what tangent you just went off on but if [b]freedom[/b] of speech has restrictions it isn't [b]free[/b], and since everywhere in the world places restrictions on it there truly isn't freedom of speech anywhere.
-
[QUOTE=Daemon;27965361]Okay, freedom of speech means that. There is no doubt that these hateful messages really can effect people. Should there be no bias even with these? What in the Telecommunications Act is it that they get charged with? Law or free speech... my god i can't have both it's trolling the hell out of my mind.[/QUOTE]
They can get charged with violating the Telecommunications Act
[QUOTE=Explosions;27935377]Freedom of speech means nothing apparently.[/QUOTE]
You could argue that freedom of speech does not really exist in the UK (I mean we have so many laws that allow people to have things censored its insane).
But anyway, if something is illegal its illegal no matter how much freedom of speech you claim to allow. In the same way that racial hatred is illegal this sort of thing is illegal.
Interesting side point: the law they are mentioning is, if I recall correctly the same law that prevents you picking up a phone, dialing random numbers and shouting "cunt". (And it was passed in 1984)
[editline]10th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Daemon;27965361]Okay, freedom of speech means that. There is no doubt that these hateful messages really can effect people. Should there be no bias even with these? [B]What in the Telecommunications Act [/B]is it that they get charged with? Law or free speech... my god i can't have both it's trolling the hell out of my mind.[/QUOTE]
Section 43 "Improper use of public telecommunication system"
[url]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/12/section/43[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.