All this talk of free speech etc. One thing that I don't think the law has kept up with is that in public anybody can film or photograph you as you have no expectation of privacy. The problem is when that law was made somebody could take a photo of you, a week later they might have even had the negative developed and if they really wanted to show off have 3-4 friends view them. Now within seconds it can be shared to millions.
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
And Trump can neither come up with a coherent attack line, nor consistently use one a speechwriter has written for him, because he's... a bit past it and not firing on all mental cylinders.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
That's only if you think a benefit is a tax. Person A pays a derisory amount of income tax and national insurance, is likely to be on the lowest council tax band, and has a greater majority of income spent on things that have no Vat or very little vat.
Bart has read Idiot's Guide and thinks he understands the topic rather than the reality of him talking out of his arse on tax at every opportunity.
If the government takes money away from people, what should we call this?
As someone who has employed people in these bands, the benefit withdrawal is treated by them, in their decision making, like tax.
Laffer curve in action - if earning more only ends up with 30% of the money on their pocket… or less…. Then people will say “we don’t want more hours”
get rid of the benefits, the issue is that so many people are better off on benefits hence htey cannot fill jobs. Should get nothing if there are local vacancies and you can do that job. Country has gone to the dog many getting spoonfed benefits and mobility cars etc. Get their arses out grafting instead of sponging. Only really ill people should be excused and that does not mean those with a sore pinky or someone scared a ssomeone asked them to get on with the job etc and made them need therapy. Country is full of soft snowflake chancers with few principles.
Are you angling for a spot on GB News? I am not sure they will pay you Nige money though.
When I started work this morning the van I took out had just over three quarters of a tank of fuel. The computer told me 410 miles worth
I drove sixty three miles today; I had just under three quarters of a tank when i finished. The computer said 576 miles to go
I know that the driving in the week on normal routes is less efficient than the longer distances on a Sunday, but that's a massive difference. I added fifty percent to the range of the tank
All this talk of free speech etc. One thing that I don't think the law has kept up with is that in public anybody can film or photograph you as you have no expectation of privacy. The problem is when that law was made somebody could take a photo of you, a week later they might have even had the negative developed and if they really wanted to show off have 3-4 friends view them. Now within seconds it can be shared to millions.
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
That's only if you think a benefit is a tax. Person A pays a derisory amount of income tax and national insurance, is likely to be on the lowest council tax band, and has a greater majority of income spent on things that have no Vat or very little vat.
Bart has read Idiot's Guide and thinks he understands the topic rather than the reality of him talking out of his arse on tax at every opportunity.
If the government takes money away from people, what should we call this?
As someone who has employed people in these bands, the benefit withdrawal is treated by them, in their decision making, like tax.
Laffer curve in action - if earning more only ends up with 30% of the money on their pocket… or less…. Then people will say “we don’t want more hours”
get rid of the benefits, the issue is that so many people are better off on benefits hence htey cannot fill jobs. Should get nothing if there are local vacancies and you can do that job. Country has gone to the dog many getting spoonfed benefits and mobility cars etc. Get their arses out grafting instead of sponging. Only really ill people should be excused and that does not mean those with a sore pinky or someone scared a ssomeone asked them to get on with the job etc and made them need therapy. Country is full of soft snowflake chancers with few principles.
Are you angling for a spot on GB News? I am not sure they will pay you Nige money though.
If they did, he’d implode over the tax he’d have to pay.
All this talk of free speech etc. One thing that I don't think the law has kept up with is that in public anybody can film or photograph you as you have no expectation of privacy. The problem is when that law was made somebody could take a photo of you, a week later they might have even had the negative developed and if they really wanted to show off have 3-4 friends view them. Now within seconds it can be shared to millions.
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
TLDR is that living in a society with other humans is difficult, and at some level depends on us not saying whatever we feel like, whenever we feel like. All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful as the Good Book says.
There has always been a soft social censorship that kept a sufficient lid on harmful speech, writing and behaviour that it didn't overwhelm society. Mostly. But they are too weak and to slow to do their jobs in a world where everyone can broadcast, anonymously and instantly, to millions.
All this talk of free speech etc. One thing that I don't think the law has kept up with is that in public anybody can film or photograph you as you have no expectation of privacy. The problem is when that law was made somebody could take a photo of you, a week later they might have even had the negative developed and if they really wanted to show off have 3-4 friends view them. Now within seconds it can be shared to millions.
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
Simple: just trademark your image.
I am not sure Maureen from Margate could afford to keep image right lawyers on retainer on the off chance somebody takes an photo of her falling over and becoming an internet meme.
All this talk of free speech etc. One thing that I don't think the law has kept up with is that in public anybody can film or photograph you as you have no expectation of privacy. The problem is when that law was made somebody could take a photo of you, a week later they might have even had the negative developed and if they really wanted to show off have 3-4 friends view them. Now within seconds it can be shared to millions.
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
Simple: just trademark your image.
I am not sure Maureen from Margate could afford to keep image right lawyers on retainer on the off chance somebody takes an photo of her falling over and becoming an internet meme.
It wasn't a serious suggestion.
More seriously, the barrier for banning anything needs to be high. Sadly, I don't think this exceeds it.
All this talk of free speech etc. One thing that I don't think the law has kept up with is that in public anybody can film or photograph you as you have no expectation of privacy. The problem is when that law was made somebody could take a photo of you, a week later they might have even had the negative developed and if they really wanted to show off have 3-4 friends view them. Now within seconds it can be shared to millions.
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
TLDR is that living in a society with other humans is difficult, and at some level depends on us not saying whatever we feel like, whenever we feel like. All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful as the Good Book says.
There has always been a soft social censorship that kept a sufficient lid on harmful speech, writing and behaviour that it didn't overwhelm society. Mostly. But they are too weak and to slow to do their jobs in a world where everyone can broadcast, anonymously and instantly, to millions.
But no, I don't know what we do next.
We need a shift in the 'soft social' side towards self-censorship, intelligent moderation and,, most importantly, to stop overreacting to absolutely fucking everything.
The only way we can stay sane in a world where photos and video can be captured and shared in seconds - not to mention edited, AI-d and everything else - is to stop being so affected by this stuff. It needs to be drained of its power and importance.
A world of greater possibility requires greater tolerance.
All this talk of free speech etc. One thing that I don't think the law has kept up with is that in public anybody can film or photograph you as you have no expectation of privacy. The problem is when that law was made somebody could take a photo of you, a week later they might have even had the negative developed and if they really wanted to show off have 3-4 friends view them. Now within seconds it can be shared to millions.
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I don't think it's appropriate to legislate for it as "extremism" - part of a broader trend to police attitude, beliefs and speech - and all sorts of things could get caught up in it, including gender critical beliefs, expressing male-centered perspectives and criticising neo-feminist doctrines.
Worse: I dont think it will do anything to solve the problem, and might even fuel it further.
"It should have been a quick, simple rail journey.
Nearly two years ago, Sarah Cook hopped on a train at Wombwell Station, just outside her pet shop in South Yorkshire, to travel one stop to Barnsley. A mere six minutes.
"I tried to buy a ticket on the platform and the machine wouldn’t accept my bank card," she told the BBC. "I thought: 'It doesn’t matter, the train is here, I’ll buy one on the train.'"
Unfortunately, there was no guard on the train and when Ms Cook reached the station, transport police were scanning everyone's tickets.
When she tried to buy a ticket she was told it was "too late". So she was fined.
"The fine I appealed cause it was £20 which seemed a lot for a couple-of-pound journey and I never heard anything back."
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Nearly a year to the day later in 2023, Ms Cook received a letter telling her she was being fined £500.
"That escalated to going to court," she says. "Filling out a lot of forms, pleading guilty, pleading not guilty, the threat of a criminal record, the threat of a bigger fine, the threat of jail time, up to two years."
In the end, she did have to fork out some money. "After the threat of everything else, it was a ginormous £4," she says.
It turns out Ms Cook wasn't the only one caught out.
Last week, a ruling by the chief magistrate for England and Wales found the prosecutions by rail companies against Ms Cook and five other people were "unlawful" and declared them void.
As a result, an estimated 74,000 other cases will be re-examined. If rail companies are found to have acted unlawfully in those instances, prosecutions could be quashed and fines could be refunded.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
"It should have been a quick, simple rail journey.
Nearly two years ago, Sarah Cook hopped on a train at Wombwell Station, just outside her pet shop in South Yorkshire, to travel one stop to Barnsley. A mere six minutes.
"I tried to buy a ticket on the platform and the machine wouldn’t accept my bank card," she told the BBC. "I thought: 'It doesn’t matter, the train is here, I’ll buy one on the train.'"
Unfortunately, there was no guard on the train and when Ms Cook reached the station, transport police were scanning everyone's tickets.
When she tried to buy a ticket she was told it was "too late". So she was fined.
"The fine I appealed cause it was £20 which seemed a lot for a couple-of-pound journey and I never heard anything back."
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Nearly a year to the day later in 2023, Ms Cook received a letter telling her she was being fined £500.
"That escalated to going to court," she says. "Filling out a lot of forms, pleading guilty, pleading not guilty, the threat of a criminal record, the threat of a bigger fine, the threat of jail time, up to two years."
In the end, she did have to fork out some money. "After the threat of everything else, it was a ginormous £4," she says.
It turns out Ms Cook wasn't the only one caught out.
Last week, a ruling by the chief magistrate for England and Wales found the prosecutions by rail companies against Ms Cook and five other people were "unlawful" and declared them void.
As a result, an estimated 74,000 other cases will be re-examined. If rail companies are found to have acted unlawfully in those instances, prosecutions could be quashed and fines could be refunded.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
A cheap argument. I doubt anyone is pro misogyny and I am sure we all agree misogyny is a bad thing.
However the devil is in the definition.
The guy who murdered three little girls in Southport?
Andrew Tate, Tristan Tate and their millions of followers?
The work of Andrew Tate leaches into other vile prejudice. Where did Nigel Farage claim he learned that the guy who murdered the little girls in Southport was a Syrian refugee? Answer: Andrew Tate's X account.
"It should have been a quick, simple rail journey.
Nearly two years ago, Sarah Cook hopped on a train at Wombwell Station, just outside her pet shop in South Yorkshire, to travel one stop to Barnsley. A mere six minutes.
"I tried to buy a ticket on the platform and the machine wouldn’t accept my bank card," she told the BBC. "I thought: 'It doesn’t matter, the train is here, I’ll buy one on the train.'"
Unfortunately, there was no guard on the train and when Ms Cook reached the station, transport police were scanning everyone's tickets.
When she tried to buy a ticket she was told it was "too late". So she was fined.
"The fine I appealed cause it was £20 which seemed a lot for a couple-of-pound journey and I never heard anything back."
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Nearly a year to the day later in 2023, Ms Cook received a letter telling her she was being fined £500.
"That escalated to going to court," she says. "Filling out a lot of forms, pleading guilty, pleading not guilty, the threat of a criminal record, the threat of a bigger fine, the threat of jail time, up to two years."
In the end, she did have to fork out some money. "After the threat of everything else, it was a ginormous £4," she says.
It turns out Ms Cook wasn't the only one caught out.
Last week, a ruling by the chief magistrate for England and Wales found the prosecutions by rail companies against Ms Cook and five other people were "unlawful" and declared them void.
As a result, an estimated 74,000 other cases will be re-examined. If rail companies are found to have acted unlawfully in those instances, prosecutions could be quashed and fines could be refunded.
I don't understand these stories. I've been caught out a handful of times - for instance, the platform ticket machine not working. Once, when i got to the large station at the end of my journey (I thin it was Reading), I searched out a member of staff, who took me to the ticket office and it was all sorted, politely and with no excess fare.
I wonder if it's a problem with the British Transport Police, as the story states? Or whether there's other factors, e.g. the member of the public appearing shifty or impolite?
A cheap argument. I doubt anyone is pro misogyny and I am sure we all agree misogyny is a bad thing.
However the devil is in the definition.
The guy who murdered three little girls in Southport?
Andrew Tate, Tristan Tate and their millions of followers?
The work of Andrew Tate leaches into other vile prejudice. Where did Nigel Farage claim he learned that the guy who murdered the little girls in Southport was a Syrian refugee? Answer: Andrew Tate's X account.
A lie that causes harm: he should be legally liable.
"It should have been a quick, simple rail journey.
Nearly two years ago, Sarah Cook hopped on a train at Wombwell Station, just outside her pet shop in South Yorkshire, to travel one stop to Barnsley. A mere six minutes.
"I tried to buy a ticket on the platform and the machine wouldn’t accept my bank card," she told the BBC. "I thought: 'It doesn’t matter, the train is here, I’ll buy one on the train.'"
Unfortunately, there was no guard on the train and when Ms Cook reached the station, transport police were scanning everyone's tickets.
When she tried to buy a ticket she was told it was "too late". So she was fined.
"The fine I appealed cause it was £20 which seemed a lot for a couple-of-pound journey and I never heard anything back."
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Nearly a year to the day later in 2023, Ms Cook received a letter telling her she was being fined £500.
"That escalated to going to court," she says. "Filling out a lot of forms, pleading guilty, pleading not guilty, the threat of a criminal record, the threat of a bigger fine, the threat of jail time, up to two years."
In the end, she did have to fork out some money. "After the threat of everything else, it was a ginormous £4," she says.
It turns out Ms Cook wasn't the only one caught out.
Last week, a ruling by the chief magistrate for England and Wales found the prosecutions by rail companies against Ms Cook and five other people were "unlawful" and declared them void.
As a result, an estimated 74,000 other cases will be re-examined. If rail companies are found to have acted unlawfully in those instances, prosecutions could be quashed and fines could be refunded.
I don't understand these stories. I've been caught out a handful of times - for instance, the platform ticket machine not working. Once, when i got to the large station at the end of my journey (I thin it was Reading), I searched out a member of staff, who took me to the ticket office and it was all sorted, politely and with no excess fare.
I wonder if it's a problem with the British Transport Police, as the story states? Or whether there's other factors, e.g. the member of the public appearing shifty or impolite?
It's chronic fare evasion that's the issue.
At Manchester Piccadilly there are barriers and station staff who have machines to take your payment.
I spoke to staff a while back and they get to recognise repeat offenders, the trick is to say 'Oh I got on Stockport' when the reality is they got on at Stoke, this is backed up on CCTV using footfall.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
I don't understand your argument. We quite correctly ban the "free (hate) speech" of Abu Hamza and his accolytes because it can have dangerous consequences for the wider community. Surely if there is the risk of harm to the wider community from Andrew Tate and his followers the same rule applies.
Just for the record, there's no discussion about making misogyny illegal. That would lead to millions of people frequently engaging in illegal activities.
The debate is about 'extreme' misogyny, which is clear from the BBC article but not from the misleading headline.
It's adding hardcore misogyny (of the sort fuelling incel groups and violence against women/girls) to things like radical islam and neo-nazism as examples of extremist ideologies posing a threat to us.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Incels are bad we all agree, should we however prosecute people for saying for example women are bad drivers ( clue they are not I agree as do insurance companies) when however do you draw the line between having an opinion and not being able to say that?
Of course, to be legal, misandry would also have to be banned...
Absolutely, that goes without saying.
The devil's in the detail. Where is the line between misogyny and "extreme misogyny"? These things sound all very well in principle, less workable (or more open to abuse) in practice.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Incels are bad we all agree, should we however prosecute people for saying for example women are bad drivers ( clue they are not I agree as do insurance companies) when however do you draw the line between having an opinion and not being able to say that?
I never for one moment made the connection that these proposals were about banning mildly derisory comments about women. I went straight to the work on Andrew Tate. My bad.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
I don't understand your argument. We quite correctly ban the "free (hate) speech" of Abu Hamza and his accolytes because it can have dangerous consequences for the wider community. Surely if there is the risk of harm to the wider community from Andrew Tate and his followers the same rule applies.
JK Rowling (on one of her occasional breaks from 'trans') has called for misogyny to be treated as seriously as racism. It's a good point. It does as much harm, perhaps more.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Incels are bad we all agree, should we however prosecute people for saying for example women are bad drivers ( clue they are not I agree as do insurance companies) when however do you draw the line between having an opinion and not being able to say that?
I never for one moment made the connection that these proposals were about banning mildly derisory comments about women. I went straight to the work on Andrew Tate. My bad.
The trouble is with all laws like that they tend to sweep up people that were intended. I don't think I am a mysogynist, nor a racist, not a homophobe. However I do say things from time to time that maybe I can't produce a study to show I am right. I feel under laws like this it makes me wonder if I should say it unless I can back it up with an academic study.
Of course, to be legal, misandry would also have to be banned...
Absolutely, that goes without saying.
The devil's in the detail. Where is the line between misogyny and "extreme misogyny"? These things sound all very well in principle, less workable (or more open to abuse) in practice.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
MLive and other major media outlets covered the visit of vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, to Detroit Metropolitan Airport on Aug. 7.
On Sunday, former president and GOP nominee Donald Trump took to social media to declare the images of a large crowd were “fake” and “There was nobody there!” Others picked up Trump’s cries and questioned MLive’s photos of the event on social media posts.
MLive had four journalists there. They are real, living people, as were the 15,000 or so other bodies that were jammed into and around a hangar. We have it documented in photos and videos, as do other media that were there.
The US has literally gone mad by falling for Trump and his cult. Literally don't want to believe the world as it exists. They want to believe a pathological liar. How can an advanced, technologically rich, well educated democracy fall for this shit?
It is just so astounding at times one wants to pinch oneself to see if this is all just a nightmare.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
This just sounds like a lot of Guardianista talking points. Is there a new prevelance of angry young men who are involuntary celibate attacking young women?
This all seems like a bit of the aftermath of the David Amess murder, in which an islamic extremis sought out his surgery and slaughtered him. This some how become, not a consequence of radical Islam but about social media abuse. Nothing to do with the murder could be attributed to social media abuse, yet a law was but a law was demanded in the name of David.
"here's a complicated problem, but lets all clear our throats and ban something else unrelated instead".
We could even have some through the looking glass public information films in which young black and Indian women are harassed by young white men. A recreation of an election count in which a successful black newly elected MP is shouted down and drowned out by lots of fat male white supremacists.
Of course, to be legal, misandry would also have to be banned...
Absolutely, that goes without saying.
The devil's in the detail. Where is the line between misogyny and "extreme misogyny"? These things sound all very well in principle, less workable (or more open to abuse) in practice.
That's true of any harm that we have laws against. There's always a grey area, and the solution tends to be to place the line so that it catches all the really worst stuff whilst giving "bad but not quite as bad" the benefit of the doubt.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
A cheap argument. I doubt anyone is pro misogyny and I am sure we all agree misogyny is a bad thing.
However the devil is in the definition.
But, it neatly encapsulates the reflexive defence of the measure and why people will be reluctant to criticise it.
It's how tyranny is built bit by bit.
It's the attacking of the measure that's knee jerk not the defence.
Eg your intro of it as "more speech banning".
Interestingly you mention knees. I am old enough to remember posters demanding that Gary Lineker, Keir Starmer and the England national football team should be dismissed from their posts for taking the knee.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
This just sounds like a lot of Guardianista talking points. Is there a new prevelance of angry young men who are involuntary celibate attacking young women?
This all seems like a bit of the aftermath of the David Amess murder, in which an islamic extremis sought out his surgery and slaughtered him. This some how become, not a consequence of radical Islam but about social media abuse. Nothing to do with the murder could be attributed to social media abuse, yet a law was but a law was demanded in the name of David.
"here's a complicated problem, but lets all clear our throats and ban something else unrelated instead".
We could even have some through the looking glass public information films in which young black and Indian women are harassed by young white men. A recreation of an election count in which a successful black newly elected MP is shouted down and drowned out by lots of fat male white supremacists.
The article cites a murder with an Incel motive, and I recall other ones in Canada etc.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
Context matters a great deal. If she is on her own and he has a bunch of mates with him; it could almost be seen as incitement. If she is with people, she *may* have less reason to feel threatened.
Although in your purely hypothetical example, I'd argue the guy needs treatment rather than punishment.
The Republican senator and Donald Trump loyalist Lindsey Graham has warned that Trump is in danger of losing the US presidential election if he continues to talk about Kamala Harris’s race and make other personal attacks instead of focusing on policy issues.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
This just sounds like a lot of Guardianista talking points. Is there a new prevelance of angry young men who are involuntary celibate attacking young women?
This all seems like a bit of the aftermath of the David Amess murder, in which an islamic extremis sought out his surgery and slaughtered him. This some how become, not a consequence of radical Islam but about social media abuse. Nothing to do with the murder could be attributed to social media abuse, yet a law was but a law was demanded in the name of David.
"here's a complicated problem, but lets all clear our throats and ban something else unrelated instead".
We could even have some through the looking glass public information films in which young black and Indian women are harassed by young white men. A recreation of an election count in which a successful black newly elected MP is shouted down and drowned out by lots of fat male white supremacists.
The article cites a murder with an Incel motive, and I recall other ones in Canada etc.
The fact that it is that one case from Plymouth from 3 years ago. That isn't exactly strong evidence it is a super widespread problem that weirdo incels are actually leaving their basements to terrorise the world rather than moaning to one another about how everything is unfair.
I think there are genuine issue of young men who appear to be failing to operate normally in society and more moderate people like Chris Williamson have discussed this issue.
Of course, to be legal, misandry would also have to be banned...
Absolutely, that goes without saying.
The devil's in the detail. Where is the line between misogyny and "extreme misogyny"? These things sound all very well in principle, less workable (or more open to abuse) in practice.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
That's fair, but do we need a law against it specifically? And if it's not that specific, could the law be misused?
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
The "free speech" topic doesn't half create some hyperbole. There's something about it that causes otherwise rational people to go off the deep end.
I think I know why but it's not easy to explain. So it will have to wait until I have a good hair day.
MLive and other major media outlets covered the visit of vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, to Detroit Metropolitan Airport on Aug. 7.
On Sunday, former president and GOP nominee Donald Trump took to social media to declare the images of a large crowd were “fake” and “There was nobody there!” Others picked up Trump’s cries and questioned MLive’s photos of the event on social media posts.
MLive had four journalists there. They are real, living people, as were the 15,000 or so other bodies that were jammed into and around a hangar. We have it documented in photos and videos, as do other media that were there.
The US has literally gone mad by falling for Trump and his cult. Literally don't want to believe the world as it exists. They want to believe a pathological liar. How can an advanced, technologically rich, well educated democracy fall for this shit?
It is just so astounding at times one wants to pinch oneself to see if this is all just a nightmare.
American went mad Trump-wise years ago. Probably when he won the Republican nomination for 2016.
What we have now is the bit of the con that the conman relies on- where the victim ties themselves up in knots because the alternative is to admit that they were conned.
(Actually, that's been the case since January, 2021. That should have ruled him out of anything. But it's got even more pitiful over the last 3.5 years.)
(Trump, and the American response to him, does show the limits of "the answer to lies is to tell the truth" as an answer to the problem of Free Speech.)
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
I found a good (yellow sticker) offer on some nice smoked salmon and bought a few packs, so I'm going to be eating smoked salmon and cream cheese sandwiches all week
I decided to make my own cream cheese
I started with a pint of full fat natural yoghurt. I added chopped dill and chives, lemon zest and horseradish. I wanted to use fresh but couldn't find any so used a strong horseradish sauce brand
Once well mixed add and mix a teaspoon of salt, then transfer to a muslin bag over a funnel in a bowl, tie the top, cover and leave in the fridge overnight
In the morning you have the best and freshest cream cheese, flavoured perfectly for smoked salmon
To be plain I have no time for mysogynists what so ever they are idiots, so are racists and homophobes etc. We start prosecuting people for having an opinion where does it end? If they aren't threatening violence then its just an opinion. What next conservatives get in again and they threaten arrest for you calling them a right wing c word...or labour outlaw calling left wing people the c word etc....everyone has opinions if they are not inciting violence or threatening then we should not be prosecuting them. To give an example from here @sandyrentool he thinks it would be better that the human race reduces radically in number...should he not be allowed to have that opinion. He isnt threatening mass genocide to reduce the population
"It should have been a quick, simple rail journey.
Nearly two years ago, Sarah Cook hopped on a train at Wombwell Station, just outside her pet shop in South Yorkshire, to travel one stop to Barnsley. A mere six minutes.
"I tried to buy a ticket on the platform and the machine wouldn’t accept my bank card," she told the BBC. "I thought: 'It doesn’t matter, the train is here, I’ll buy one on the train.'"
Unfortunately, there was no guard on the train and when Ms Cook reached the station, transport police were scanning everyone's tickets.
When she tried to buy a ticket she was told it was "too late". So she was fined.
"The fine I appealed cause it was £20 which seemed a lot for a couple-of-pound journey and I never heard anything back."
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Nearly a year to the day later in 2023, Ms Cook received a letter telling her she was being fined £500.
"That escalated to going to court," she says. "Filling out a lot of forms, pleading guilty, pleading not guilty, the threat of a criminal record, the threat of a bigger fine, the threat of jail time, up to two years."
In the end, she did have to fork out some money. "After the threat of everything else, it was a ginormous £4," she says.
It turns out Ms Cook wasn't the only one caught out.
Last week, a ruling by the chief magistrate for England and Wales found the prosecutions by rail companies against Ms Cook and five other people were "unlawful" and declared them void.
As a result, an estimated 74,000 other cases will be re-examined. If rail companies are found to have acted unlawfully in those instances, prosecutions could be quashed and fines could be refunded.
I don't understand these stories. I've been caught out a handful of times - for instance, the platform ticket machine not working. Once, when i got to the large station at the end of my journey (I thin it was Reading), I searched out a member of staff, who took me to the ticket office and it was all sorted, politely and with no excess fare.
I wonder if it's a problem with the British Transport Police, as the story states? Or whether there's other factors, e.g. the member of the public appearing shifty or impolite?
It's chronic fare evasion that's the issue.
At Manchester Piccadilly there are barriers and station staff who have machines to take your payment.
I spoke to staff a while back and they get to recognise repeat offenders, the trick is to say 'Oh I got on Stockport' when the reality is they got on at Stoke, this is backed up on CCTV using footfall.
At Blackpool North, they don't let you on to the platform until the train arrives. I have seen guys there just getting off the train and legging it when confronted by a collector.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
Context matters a great deal. If she is on her own and he has a bunch of mates with him; it could almost be seen as incitement. If she is with people, she *may* have less reason to feel threatened.
Although in your purely hypothetical example, I'd argue the guy needs treatment rather than punishment.
The hypothetical nature of the example is a 'law lecture' example in order to clear the gound of exactly the qualifications you raise, and present the issue in its pure form. The issue of punishment or treatment goes to sentence, not whether it should be an offence.
There is no incitement and no threat. It is pure vituperation and a verbal expression to another of a lawful (though of course vile) opinion. I think it should be an offence.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
Context matters a great deal. If she is on her own and he has a bunch of mates with him; it could almost be seen as incitement. If she is with people, she *may* have less reason to feel threatened.
Although in your purely hypothetical example, I'd argue the guy needs treatment rather than punishment.
The hypothetical nature of the example is a 'law lecture' example in order to clear the gound of exactly the qualifications you raise, and present the issue in its pure form. The issue of punishment or treatment goes to sentence, not whether it should be an offence.
There is no incitement and no threat. It is pure vituperation and a verbal expression to another of a lawful (though of course vile) opinion. I think it should be an offence.
The Republican senator and Donald Trump loyalist Lindsey Graham has warned that Trump is in danger of losing the US presidential election if he continues to talk about Kamala Harris’s race and make other personal attacks instead of focusing on policy issues.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
Context matters a great deal. If she is on her own and he has a bunch of mates with him; it could almost be seen as incitement. If she is with people, she *may* have less reason to feel threatened.
Although in your purely hypothetical example, I'd argue the guy needs treatment rather than punishment.
The hypothetical nature of the example is a 'law lecture' example in order to clear the gound of exactly the qualifications you raise, and present the issue in its pure form. The issue of punishment or treatment goes to sentence, not whether it should be an offence.
There is no incitement and no threat. It is pure vituperation and a verbal expression to another of a lawful (though of course vile) opinion. I think it should be an offence.
You think a lawful opinion should be an offence?
There are no such things as unlawful opinions. Opinions are mere mental assents. Opinions can and often are kept private. No jurisdiction can touch them. I am discussing expression to another of a particular opinion, in a particular setting, which IMHO is an example of something that should be an offence because that degree of insulting and abusive speech in that setting should be contrary to public policy.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
I don't understand your argument. We quite correctly ban the "free (hate) speech" of Abu Hamza and his accolytes because it can have dangerous consequences for the wider community. Surely if there is the risk of harm to the wider community from Andrew Tate and his followers the same rule applies.
I wouldn't ban the hate speech of Abu Hamza either.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Incels are bad we all agree, should we however prosecute people for saying for example women are bad drivers ( clue they are not I agree as do insurance companies) when however do you draw the line between having an opinion and not being able to say that?
Ah ha!
And that's where you are wrong.
Women are not better drivers than men, they just drive fewer miles on average.
I am totally unsurprised by the amount of people who class themselves as liberals that want to outlaw perfectly legal opinion
There is no such thing as an unlawful opinion; opinions are mental assents to a proposition. I am allowed to have the opinion that shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is a good thing to do, but I am not allowed to try it out.
I am totally unsurprised by the amount of people who class themselves as liberals that want to outlaw perfectly legal opinion
If we outlawed legal opinions, at least we'd hear less from lawyers.
Sadly no we would hear more from them because a lot of people will be "hey what calling left wingers socialist c*ts is illegal that cant be right/hey what calling right wingers fascists c*ts is illegal that cant be right", so more lawyers the only people who profit from increasing laws
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
Context matters a great deal. If she is on her own and he has a bunch of mates with him; it could almost be seen as incitement. If she is with people, she *may* have less reason to feel threatened.
Although in your purely hypothetical example, I'd argue the guy needs treatment rather than punishment.
The hypothetical nature of the example is a 'law lecture' example in order to clear the gound of exactly the qualifications you raise, and present the issue in its pure form. The issue of punishment or treatment goes to sentence, not whether it should be an offence.
There is no incitement and no threat. It is pure vituperation and a verbal expression to another of a lawful (though of course vile) opinion. I think it should be an offence.
You think a lawful opinion should be an offence?
There are no such things as unlawful opinions. Opinions are mere mental assents. Opinions can and often are kept private. No jurisdiction can touch them. I am discussing expression to another of a particular opinion, in a particular setting, which IMHO is an example of something that should be an offence because that degree of insulting and abusive speech in that setting should be contrary to public policy.
Ah so you think the opinion is legal as long as you don't voice it......nazi party that way =>
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I always wonder, do people actually take Andrew Tate seriously or is he just another one of this outlandish online personalities like Paul brothers, that do and say outrageous stuff and the kids copy the saying to be cool...how much are that actually believing it and how much is just repeating the catchphrases? I genuinely don't know the answer.
I do know that Tate business funnel is say outlandish stutt, get clicks, upsell you subscription to some very boring, poor value, but not really a scam set of courses about business, stock trading etc that aren't taught be him and nothing like the bitches and whores stuff he posts on social media.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
I thought you said you were pro free speech?
Calling someone racist, if you think they are, is in itself an exercise in free speech.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
I thought you said you were pro free speech?
Calling someone racist, if you think they are, is in itself an exercise in free speech.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
Do you not see a difference though between calling someone a name and saying something is outlawed?
Being liberal means I can think someone is a racist without wanting their speech to be outlawed. Being liberal equally means I can express myself by calling someone racist if that's what I think they are.
If you want to understand the rise of Donald Trump, this may help: 'In 2013, [Les] Moonves was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame.[27] He became chairman of CBS in February 2016.[6][7][8]
Of the tone of the 2016 Republican presidential campaign, and the advertising dollars it delivered, Moonves said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS ... Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun ... I've never seen anything like this, and this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."[28] He added, "Donald's place in this election is a good thing."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Moonves
(It would be interesting to see how much more TV coverage Trump got in that primary campaign than the other candidates. I haven't checked recently, but I believe he received more than all the other candidates -- combined.)
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Incels are bad we all agree, should we however prosecute people for saying for example women are bad drivers ( clue they are not I agree as do insurance companies) when however do you draw the line between having an opinion and not being able to say that?
Ah ha!
And that's where you are wrong.
Women are not better drivers than men, they just drive fewer miles on average.
Their accidents tend to be at lower speeds and cause less serious injuries. From an insurance company's point of view that means a lot less cash.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
I thought you said you were pro free speech?
Calling someone racist, if you think they are, is in itself an exercise in free speech.
I didn't dispute that, feel free to call them out. It is a legal opinion if you think they are racist. Let them defend their view. I am not objecting to people being called racist....I am objecting to yes its an opinion you can hold but you aren't allowed to voice it.
I always wonder, do people actually take Andrew Tate seriously or is he just another one of this outlandish online personalities like Paul brothers, that do and say outrageous stuff and the kids copy the saying to be cool...how much are that actually believing it and how much is just repeating the catchphrases? I genuinely don't know the answer.
I do know that Tate business funnel is say outlandish stutt, get clicks, upsell you subscription to some very boring, poor value, but not really a scam set of courses about business, stock trading etc that aren't taught be him and nothing like the bitches and whores stuff he posts on social media.
I wouldn’t have heard of this guy had the BBC not obsessively reported about him.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
I don't understand your argument. We quite correctly ban the "free (hate) speech" of Abu Hamza and his accolytes because it can have dangerous consequences for the wider community. Surely if there is the risk of harm to the wider community from Andrew Tate and his followers the same rule applies.
I wouldn't ban the hate speech of Abu Hamza either.
Well that contextualises your point. I can't argue with consistency.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
How does one criticise unprecedentedly high levels of immigration today without being labelled hard/far/extreme right?
Tell me one person who does criticise such levels of immigration and is spared these labels
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - U.S. looks to ban election betting as traders flock to prediction sites
. . . The U.S. government has embarked on a broad crackdown against election betting, relying on a mix of newly proposed rules and ongoing court cases to try to stamp out a nascent industry that critics call a potential threat to democracy. . . .
“To me, it is enormous corruption,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who expressed fear that well-heeled political or corporate interests could someday come to think, “Hey, I will spend millions of dollars smearing some candidate to make sure the candidate I bet on wins.”
The regulatory push is the work of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), whose chairman, Rostin Behnam, has pursued rules that would ban election-related betting on commercial exchanges under its watch. Citing a lack of staff and resources, the agency has argued it is not equipped to serve as an election watchdog and monitor political markets for fraud or manipulation.
The CFTC ratcheted up its crackdown two years ago, moving to halt election betting on PredictIt, a nonprofit that has continued to operate even as it squares off with the government in court. Federal regulators last year also rejected an application from KalshiEx, a regulated exchange that permits users to place bets on a wide variety of future events, such as inclement weather and SpaceX rocket launches. Kalshi had hoped to allow wagers — up to $100 million, in limited cases — on party control of Congress. Denied by the government, it filed its own lawsuit against the CFTC.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
Context matters a great deal. If she is on her own and he has a bunch of mates with him; it could almost be seen as incitement. If she is with people, she *may* have less reason to feel threatened.
Although in your purely hypothetical example, I'd argue the guy needs treatment rather than punishment.
The hypothetical nature of the example is a 'law lecture' example in order to clear the gound of exactly the qualifications you raise, and present the issue in its pure form. The issue of punishment or treatment goes to sentence, not whether it should be an offence.
There is no incitement and no threat. It is pure vituperation and a verbal expression to another of a lawful (though of course vile) opinion. I think it should be an offence.
You think a lawful opinion should be an offence?
There are no such things as unlawful opinions. Opinions are mere mental assents. Opinions can and often are kept private. No jurisdiction can touch them. I am discussing expression to another of a particular opinion, in a particular setting, which IMHO is an example of something that should be an offence because that degree of insulting and abusive speech in that setting should be contrary to public policy.
Ah so you think the opinion is legal as long as you don't voice it......nazi party that way =>
I have of course said nothing of the sort. No personal opinion is unlawful. It can't be, it's the nature of reality. Holocaust denial, flat earth, white supremacy, support for genocide of Yazidis; no doubt people hold all of these opinions, and do so lawfully. Some expressions (like my example) are instances of words which IMHO could be offences. As it happens the law says the same - Public Order Act 1986, secs 4 and 5.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
Is that currently allowed?
There’s a difference. Incitement is proven in by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted an offence, and that their behaviour was capable of actually persuading another person to commit that offence. This is determined based on the circumstances and the type of statements or actions involved. So encouraging someone to assault an identifiable person will get a conviction, not saying “x crime should be legal”.
However, there’s a crime of inciting hatred against other ethnic groups e.g. advocating that a group should be eliminated or enslaved. Women are not covered by that. The new legislation, I think, expand that. That would mean that advocating rape would come under that general heading rather than incitement to commit an offence.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
How does one criticise unprecedentedly high levels of immigration today without being labelled hard/far/extreme right?
Tell me one person who does criticise such levels of immigration and is spared these labels
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
How does one criticise unprecedentedly high levels of immigration today without being labelled hard/far/extreme right?
Tell me one person who does criticise such levels of immigration and is spared these labels
I am definitely hard right, though not far right....I really don't care about your colour , creed or sex. I Just want all immigrants to be net contributors not min wage jobs. Then we can afford to pay more for public services to cover them without lowering public service for everyone else
Comments
Now there are lots of good reasons why you should be able to do that e.g. capture criminality, but just to embarrass people doing nothing illegal and going about their day doesn't seem fair or right.
Or something like that.
None.
You see, winning elections is like making love to a beautiful woman.
I drove sixty three miles today; I had just under three quarters of a tank when i finished. The computer said 576 miles to go
I know that the driving in the week on normal routes is less efficient than the longer distances on a Sunday, but that's a massive difference. I added fifty percent to the range of the tank
There has always been a soft social censorship that kept a sufficient lid on harmful speech, writing and behaviour that it didn't overwhelm society. Mostly. But they are too weak and to slow to do their jobs in a world where everyone can broadcast, anonymously and instantly, to millions.
But no, I don't know what we do next.
More seriously, the barrier for banning anything needs to be high. Sadly, I don't think this exceeds it.
The only way we can stay sane in a world where photos and video can be captured and shared in seconds - not to mention edited, AI-d and everything else - is to stop being so affected by this stuff. It needs to be drained of its power and importance.
A world of greater possibility requires greater tolerance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c15gn0lq7p5o
There's one scene in there that has left me deeply traumatised, it is enough to put you off sex/women for life.
Apart from that scene it's the best Alien film since
Aliens vs Predator - RequiemAliens."I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal".
Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I don't think it's appropriate to legislate for it as "extremism" - part of a broader trend to police attitude, beliefs and speech - and all sorts of things could get caught up in it, including gender critical beliefs, expressing male-centered perspectives and criticising neo-feminist doctrines.
Worse: I dont think it will do anything to solve the problem, and might even fuel it further.
However the devil is in the definition.
"It should have been a quick, simple rail journey.
Nearly two years ago, Sarah Cook hopped on a train at Wombwell Station, just outside her pet shop in South Yorkshire, to travel one stop to Barnsley. A mere six minutes.
"I tried to buy a ticket on the platform and the machine wouldn’t accept my bank card," she told the BBC. "I thought: 'It doesn’t matter, the train is here, I’ll buy one on the train.'"
Unfortunately, there was no guard on the train and when Ms Cook reached the station, transport police were scanning everyone's tickets.
When she tried to buy a ticket she was told it was "too late". So she was fined.
"The fine I appealed cause it was £20 which seemed a lot for a couple-of-pound journey and I never heard anything back."
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Nearly a year to the day later in 2023, Ms Cook received a letter telling her she was being fined £500.
"That escalated to going to court," she says. "Filling out a lot of forms, pleading guilty, pleading not guilty, the threat of a criminal record, the threat of a bigger fine, the threat of jail time, up to two years."
In the end, she did have to fork out some money. "After the threat of everything else, it was a ginormous £4," she says.
It turns out Ms Cook wasn't the only one caught out.
Last week, a ruling by the chief magistrate for England and Wales found the prosecutions by rail companies against Ms Cook and five other people were "unlawful" and declared them void.
As a result, an estimated 74,000 other cases will be re-examined. If rail companies are found to have acted unlawfully in those instances, prosecutions could be quashed and fines could be refunded.
For Ms Cook the ruling "feels good"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7lxjz3ek3o
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Or she could have selected the promise to pay option at the ticket machine.
It's how tyranny is built bit by bit.
Andrew Tate, Tristan Tate and their millions of followers?
The work of Andrew Tate leaches into other vile prejudice. Where did Nigel Farage claim he learned that the guy who murdered the little girls in Southport was a Syrian refugee? Answer: Andrew Tate's X account.
I wonder if it's a problem with the British Transport Police, as the story states? Or whether there's other factors, e.g. the member of the public appearing shifty or impolite?
At Manchester Piccadilly there are barriers and station staff who have machines to take your payment.
I spoke to staff a while back and they get to recognise repeat offenders, the trick is to say 'Oh I got on Stockport' when the reality is they got on at Stoke, this is backed up on CCTV using footfall.
The debate is about 'extreme' misogyny, which is clear from the BBC article but not from the misleading headline.
These things sound all very well in principle, less workable (or more open to abuse) in practice.
Eg your intro of it as "more speech banning".
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
On Sunday, former president and GOP nominee Donald Trump took to social media to declare the images of a large crowd were “fake” and “There was nobody there!” Others picked up Trump’s cries and questioned MLive’s photos of the event on social media posts.
MLive had four journalists there. They are real, living people, as were the 15,000 or so other bodies that were jammed into and around a hangar. We have it documented in photos and videos, as do other media that were there.
https://www.mlive.com/news/2024/08/letter-from-the-editor-dont-accuse-us-of-doctoring-photos-just-because-an-image-challenges-your-beliefs.html
The US has literally gone mad by falling for Trump and his cult. Literally don't want to believe the world as it exists. They want to believe a pathological liar. How can an advanced, technologically rich, well educated democracy fall for this shit?
It is just so astounding at times one wants to pinch oneself to see if this is all just a nightmare.
This all seems like a bit of the aftermath of the David Amess murder, in which an islamic extremis sought out his surgery and slaughtered him. This some how become, not a consequence of radical Islam but about social media abuse. Nothing to do with the murder could be attributed to social media abuse, yet a law was but a law was demanded in the name of David.
"here's a complicated problem, but lets all clear our throats and ban something else unrelated instead".
We could even have some through the looking glass public information films in which young black and Indian women are harassed by young white men. A recreation of an election count in which a successful black newly elected MP is shouted down and drowned out by lots of fat male white supremacists.
See: pornography.
Although in your purely hypothetical example, I'd argue the guy needs treatment rather than punishment.
Guardian
Let's hope he doesn't take Graham's advice.
I think there are genuine issue of young men who appear to be failing to operate normally in society and more moderate people like Chris Williamson have discussed this issue.
I think I know why but it's not easy to explain. So it will have to wait until I have a good hair day.
What we have now is the bit of the con that the conman relies on- where the victim ties themselves up in knots because the alternative is to admit that they were conned.
(Actually, that's been the case since January, 2021. That should have ruled him out of anything. But it's got even more pitiful over the last 3.5 years.)
(Trump, and the American response to him, does show the limits of "the answer to lies is to tell the truth" as an answer to the problem of Free Speech.)
I decided to make my own cream cheese
I started with a pint of full fat natural yoghurt. I added chopped dill and chives, lemon zest and horseradish. I wanted to use fresh but couldn't find any so used a strong horseradish sauce brand
Once well mixed add and mix a teaspoon of salt, then transfer to a muslin bag over a funnel in a bowl, tie the top, cover and leave in the fridge overnight
In the morning you have the best and freshest cream cheese, flavoured perfectly for smoked salmon
I have seen guys there just getting off the train and legging it when confronted by a collector.
There is no incitement and no threat. It is pure vituperation and a verbal expression to another of a lawful (though of course vile) opinion. I think it should be an offence.
I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
And that's where you are wrong.
Women are not better drivers than men, they just drive fewer miles on average.
And yes, I am fairly ultra old fashioned liberal.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I do know that Tate business funnel is say outlandish stutt, get clicks, upsell you subscription to some very boring, poor value, but not really a scam set of courses about business, stock trading etc that aren't taught be him and nothing like the bitches and whores stuff he posts on social media.
Calling someone racist, if you think they are, is in itself an exercise in free speech.
Being liberal means I can think someone is a racist without wanting their speech to be outlawed.
Being liberal equally means I can express myself by calling someone racist if that's what I think they are.
Of the tone of the 2016 Republican presidential campaign, and the advertising dollars it delivered, Moonves said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS ... Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun ... I've never seen anything like this, and this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."[28] He added, "Donald's place in this election is a good thing."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Moonves
(It would be interesting to see how much more TV coverage Trump got in that primary campaign than the other candidates. I haven't checked recently, but I believe he received more than all the other candidates -- combined.)
Tell me one person who does criticise such levels of immigration and is spared these labels
. . . The U.S. government has embarked on a broad crackdown against election betting, relying on a mix of newly proposed rules and ongoing court cases to try to stamp out a nascent industry that critics call a potential threat to democracy. . . .
“To me, it is enormous corruption,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who expressed fear that well-heeled political or corporate interests could someday come to think, “Hey, I will spend millions of dollars smearing some candidate to make sure the candidate I bet on wins.”
The regulatory push is the work of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), whose chairman, Rostin Behnam, has pursued rules that would ban election-related betting on commercial exchanges under its watch. Citing a lack of staff and resources, the agency has argued it is not equipped to serve as an election watchdog and monitor political markets for fraud or manipulation.
The CFTC ratcheted up its crackdown two years ago, moving to halt election betting on PredictIt, a nonprofit that has continued to operate even as it squares off with the government in court. Federal regulators last year also rejected an application from KalshiEx, a regulated exchange that permits users to place bets on a wide variety of future events, such as inclement weather and SpaceX rocket launches. Kalshi had hoped to allow wagers — up to $100 million, in limited cases — on party control of Congress. Denied by the government, it filed its own lawsuit against the CFTC.
SSI - Short exerpt from looooong article.
by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted an offence, and that their behaviour was capable of actually persuading another person to
commit that offence. This is determined based on the circumstances and the type of statements or actions involved. So encouraging someone to assault an identifiable person will get a conviction, not saying “x crime should be legal”.
However, there’s a crime of inciting hatred against other ethnic groups e.g. advocating that a group should be eliminated or enslaved. Women are not covered by that. The new legislation, I think, expand that. That would mean that advocating rape would come under that general heading rather than incitement to commit an offence.