ADVERTISEMENT

England has Fallen


How many of these people were actually charged or convicted with anything and how many were police over-reach that we see here all the time?

I mean for every one of those you have I'm sure you can find many more over here of the police losing their shit because someone was recording them and they didn't like it or someone was doing some other completely legal act and they didn't like it.
 
What's "Hate Speech," Hoosier?

Again I'm not going to define it for them. I don't even agree with making hate speech illegal.

What I am saying is picking up videos of cops arresting people doesn't say much. There are plenty of cases of police over reach here too. The only difference is the cops here are usually clamping down on the people you like to see them clamp down on.
 
Marky!

You know whut "Hate Speech" is, dawg?
I don’t know the legal definition in the UK. I don’t think hate speech is illegal in the US.

For discussion’s sake, I would define it as speech considered negative by a reasonable man directed toward a group of people sharing an immutable characteristic.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvolutionDenier
It is? Maybe in Cuckoo land NYC on some trumped up predicate violation.

1st Amendment says you are wrong.
Perhaps. But the “law of the land” says I am right. And that opinion was championed by someone a lot smarter and well versed in the law than either you or I, with all due respect.
And...what is happning in England with “freedom of speech” has no play here in the US. They have their problems and we have ours.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvolutionDenier
Perhaps. But the “law of the land” says I am right. And that opinion was championed by someone a lot smarter and well versed in the law than either you or I, with all due respect.
And...what is happning in England with “freedom of speech” has no play here in the US. They have their problems and we have ours.

Law of the land is the Constitution.
 
Wikipedia says the UK hate speech definition is, “Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.”
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvolutionDenier
What's "Hate Speech," Hoosier?

Presumably, you know this thread is about the UK and they do have laws against Hate Speech
but in case you did not

Definition and clarification from bills in 86 and 06 ( linked below)
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes.

[7th November 1986]

Fear or provocation of violence.​

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Meaning of “religious hatred”​

In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.


Acts intended to stir up religious hatred​

29BUse of words or behaviour or display of written material​

(1)A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

Parts 3 and 3A – Racial and religious hatred, and hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation[edit]​

If the act is intended to stir up racial hatred Part 3 of the Act creates offences of

  • use of words or behaviour or display of written material (section 18),
  • publishing or distributing written material (section 19),
  • public performance of a play (section 20),
  • distributing, showing or playing a recording (section 21),
  • broadcasting (section 22). or
  • possession of racially inflammatory material (section 23)

Public Order Act 1986
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvolutionDenier
Clearly you haven’t. The removal of free speech? C’mon…
Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. The law goes on to say that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvolutionDenier
Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. The law goes on to say that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society."
What was said that was wrong in this case?
 
Presumably, you know this thread is about the UK and they do have laws against Hate Speech
but in case you did not

Definition and clarification from bills in 86 and 06 ( linked below)
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes.

[7th November 1986]

Fear or provocation of violence.​

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Meaning of “religious hatred”​

In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.


Acts intended to stir up religious hatred​

29BUse of words or behaviour or display of written material​

(1)A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

Parts 3 and 3A – Racial and religious hatred, and hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation[edit]​

If the act is intended to stir up racial hatred Part 3 of the Act creates offences of

  • use of words or behaviour or display of written material (section 18),
  • publishing or distributing written material (section 19),
  • public performance of a play (section 20),
  • distributing, showing or playing a recording (section 21),
  • broadcasting (section 22). or
  • possession of racially inflammatory material (section 23)

Public Order Act 1986
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
Now we got Georgia yokels defending UK "hate speech" laws.

Just ****in' bumpkins, these FSU retards.
 
"wE aRe iN tHe FiGhT oF oUr LiVeS"



Family Feud Lol GIF by Steve Harvey
 
  • Like
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
Meh, they’re fine. A lot of bluster for nothing. Some people just can’t get over that the way we do things isn’t the way everyone does things and so the way others do things lead to different bad interactions than the bad interactions we see here. To call England far left is laughable though.
 
Do you not believe Western Civilization is worth preserving?
Do you believe that preserves are better than jelly and jam? If you have one slice of toast with butter and the other can only have one of the fruity concoctions which one do you take?

Did you ever ride a train to travel for a vacation?
Donuts or pastries?

Do you mix the sauce into the noodles or top the noodles with the sauce?
 
Do you believe that preserves are better than jelly and jam? If you have one slice of toast with butter and the other can only have one of the fruity concoctions which one do you take?

Did you ever ride a train to travel for a vacation?
Donuts or pastries?

Do you mix the sauce into the noodles or top the noodles with the sauce?
"A lot of bluster for nothing."
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT