Quote:
Originally Posted by bananarama
A seriously flawed answer........Must not express an opinion that offends others in some way.......In that case all opposing opinions would be banned according to your logic.
Whenever one offers an opposing expression there is always the risk of offence. Someone some where will be offended come what may......
You cannot on one hand support freedom of expression and then in the other hand invent a load of if's and but's.........Freedom of expression then becomes the victim of those who choose to be offended and choose to want to censor others.
I detest what the guy did as much as any one else would. But I detest even more the corrosion of free expression in this country using the argument that to express an extreme belief is in itself incitement..........No its its not its just an expression that some people weak in the head interprete as incitement and use that anger to justify the censorship of others.
You either have free speach/expression or you don't......You cannot have free speech and then invent a load of if's and but's and rules for this or that for interpritation..............Freedom of expression is freedom of expression....End of........
The modern generation have betrayed eveything our brave servicemen faught for in the last two major conflicts....
|
I hate to break it to you, its not my logic, its called the rule of law.
Anyone can express an opinion, its the manner of that expression that is tested in a court of law should the expresser of that opinion be complained about and get charged for it.
As for choosing to be offended, yes people can complain however throughout the investigation and potential prosecution of said offence the test of law is whether a reasonable person would be seriously offended by the expression.
Or if the the alleged offender carried out the expression with the knowledge it would seriously offend others and with the intent to do so.
Wasnt it your beloved Labour Party that introduced not only these public order laws but also the overall situation where they felt it necessary to further restrict our freedoms?