[Beso]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...fered-freedom/

[Alf]

A victory for Liberty.

[Jessica.]

What was the tweet? It's still being recorded as a hate incident. The right to free speech in the UK still has conditions, it doesn't allow for hateful or abusive expression.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

What was the tweet? It's still being recorded as a hate incident. The right to free speech in the UK still has conditions, it doesn't allow for hateful or abusive expression.

It was a lot of tweets about transgenders, you would be banned on here if you posted them..

[Alf]

Originally Posted by parmnion

It was a lot of tweets about transgenders, you would be banned on here if you posted them..

Shows you how authoritarian they are on here. Even the courts of the land don't agree with them.

[Oliver_W]

Parm I wished you'd paste the article or at least relevant parts if you want to start a discussion...

Police compared to Stasi and Gestapo by judge as he rules they interfered in freedom of speech by investigating 'non crime' trans tweet

Humberside Police unlawfully interfered with a man's right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work over his allegedly "transphobic" tweets, the High Court has ruled.

Former police officer Harry Miller, 54, who founded the campaign group Fair Cop, said the police's actions had a "substantial chilling effect" on his right to free speech.

Mr Miller, who is from Lincolnshire, claims an officer told him that he had not committed a crime, but that his tweeting was being recorded as a "hate incident".

(cuts off here due to paywall)

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...fered-freedom/

He didn't even write the tweets himself, he reposted someone else's limerick, so it's pathetic he got even a portion of the blame.

Citing 30 potentially offensive tweets, the PC singled out a limerick Mr Miller had retweeted which questioned whether transgender women are biological women. It included the lines: "Your breasts are made of silicone, your vagina goes nowhere."

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

What was the tweet? It's still being recorded as a hate incident. The right to free speech in the UK still has conditions, it doesn't allow for hateful or abusive expression.

It should do. Until violence is called for, nothing should be off the table.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

It was a lot of tweets about transgenders, you would be banned on here if you posted them..

I just looked into it and saw some awful tweets which he retweeted. He seems like a very hateful man and I am glad that he ended up in court for what he said even if the judge didn't see it as a crime. I agree that he has the right to say that he doesn't understand trans people but the way he went about it was not warranted and I hope he will make better decisions in the future.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

He didn't even write the tweets himself, he reposted someone else's limerick, so it's pathetic he got even a portion of the blame.

I believe he was reprimanded for multiple tweets and not just that verse that he retweeted.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It should do. Until violence is called for, nothing should be off the table.

It doesn't matter if you think it should though, it's the law.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Parm I wished you'd paste the article or at least relevant parts if you want to start a discussion...


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...fered-freedom/

He didn't even write the tweets himself, he reposted someone else's limerick, so it's pathetic he got even a portion of the blame.

The relevant parts are the tweets themselves..bbc news just showed them...but I'm not going to on here..Im no daft oliver. .

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It should do. Until violence is called for, nothing should be off the table.

Racism shouldn’t be off the table? Homophobia shouldn’t be off the table? (Don’t understand why it’d be different for transphobia anyway but w/e)

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Racism shouldn’t be off the table? Homophobia shouldn’t be off the table? (Don’t understand why it’d be different for transphobia anyway but w/e)

Nope, it's all just words.

If people want to be exposed as racists, homophobes, or transphobes then give them the spotlight!

[Josy]

I've said umpteen times but freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Josy

I've said umpteen times but freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences

I completely agree with this. And there should only be consequences if violence is called for. Otherwise, the law has no place when it comes to the sounds peoples' mouths make.

If someone walks up to a black guy and calls him the N-word, he shouldn't face any legal consequences. The black guy is completely free to call him a cracker, and they can both go on their merry way. Or the black guy can punch him in the gob. Then the white guy can either hit him back, or file assault charges.

That's how it should be, anyway.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I completely agree with this. And there should only be consequences if violence is called for. Otherwise, the law has no place when it comes to the sounds peoples' mouths make.



If someone walks up to a black guy and calls him the N-word, he shouldn't face any legal consequences. The black guy is completely free to call him a cracker, and they can both go on their merry way. Or the black guy can punch him in the gob. Then the white guy can either hit him back, or file assault charges.



That's how it should be, anyway.

No sorry I completely disagree with you, hate speech is against the law and therefore should be dealt with accordingly

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Josy

No sorry I completely disagree with you, hate speech is against the law and therefore should be dealt with accordingly

I didn't say hate speech wasn't against the law. I was saying the law shouldn't have an opinion on it whatsoever, and it shouldn't be dealt with at all.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I didn't say hate speech wasn't against the law. I was saying the law shouldn't have an opinion on it whatsoever, and it shouldn't be dealt with at all.

You don't deserve that opinion since you obviously haven't spent your life dealing with hateful people.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

You don't deserve that opinion since you obviously haven't spent your life dealing with hateful people.

Everyone deserves an opinion.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I didn't say hate speech wasn't against the law. I was saying the law shouldn't have an opinion on it whatsoever, and it shouldn't be dealt with at all.

You are basically saying people should be allowed to be as hateful as they like towards others as long as no violence is involved

[michael21]

Why is catfish not against the law some but not all are hurtful I seen It on mtv

Cat the show cat the show

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Josy

You are basically saying people should be allowed to be as hateful as they like towards others as long as no violence is involved

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

I dont really know what kind of reply you expect to that.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Josy

I dont really know what kind of reply you expect to that.

You could try saying why you think people shouldn't have the right to say what they want?

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

You could try saying why you think people shouldn't have the right to say what they want?

I dont think that though, people saying what they think/want and people inciting hatred are two completely different things, the latter is harrasment and abuse both of which are illegal and rightly so.