Lock The Bastard Up - Page 2

Arrian · February 3, 2003, 13:03

Just ignore Pattycakes. As usual, he has nothing but vitriol to spew.

-Arrian

Bereta_Eder · February 3, 2003, 13:04

LOL @ Arrian...

*End Is Forever* · February 3, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Libel and slander are much easier to sue for in the UK and the government can (and does) ban books. Compared to most of the world, you have very unrestricted speech, but AFAIK, only the US actually has free speech.

I trust you'll be expanding your theory with examples...

Felch · February 3, 2003, 13:07

Let me get this straight Paiktis.

Greek dictatorship = Bad. America should have done something.

Iraqi dictatorship = Good. America should do nothing.

I know it's off topic, I just want to know if that's how you actually feel.

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

No you don't. Libel and slander are much easier to sue for in the UK and the government can (and does) ban books. Compared to most of the world, you have very unrestricted speech, but AFAIK, only the US actually has free speech.

That is typical US is the best nonsense.

The libel laws need reforming, but as they stand they only mean you have to be able to back up what you say.

The only books taht would get banned are those which advocate csex with children or animals, I'm not sure how that makes the US more free.

BTW I know the US is very free but that doesn't mean it is the most free. There would never be a fuss over burning flags in the UK

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 13:09

One more point - It would be better if the UK had a constitution protecting free speach.

Bereta_Eder · February 3, 2003, 13:11

Well Stinger if you were to liberate us from the dictatorship (which you supported BTW) by massacring 500.000 of us, no thanks. See we don't have that much oil.

chequita guevara · February 3, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
I trust you'll be expanding your theory with examples...

How about the McLibel case? McDonald's couldn't sue against activists passing out similar literature in the US, because in the US, a simple finding that an accusation is factually true shields you from those charges. Not so in the UK.

A fairly recent book (in the last decade) by a former British secret agent was banned in the UK. We can buy it here in the US.

BTW, common law is no protection at all, since the House of Commons can change it at any time. You folks need a constitution.

*End Is Forever* · February 3, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

A fairly recent book (in the last decade) by a former British secret agent was banned in the UK. We can buy it here in the US.

That's technically breach of contract. Would CIA agents be allowed to spill all after they retire? Thought not!

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

How about the McLibel case? McDonald's couldn't sue against activists passing out similar literature, because in the US, a simple finding that an acusation is factually true shields you from those charges. Not so in the UK.

A fairly recent book (in the last decade) by a former British secret agent was banned in the UK. We can buy it here in the US.

BTW, common law is no protection at all, since the House of Commons can change it at any time. You folks need a constitution.

The Mclibel case was a disater for McDonalds even though they won.

If a former CIA agent wrote a book blabbing verything i think the US gov would try and ban it.

The US can change the constitution to outlaw free speach if it wanted.

I'm not having ago at the US. I just think most people would say there is free speach in the UK

Felch · February 3, 2003, 13:19

Che, it's not like the Constitution really protects our rights. Remember the War on Drugs?

Ben Kenobi · February 3, 2003, 15:04

Quote:

BTW, common law is no protection at all, since the House of Commons can change it at any time. You folks need a constitution.

As opposed to the judges?

At least the politicians are accountable to the people. The judges in Canada just have to 'reinterpret' the constitution to make fundamental changes to Canadian society.

Provost Harrison · February 3, 2003, 15:06

Well he has the right to say it I suppose, despite how much I say it. Like should be countered with like, he should certainly be denounced for his comments in an official capacity with popular support (perhaps a petition or something). That is, after all, the right to free speech...

Gibsie · February 3, 2003, 15:16

The best thing to do with people like this is to ignore them. That way, the less outraged attention they get, the less police attention they get when someone beats their heads in.

chequita guevara · February 3, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
That's technically breach of contract. Would CIA agents be allowed to spill all after they retire? Thought not!

Actually, many have. They only went after one (Phillip Agee, Inside the Company)and that's because he was the first. The only legal requirement is that they can't divulge sensitive information. Furthermore, the books by American agents are available in the US (and the UK too for that matter), while books by British agents might be available to the rest of the world, just not in the UK (it depends on the book, IIRC, Spycatcher is the book about which I'm thinking, but I could be wrong on this).

Try again.

chequita guevara · February 3, 2003, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
The Mclibel case was a disater for McDonalds even though they won.

If it was a disaster for McDonald's what was it for the couple who lost? IIRC, it broke up their marriage, cost them their careers, and ruined their finances. And yet they were proven factually correct! Where's the free speech?

chequita guevara · February 3, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Felch X
Che, it's not like the Constitution really protects our rights. Remember the War on Drugs?

SHHHHHH!!!!!

Seriously, however, Free Speech is still one area that is not touched by the government. As long as you aren't inciting criminal or dangerous activity or lying about someone's character, you're free to say, write, or create whatever you damnwell please. Hell, even cartoon kiddie porn is legal.

MOBIUS · February 3, 2003, 15:45

Don't worry, we all know that EiF is against free speech because he is a Tory...

Piaktis, oh Elgin Marble starved one, I fail to see how you can give us grief about our freedom of speech laws given your country's history...

Bugs ****ing Bunny · February 3, 2003, 16:03

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

A fairly recent book (in the last decade) by a former British secret agent was banned in the UK. We can buy it here in the US.

If the book you're referring to is "Spycatcher", you can buy it in Britain too.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · February 3, 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

As long as you aren't inciting criminal or dangerous activity or lying about someone's character, you're free to say, write, or create whatever you damnwell please.

That's one hell of a caveat....

In fact, it leaves the US "freedom of speech" looking rather similar to Britain's.

Ned · February 3, 2003, 16:27

I don't think the UK government should do anything about the gentleman. However, people who believe that what he said have a right to air their outrage and to demonstrate against the idiot and his ideas - particularly by other members of the Islamic faith.

It would be nice if Islam had a way of taking such extremists and putting them out to pasture. The catholic church, for example, would never condone a priest making such a statement.

Drogue · February 3, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Don't we have laws against incitement to racial hatred in this country? Surely attacking Jews, Americans and Hindus in one go counts as incitement?

We do have those laws, but IIRC, they only relate to inciting racial violence. If I tell someone to attack all blacks, or to kill whites, then that is incitement to racial hatred. However, if I publicise that blacks/whites are inferior, or rejoice in a tragedy, then that is not covered. I could be wrong, but this was my understanding.

Quote:

Free Speach, however, grants him the right to be a nasty SOB if he wants to

AFAIK, in the UK, we don't have a free speech in our constitution (hell, we don't even have a proper constitution). If we had total free speech, he would be covered. However, we don't, so FS grants him nothing.

chequita guevara · February 3, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
In fact, it leaves the US "freedom of speech" looking rather similar to Britain's.

Yours are rather more strict and much easier to lose.

Imran Siddiqui · February 3, 2003, 20:36

Quote:

Okay, maybe it was an over-reaction - and if that's not incitement then fair enough. He's a ****ing idiot though.

Ah, fair enough.

Quote:

The only restrictions the UK has on free speach are those relating to teh incitement of religios/racial hatred which is IIRC the same as the USA.

There is no law against incitement of religious or racial hatred. Incitement of violence (immediate violence) is more suspect.

Imran Siddiqui · February 3, 2003, 20:39

Quote:

The catholic church, for example, would never condone a priest making such a statement.

The benefits of heirarchy presents itself.

Sikander · February 3, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

If it was a disaster for McDonald's what was it for the couple who lost? IIRC, it broke up their marriage, cost them their careers, and ruined their finances. And yet they were proven factually correct! Where's the free speech?

Really, if they were happy previous to the incident do you think they would have spent their time obsessing about McDonalds? They were already mentally ill.

sprucemoose3311 · February 4, 2003, 00:03

A Man Called Intrepid is a great book. The story is about an Allies spy during WW II. The author is William Stevenson (I think he was Knighted)

search for it at sites that sell books

Oerdin · February 4, 2003, 00:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You want to lock a guy up for exercising his free speech rights, Iain?

If a blond haired neo-nazi said the same thing he could be locked up by just about every county in western Europe. Why doesn't an Arab bigot get treated the same?

Imran Siddiqui · February 4, 2003, 00:39

Hey, two wrongs don't make a right.

DuncanK · February 4, 2003, 00:44

When they are critisizing you for being oppressive sometimes its better if you don't lock them up.