*Hugs first amendment* British police arrest men over burning korans

[Amused]

Gee, so this is the result of hate crime/speech laws and the oppression of free speech and thought...

Welcome to Malak's and Jules' dreamland:

More Than 250,000 British Toddlers Labeled Racists
Published September 23, 2010
| FoxNews.com
More than a quarter million British children have been accused of racism since the country passed its Race Relations Act passed in 2000, the Daily Mail reports.

Munira Mirza, a senior adviser to London Mayor Boris Johnson, says teachers are being forced to report children as young as 3 years old to the authorities for using alleged "racist" language.

"Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave," she wrote in Prospect magazine.

According to civil liberties group the Manifesto Club, 280,000 incidents have been reported between 2002-2009.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Gee, so this is the result of hate crime/speech laws and the oppression of free speech and thought...

Welcome to Malak's and Jules' dreamland:

More Than 250,000 British Toddlers Labeled Racists
Published September 23, 2010
| FoxNews.com
More than a quarter million British children have been accused of racism since the country passed its Race Relations Act passed in 2000, the Daily Mail reports.

Munira Mirza, a senior adviser to London Mayor Boris Johnson, says teachers are being forced to report children as young as 3 years old to the authorities for using alleged "racist" language.

"Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave," she wrote in Prospect magazine.

According to civil liberties group the Manifesto Club, 280,000 incidents have been reported between 2002-2009.

Um...that's a tad extreme don't you think?

 

[FallenHero]

:thumbsup:

Mutual respect...meaning we respect you until you voice an opinion we don't like, then we arrest you. Who needs the freedom to voice your opinion anyway? It's overrated.

 

[Bateluer]

Seriously, the main thing that Koran burning expresses is your own supreme ignorance.

Yep, just like burning the US Flag, or the Christian Bible, or demolishing ancient ruins because they conflict with your modern beliefs, etc, etc.

I don't believe for one second that one should burn the holy book of another faith, but if you're going to get arrested for doing it, then you damn well should.

 

[AlienCraft]

Freedom ain't easy!

 

[DivideBYZero]

Gee, so this is the result of hate crime/speech laws and the oppression of free speech and thought...

Welcome to Malak's and Jules' dreamland:

More Than 250,000 British Toddlers Labeled Racists
Published September 23, 2010
| FoxNews.com
More than a quarter million British children have been accused of racism since the country passed its Race Relations Act passed in 2000, the Daily Mail reports.

Munira Mirza, a senior adviser to London Mayor Boris Johnson, says teachers are being forced to report children as young as 3 years old to the authorities for using alleged "racist" language.

"Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave," she wrote in Prospect magazine.

According to civil liberties group the Manifesto Club, 280,000 incidents have been reported between 2002-2009.

What a sack of shit story. My mother is a Primary School teacher. This is Faux News Bullshit.

On the subject of burning the Bible, yes that too would be illegal IN CONTEXT. As most of you red neck, gun toting, flag waving burger hounds seem to have missed the context of this ban, let me spell it out to you:

The burning event was staged to diliberately inflame a section of a community. This in turn may lead to repurcussions in said community and a rise in tension, maybe violence and further escalation from either side until riots and other events are a daily occurance. See Northern Ireland and the constant issues between Catholics and Protestants, for example. This is bad for anyone living in a civilised country. Groups of people at each others throats makes for a crappy living environment.

The ONLY legal issue here is the creation of this racial/religious hate. The act of burning a koran or ANY religious text is PERFECTLY LEGAL, right up until the point you do it to deliberately create tension with the group that holds it dear.

If none of you can see that, then carry on threatening to kill all Muslims, turn the M.E. into glass and all the other dick swinging rhetoric you keyboard jockey pussies love to spit out from your favourite wanking chair.

 

[lxskllr]

Northern Ireland doesn't have anything to do with Catholics and protestants. Those are just the uniforms; the real issues is the British occupation of the territory ;^)

Free speech laws aren't in place to protect popular speech. Why the fuck would you need laws for that? They're in place to protect unpopular speech. As soon as unpopular speech is punished, nobody's free.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Northern Ireland doesn't have anything to do with Catholics and protestants. Those are just the uniforms; the real issues is the British occupation of the territory ;^)

Free speech laws aren't in place to protect popular speech. Why the fuck would you need laws for that? They're in place to protect unpopular speech. As soon as unpopular speech is punished, nobody's free.

You know fuck all about Northern Ireland, then.

 

[DangerAardvark]

What a sack of shit story. My mother is a Primary School teacher. This is Faux News Bullshit.

On the subject of burning the Bible, yes that too would be illegal IN CONTEXT. As most of you red neck, gun toting, flag waving burger hounds seem to have missed the context of this ban, let me spell it out to you:

The burning event was staged to diliberately inflame a section of a community. This in turn may lead to repurcussions in said community and a rise in tension, maybe violence and further escalation from either side until riots and other events are a daily occurance. See Northern Ireland and the constant issues between Catholics and Protestants, for example. This is bad for anyone living in a civilised country. Groups of people at each others throats makes for a crappy living environment.

The ONLY legal issue here is the creation of this racial/religious hate. The act of burning a koran or ANY religious text is PERFECTLY LEGAL, right up until the point you do it to deliberately create tension with the group that holds it dear.

If none of you can see that, then carry on threatening to kill all Muslims, turn the M.E. into glass and all the other dick swinging rhetoric you keyboard jockey pussies love to spit out from your favourite wanking chair.

I'm glad you mentioned context. Burning a holy book is only offensive in the context of an irrational belief about the sanctity of paper and ink. Apparently at some point between the paper mill and the book store, the sheets of paper became magical. If you're offended by a crazy dickhead with a mustache taking a lighter to a book, it's because you CHOOSE to be offended. And if you're offended to the point of violence then you're a crazy dickhead too. And if you advocate dilution of the First Amendment in an effort to appease to those dickheads, then you're a cowardly dickhead.

You don't get to make other people show the same reverence for your fairytales that you do. Except apparently, in Britain, you do.

And speaking of civilized people, civilized people don't threaten other civilized people with violence as a response to speech. And if they're not civilized then that's even further reason to disrespect their beliefs.

Imagine if Hindus threatened to riot over a Burger King commercial. And as a counter-protest people started making Youtube videos of themselves eating delicious charbroiled Whoppers. Would the government be correct in forcing Youtube to remove them?

 

[DivideBYZero]

I'm glad you mentioned context. Burning a holy book is only offensive in the context of an irrational belief about the sanctity of paper and ink. Apparently at some point between the paper mill and the book store, the sheets of paper became magical. If you're offended by a crazy dickhead with a mustache taking a lighter to a book, it's because you CHOOSE to be offended. And if you're offended to the point of violence then you're a crazy dickhead too. And if you advocate dilution of the First Amendment in an effort to appease to those dickheads, then you're a cowardly dickhead.

You don't get to make other people show the same reverence for your fairytales that you do. Except apparently, in Britain, you do.

And speaking of civilized people, civilized people don't threaten other civilized people with violence as a response to speech. And if they're not civilized then that's even further reason to disrespect their beliefs.

Skip to 4:40 to see just how civilised your own country is when presented with free speech. :whiste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p73pt4adwmk&feature=related

 

[DominionSeraph]

The burning event was staged to diliberately inflame a section of a community.

Protests are generally ineffective if they're not aligned with that effect.

Watch this:
I am going to show my disapproval of America's drug policies by playing a game of 3d pinball.

After that I think I'll finish watching The Expendables, then watch Monday Night Football to clear room on my DVR for this week's games... in protest.
By that time my kitty will be hungry, so I'll feed her (in protest).

Wow, what a martyr for the cause am I. [/sarcasm]

You see, that really doesn't do anything. There's no edge to it. I can munch on Doritos and watch football all Sunday long in protest of everything I disagree with, and nobody is going to notice.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Skip to 4:40 to see just how civilised your own country is when presented with free speech. :whiste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p73pt4adwmk&feature=related

Did you just link Top Gear to me, you silly fuck? This doesn't merit a response, but I'll do you the supreme courtesy of offering one anyway. I'd defend those guys from those stupid hicks just as belligerently as I would a Koran (or Bible or beef or sacred wafer) burner from you or whatever religious group decides to be offended. And I'd do it because someone has to, what with the West being crammed full of spineless twats downright eager to deny freedom of expression they don't agree with.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Did you just link Top Gear to me, you silly fuck? This doesn't merit a response, but I'll do you the supreme courtesy of offering one anyway. I'd defend those guys from those stupid hicks just as belligerently as I would a Koran (or Bible or beef or sacred wafer) burner from you or whatever religious group decides to be offended. And I'd do it because someone has to, what with the West being crammed full of spineless twats downright eager to deny freedom of expression they don't agree with.

LOL, u mad? Top Gear or not, that's a cracking example, so suck it up, buttercup.

Anyhow, here's a more current form of censorship in your parragon of freedom:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2107668

OH NOES! Katy Perry in a dress, PROTECT TEH CHILDRENS!!

 

[meltdown75]

Mutual respect...meaning we respect you until you voice an opinion we don't like, then we arrest you. Who needs the freedom to voice your opinion anyway? It's overrated.

u gonna arrest me for thumbs-upping the jailing of Koran burners?

i'd simplify the laws... i'd just call it "arrested for being idiots". although, "inciting racial hatred" does have a nice ring to it. voicing your opinion / burning Korans... yeah... NOT THE SAME and if you think it is, get a grip kthxbai

 

[lxskllr]

LOL, u mad? Top Gear or not, that's a cracking example, so suck it up, buttercup.

Anyhow, here's a more current form of censorship in your parragon of freedom:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2107668

OH NOES! Katy Perry in a dress, PROTECT TEH CHILDRENS!!

You're kind of a dumbass, aren't you? There's a big fuckin' difference between a PRIVATE organization censoring content, and the fuckin' GOVERNMENT censoring speech. Now you can go read up on Northern Ireland and report back you stupid twat.

 

[DivideBYZero]

You're kind of a dumbass, aren't you? There's a big fuckin' difference between a PRIVATE organization censoring content, and the fuckin' GOVERNMENT censoring speech. Now you can go read up on Northern Ireland and report back you stupid twat.

No, I'm not. I'm very clever and, most likely, much brighter than you. You see, speech wasn't censored. Nothing was censored, the act still went ahead. You see the act itself was deemed an offensive act, and that is why they have to answer. Let me give you another example; Pissing in the street. It's not very nice, but you're free to do it. Some, if not most people, find it offensive. Some people may not find it offensive and let it slide. However, if the Police see you doing it, you're going to get into trouble. In the U.S., you'll even be put onto the Sex offenders register. Yay freedom!

As for NI I suspect all you know about it is from Wikipedia. GG!

 

[lxskllr]

No, I'm not. I'm very clever and, most likely, much brighter than you. You see, speech wasn't censored. Nothing was censored, the act still went ahead. You see the act itself was deemed an offensive act, and that is why they have to answer. Let me give you another example; Pissing in the street. It's not very nice, but you're free to do it. Some, if not most people, find it offensive. Some people may not find it offensive and let it slide. However, if the Police see you doing it, you're going to get into trouble. In the U.S., you'll even be put onto the Sex offenders register. Yay freedom!

As for NI I suspect all you know about it is from Wikipedia. GG!

You know what bothers me about you? You've got an obvious superiority complex without the chops to back it up. You're just a petty little fuck trying to impress people on the internet, but you're so full of yourself you don't realize people aren't buying it. GG indeed :^D

 

[DivideBYZero]

You know what bothers me about you? You've got an obvious superiority complex without the chops to back it up. You're just a petty little fuck trying to impress people on the internet, but you're so full of yourself you don't realize people aren't buying it. GG indeed :^D

It's not a complex if it's fact.

 

[Terzo]

No, I'm not. I'm very clever and, most likely, much brighter than you. You see, speech wasn't censored. Nothing was censored, the act still went ahead. You see the act itself was deemed an offensive act, and that is why they have to answer. Let me give you another example; Pissing in the street. It's not very nice, but you're free to do it. Some, if not most people, find it offensive. Some people may not find it offensive and let it slide. However, if the Police see you doing it, you're going to get into trouble. In the U.S., you'll even be put onto the Sex offenders register. Yay freedom!

As for NI I suspect all you know about it is from Wikipedia. GG!

I suppose technically what the government did wasn't censorship, but you're ignoring his point. In your previous example, you brought up censorship. As lxskllr pointed out, businesses have the right to choose what they air; sesame street decided not to air the footage because they figured too many people would complain about the cleavage in a kid show. No one forced them, they just decided it was in the company's best interests not to play it.
If you took a little more time to think about it you could find a more valid comparison, such as the nipple slip with Janet Jackson. I think most here would agree that it was pretty stupid, and America has an issue with glorifying violence and demonizing sex and the human body. Of course at the same time sex sells, so it seeps through anyways.

As for pissing in the street, think about it this way. The spirit of America (and this isn't always the case) is that you should have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights.
Pissing in the street is more of a health issue; our citizens have a right to sanitary living conditions. We have sewage systems set up for this purpose. Having people defecate and urinate in public would just cause bad living conditions (see India's village center), not to mention there would probably be environmental repercussions.
Also, you don't seem to understand what we mean when we say freedom. There is a difference in "can I do something" and "am I free to do something". I can pee in the street, but I am not free to do so. If I had to come up with a definition on the spot, I'd say freedom is the ability to act without fear of legal repercussion.

Finally, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss lxskllr. He generally seems open minded, level headed, and intelligent. I know you didn't directly address him as a "red neck, gun toting, flag waving burger hound", but he doesn't even come close to that. I actually don't think I've seen him get this angry or blunt before, but then again I haven't really been keeping a log of his posts.

 

[DangerAardvark]

LOL, u mad? Top Gear or not, that's a cracking example, so suck it up, buttercup.

Anyhow, here's a more current form of censorship in your parragon of freedom:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2107668

OH NOES! Katy Perry in a dress, PROTECT TEH CHILDRENS!!

That's okay. You don't have to respond to any of the substance of my posts. I'll let you off the hook, because in addition to being smarter and more eloquent than you, I'm also a better person.

 

[lxskllr]

Finally, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss lxskllr. He generally seems open minded, level headed, and intelligent. I know you didn't directly address him as a "red neck, gun toting, flag waving burger hound", but he doesn't even come close to that. I actually don't think I've seen him get this angry or blunt before, but then again I haven't really been keeping a log of his posts.

I need to stay away from the computer first thing in the morning. When I first get up, my fuse is shorter than my pecker :^D I need to take some time to mellow before jumping online :^)

 

[DivideBYZero]

That's okay. You don't have to respond to any of the substance of my posts. I'll let you off the hook, because in addition to being smarter and more eloquent than you, I'm also a better person.

I love to quote smart and eloquent people, but just for laughs, I'll quote you:

you silly fuck

Nah, not very smart, eloquent and most certainly won't fit into the "better person" category. Jog on.