Repeat after me: "I don't live in a police state" (UK)

[guyver01]

When they are resisting arrest I think they are.

and what if a European Cop came to your house, and decided being gay was illegal, and started dragging you to jail.

you wouldn't try to resist?

you would go peacefully?

 

[HAL9000]

and what if a European Cop came to your house, and decided being gay was illegal, and started dragging you to jail.

you wouldn't try to resist?

you would go peacefully?

I'd go peacefully, physically fighting with the officer is not the way to change an unjust law. It's the retarded way of doing things.

 

[HAL9000]

1. innocent until proven guilty - not everyone who is arrested has done something illegal
2. many people who might defend themselves from police are people exercising their right to publicly and peacefully protest and organize. they are not criminals.

Let me make this very clear, if you are physically fighting a police officer you are committing a crime. This is a statement of fact, there is no grey area.

/Discussion

 

[guyver01]

I'd go peacefully, physically fighting with the officer is not the way to change an unjust law. It's the retarded way of doing things.

it's not an unjust law.
it's not even a law.

the cop is doing whatever he wants.

that is tyranny.

it is the role of the people to stand up to tyranny.

 

[BeauJangles]

People have the right to throw a funeral in peace as well. The WBC violate that right, so you have to choose between the rights of the mourners and the rights of the WBC, in the UK the right to shout hate is not a right at all.

Free exchange of ideas are not muted, as long as they are not spreading hate, you have similar systems in America, but it's for threats and in sighting violence.

Where is there a right to have a funeral in peace? It might be a generally accepted practice, but, unfortunately for everyone in the US, the WBC has a First Amendment right to express their opinions.

What you're missing in this argument about freedom of speech versus freedom from hate speech is how arbitrarily defined "hate speech" can be. Let's say I advocate for dissolution of the British Monarchy. I don't do anything other than publish articles about the failings of the monarchy, how outdated it is, etc. I never advocate that anyone take violent action, I simply demand that the monarchy be removed.

The monarchy takes exception to that and declares that any speech against them is "hate speech." How is that freedom from anything except freedom from the right to express your point of view? This kind of situation is why America leans so far towards expansive freedom of speech. In America's view, dissent is healthy and dissenting opinions should be protected from a tyranny of the majority or just plain old tyranny

Let me make this very clear, if you are physically fighting a police officer you are committing a crime. This is a statement of fact, there is no grey area.

/Discussion

And what if the police are committing a crime?

The laws are made for the people by the people.

No, the laws are made for the people by people you elect.

 

[alphatarget1]

Let me make this very clear, if you are physically fighting a police officer you are committing a crime. This is a statement of fact, there is no grey area.

/Discussion

Most Jews who got caught by Nazis were taken away peacefully. Would you have resisted in such situations?

 

[HAL9000]

it's not an unjust law.
it's not even a law.

the cop is doing whatever he wants.

that is tyranny.

it is the role of the people to stand up to tyranny.

Well then, when you get back to the station with the officer and he explains why he has arrested you, you will be released. Thank you democracy.

 

[HAL9000]

Most Jews who got caught by Nazis were taken away peacefully. Would you have resisted in such situations?

Christ. I'm not getting into what I would have done in Nazi germany so that I can discuss people in the UK resisting arrest with weapons.

It always comes back to the Nazi's and 99% of the time it's irrelevant.

 

[HAL9000]

Where is there a right to have a funeral in peace? It might be a generally accepted practice, but, unfortunately for everyone in the US, the WBC has a First Amendment right to express their opinions.

That is unfortunate, which is why we have hate crime laws.

What you're missing in this argument about freedom of speech versus freedom from hate speech is how arbitrarily defined "hate speech" can be. Let's say I advocate for dissolution of the British Monarchy. I don't do anything other than publish articles about the failings of the monarchy, how outdated it is, etc. I never advocate that anyone take violent action, I simply demand that the monarchy be removed.

The monarchy takes exception to that and declares that any speech against them is "hate speech." How is that freedom from anything except freedom from the right to express your point of view? This kind of situation is why America leans so far towards expansive freedom of speech. In America's view, dissent is healthy and dissenting opinions should be protected from a tyranny of the majority or just plain old tyranny

Saying "I think the monarchy should be dissolved" is not hate speech saying "fuck the monarchy they are all cunts and anyone who supports them should die in a firebomb" is hate speech, can you not see the difference?

As long as the definition of hate speech remains where it is then there is no problem.

And what if the police are committing a crime?

Then the courts will deal with it. It's not up to you to meet crime with crime.

No, the laws are made for the people by people you elect.

The people we elect are members of "the people" therefore, The laws are made for the people by the people.

 

[guyver01]

Well then, when you get back to the station with the officer and he explains why he has arrested you, you will be released. Thank you democracy.

and when the officer tells the booking desk he arrested you because he saw you urinating in public, and drinking an open container and you resisted when he told you to stop...

then what smart guy?

 

[BeauJangles]

That is unfortunate, which is why we have hate crime laws.

So does America. What you're missing here is that you have no right to say what you believe, only a right to say what you believe as long as it has been "approved."

Saying "I think the monarchy should be dissolved" is not hate speech saying "fuck the monarchy they are all cunts and anyone who supports them should die in a firebomb" is hate speech, can you not see the difference?

The semantics don't really matter, but change what I wrote to some guy wearing a t-shirt that has a picture of the Queen taking it up the ass while being bent over a table and the caption 'Get Fucked, Monarchy.'

As long as the definition of hate speech remains where it is then there is no problem.

Exactly. As long as your government doesn't decide to arbitrarily change it to suite their needs.

Then the courts will deal with it. It's not up to you to meet crime with crime.

So you'd stand by if the police beat one of your relatives in front of you? I'm not saying resisting arrest is a right, nor am I saying it's a good idea, but it is wrong to assume that the police are always right.

 

[Nebor]

Texas law specifically allows for the use of force against a peace officer acting unlawfully.

 

[HAL9000]

So does America. What you're missing here is that you have no right to say what you believe, only a right to say what you believe as long as it has been "approved."

I mean hate speech laws.

The semantics don't really matter, but change what I wrote to some guy wearing a t-shirt that has a picture of the Queen taking it up the ass while being bent over a table and the caption 'Get Fucked, Monarchy.'

They matter, you shouldn't be able to say whatever you want whenever you want and to hell with the consequences, that's chaos. People have the right not have hate speech thrown at them just as people have the right not to be shit on.

Exactly. As long as your people doesn't decide to arbitrarily change it to suite their needs.

Fixed

So you'd stand by if the police beat one of your relatives in front of you? I'm not saying resisting arrest is a right, nor am I saying it's a good idea, but it is wrong to assume that the police are always right.

I sure as shit wouldn't beat up the police officer.

 

[nobodyknows]

I sure as shit wouldn't beat up the police officer.

Just place him under Citizens Arrest. I'm sure he would come peacefully, after all if you can't trust a police officer, who can you trust?

 

[HAL9000]

Just place him under Citizens Arrest. I'm sure he would come peacefully, after all if you can't trust a police officer, who can you trust?

Very true.

 

[BeauJangles]

They matter, you shouldn't be able to say whatever you want whenever you want and to hell with the consequences, that's chaos. People have the right not have hate speech thrown at them just as people have the right not to be shit on.

Best put by a Canadian publisher:

“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Mr. Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

It's well and good that you're comfortable with your country's laws, but you should recognize them for what they are -- a regulation of opinion.

I sure as shit wouldn't beat up the police officer.

So you would stand by idly and simply wait for a court decide if what the officer did was wrong? Nobody said anything about beating up a police officer, but intervening in such a situation should be warranted.

 

[HAL9000]

It's well and good that you're comfortable with your country's laws, but you should recognize them for what they are -- a regulation of opinion.

There is a monolithic difference between someone expressing their opinion and someone spreading hate.

So you would stand by idly and simply wait for a court decide if what the officer did was wrong? Nobody said anything about beating up a police officer, but intervening in such a situation should be warranted.

Sure I may hold the officer back, but I wouldn't need a weapon for that, which was the bedrock of this argument.

 

[ShawnD1]

Just place him under Citizens Arrest. I'm sure he would come peacefully, after all if you can't trust a police officer, who can you trust?

I trust the government

They matter, you shouldn't be able to say whatever you want whenever you want and to hell with the consequences, that's chaos. People have the right not have hate speech thrown at them just as people have the right not to be shit on.

Slippery slope bro. Let one of our australian friends explain how this works:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19036_too-stupid-satire-how-media-branded-me-as-racist.html

So, last year I made a short YouTube video for Australia Day. That's my nation's Fourth of July, in January, and people get a little excessively patriotic. As January 26 rolls around, you begin to see cars on the road with little Australian flags poking out the windows like a diplomatic cavalcade. In what is usually a pretty tolerant and multicultural nation, this is one day of the year when folks start casting suspicious and slightly disapproving glances toward brown people.

Anti-immigrant slogans like "We grew here, you flew here," and the somewhat more direct "Fuck off we're full" begin to make the rounds. Understand, it's the minority of people, and Australia does not hold the patent on racism. But when you combine this with a cocktail of youth, alcohol and barbecue, you inevitably wind up with our notorious annual riots. Parts of the country just explode in a shower of beer, singlets and thongs. And by thongs, I mean flip-flops, not sexy undergarments. That would be a whole different kind of riot.

Last year, the day before Australia Day, someone who is familiar with my amazing comedy prowess asked me if I could do something funny for the holiday. Too tired to actually do anything intelligent or original, I yelled into my microphone for two minutes with a broadened accent. After half an hour surfing Google Images, my comedy duty was half-assedly complete. This video was the result:
(embedded video)

Someone, probably some dead guy, once said something like, "The best satire is that which is indistinguishable from reality." I'm going to have to disagree with that. I think that the best satire is that which goes just a little bit overboard, just enough that you get the sense that something is wrong with this picture. Orwell could make that happen. But understand, I wasn't setting out to make the best satire. I just wanted to make my friends laugh with the absolute minimum of effort. So, abandoning the art of subtlety, I just went so far overboard that the board vanished from view below me. (translation: it's so over the top that nobody could possibly label it as hate speech)

The "Straya Day" video went viral on Facebook. It was a one-day success for which I got many Internet high-fives, and I assumed that would be that. Of course, it was evident even then that some people just didn't get it.

Flash forward one year, to January 26, 2011. As per my tradition whenever I have the day off work, I got out of bed sometime in the mid-afternoon and went to the Internet, where I found a private message waiting for me. Subject line: Hello from channel 7.
...
Happily, I checked in with the Herald Sun to see what the papers were writing about me, already thinking about what price I should demand for my movie deal.

Then of course I found the article.
"Anger at bad-taste ocker web clip: A surf shop is under fire for labeling an Australia Day video urging Aussies to beat up and glass homosexuals and foreigners as 'hilarious.' "

"Straya Day" had gone viral again. The video was suddenly up to almost 300,000 views. Someone had complained to the media (but more on that later) and at least one paper was going to pick up this ball and run with it. Of course the worst part is, they weren't simply disagreeing with the way I portrayed the nation. I could deal with it if they thought my satire was simply too biting. Instead, they didn't actually detect any satire.

I was aiming for "so ridiculously racist that nobody could take it literally," but what the Herald Sun saw was "so ridiculously racist, this guy is literally worse than Hitler." Just like that New Yorker cover, there was no way to take the joke to such an extreme that everyone would see it.

At this point I was effectively terrified. According to the article, the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission weren't laughing either. That's the federal body whose job it is to put potential Worse-Than-Hitlers like me in prison before we can fire up the ovens. The paper claimed not only that I was a racist (and a homophobe, shit, why not), but that I was inciting mass violence. I had a letter in my inbox from one of Australia's top commercial TV networks asking for answers. And in a more ironic twist, after linking to the article on my Facebook page, I inadvertently made the article criticizing me go viral. Did I poop a little? Wouldn't you?

Do you see the problem here? This guy made a hilarious parody video, retarded shitbags who want to censor "hate speech" thought it was for real, and now the guy is in very serious legal trouble. Britain works just like Australia, and this is why Britain doesn't have a single comedy show on TV. They're not allowed to be funny because the first person to say anything as extreme as Chris Rock will be thrown in jail for the next decade.

 

[HAL9000]

Do you see the problem here? This guy made a hilarious parody video, retarded shitbags who want to censor "hate speech" thought it was for real, and now the guy is in very serious legal trouble. Britain works just like Australia, and this is why Britain doesn't have a single comedy show on TV. They're not allowed to be funny because the first person to say anything as extreme as Chris Rock will be thrown in jail for the next decade.

They obviously don't work like britain then.

 

[Broheim]

Most Jews who got caught by Nazis were taken away peacefully. Would you have resisted in such situations?

way to Godwin a somewhat decent thread...

 

[Broheim]

Do you see the problem here? This guy made a hilarious parody video, retarded shitbags who want to censor "hate speech" thought it was for real, and now the guy is in very serious legal trouble. Britain works just like Australia, and this is why Britain doesn't have a single comedy show on TV. They're not allowed to be funny because the first person to say anything as extreme as Chris Rock will be thrown in jail for the next decade.

 

[ShawnD1]

They obviously don't work like britain then.

Aren't you the one who said people in UK aren't allowed to say things like "get out of my country ya poof, country's full"
The guy who made that 'straya day video would be in jail in the UK by now. Saying you'll glass brown people and calling them poofs is illegal hate speech.

 

[davmat787]

I'd go peacefully, physically fighting with the officer is not the way to change an unjust law. It's the retarded way of doing things.

Would calling someone a retard in England under your current hate speech laws be illegal? According to a recent PSA here in the states, it is no different than calling someone a **gger, *pic, etc. If not, why?

 

[Theb]

If you can't have a knife in public, how does one acquire a kitchen knife in the UK? Smugglers?

 

[ShawnD1]

If you can't have a knife in public, how does one acquire a kitchen knife in the UK? Smugglers?

Make sure you don't use the knife as a pointing device. They might think that's a threat.

"can you pass me that dish over there?"
*points at it with knife*