Man jailed for racist internet posts.

So, just so I understand, you don't believe in freedom?

 

Indeed...






























...and so are conservatives.

 

So they should be forced by the government to think the way you want them to think. Is that it?

 

I'm curious -- to whom did you report these photos? The police?

 

Wow, for some people, everything always goes back to the Jews.

It's a sickness.

 

It is as long as you wish to retain the freedom to call people ********s. Pendulum she swingeth both ways...

 

Can we PUH-LEAZE come up with a new analogy??????

 

Driving a car is not a right but rather a privilege and you must demonstrate that you are qualified.

 

Well, one could argue that the receiver of the message is responsible for her reaction to it. Could one not?

 

I have a problem with a government entity assigning as off limits a political issue, even one as stupid as that one.

The casual treatment that even relatively free, western countries give freedom of expression really make me appreciate the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, it has to be fought for every day.

 

Ah, what's a few Armenians among friends?

 

I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong in that regard. I could walk down the street here in Seattle wearing a tshirt that says "Kill Whitey" or "I H8 Ni---rs" and there's not a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing the government could do about it. Now -- some of my fellow citizens? They just might want to invite me to step into a dark alley so I can learn some manners, but I would not face any legal sanctions for my ill-advised act.

The only real exceptions are inciting a riot and sedition. For example, you can not threaten the life of the president. You can not call in a bomb threat, etc.. But expressing unpopular opinions? Well, heck, that's what the First Amendment is really all about. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

 

how about a T-shirt:

Were you a part of the Holohoax?

Or how about:

Holohoax; a Shoah of bigotry.

 

What he said was pathetic, but what happened to him was reprehensible. He didn't threaten anyone, he was just being insulting. Freedom of speech is to be protected, under all costs.

 

And is now a self-protection concern of the Scottish citizen, particularly in the Central Belt.

Do you have a problem with that?

The Rangers/Celtic rivalry is a symptom of a larger and more insidious whole...but then, when you live in a UK which discriminates against Catholics at the level of refusing to allow their inclusion in the Royal Family, what else can you expect?

However, it is creeping out of the Central Belt into other areas...areas which have never had a faith school in their constituency to emphasise difference.

When it gets to the stage where people are being sent bullets in the post because they play for Rangers, or manage Celtic and when you can get stabbed for wearing the wrong colour of football shirt...then it is well past time to do something about it.

I wouldn't have started doing something about the way they did, but something needs to be done. As an atheist ex-Scottish Protestant, I do think that it is more an anti-Catholic problem than an anti-Protestant one.

I will always remember, when I was a teenager, being spat on by a boy up on holiday because I said I was a Celtic supporter...and I'm not going to repeat here what he said to me. I responded that up here, football was a game, not a religion....but that is changing, unfortunately. It isn't too bad yet, but left alone, it will only get worse.

 

A principle I agree with.

 

I am not aiming the epithet at any specific group or individual in this case.

And if I wasn't allowed to say it,.or it was going to end up a succession of (*)s, I can easily come up with something which insults politely, if I can be bothered.

Its just that sometimes the obvious word is the best one.

 

clearly it depends who the target of hate is.

Muslims are fair game, based on the comments on this forum.

 

Of course. You are free to express your asinine views. And I am free to tell you you have asinine views.

 

The point is, I think you should be allowed to express yourself -- no matter how asinine your viewpoint may be.

 

Christians too, it would appear.

 

I don't believe that's true... the precedent you cite restricts free speech when it could cause an "immediate breach of the peace." Free speech does have it's limitations, even in America, but we set the bar pretty high for restricting it. Posts on the internet about how you hate someone aren't going to incite an immediate violent act in the same way a belligerent verbal obscenity in a crowded restaurant might. We don't make it illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater because we object to the words, we object to it because people's immediate and reflexive actions.

In the states, it's not illegal to be a bigot, a racist, or any other kind of moron.

 

You may want to push the First Amendment a little more:


I had to read "The Catcher in the Rye" and "Lord of the Flies" in my English lessons, but according to this rather long list both novels might be among the books that are banned from your town's public library:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_United_States

 

Free speech applies to speech you don't like. Speech you do like needs no protection. I don't like the idea of speech being punished like that. And I really hate this part of the op's quote

"Right-thinking people" Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) does he think he is. Define Right-thinking!!!!!!

 

Do you know what Holocaust Denial Laws are?