Tommy Robinson Wins Appeal

And you sound pleased about it?

 

It might be a surprise to Americans who are used to a politicised justice system right up to the Supreme Court but courts in England and Wales are not part of the government. What's happening is the law is being followed in this case. If it was like some think then Yaxley-Lennon would have simply been disappeared or a rendition done on him.

 

You are just speaking in circles. So far you haven't made a specific point. WHAT ... EXACTLY ... DO ... YOU ... WANT ... TO ... SAY? It looks as though you want the definition of the words "freedom" and "speech" to match your notion of what they mean in law. It doesn't wash.

 

There is no absolute right to free speech. Item 1 - defamation law.

 

Good point, and an excellent example of how the lack of democratic principle goes unnoticed.

 

It baffles the mind that there are those who do not understand that. "Thinking" is all that is required.

 

It's no substitute for saying something out loud though, if you want to get a message across?

 

They're a part of the establishment though. as is the government?

 

Moreover, it's completely ineffective. It's not feasible to stop people talking about controversial cases. Maybe back in 1890 the state could prevent publication, but there are Brits all over this board.

Jury selection is a far more effective method of ensuring a fair trial.

 

Angry Brits Those that trade temporary safety for liberty deserve neither.

 

Based upon the law should be repealed. He should have been arrested, I don't think he was treated impartially, but he did indeed disobey an unjust law.

A change in the British law is required. If I was a Brit I'd start a movement to plaster forbidden speech all over the place. Make all such trials tainted. Then they'd have to change the law.

 

They're trading liberty (free speech) for another liberty (right to a fair trial) when this is unnecessary and ineffective.

 

I personally believe that what he did shouldn't have had a custodial outcome; a fine would have been more appropriate. Or even a suspended sentence. And all he was doing was warning us there's more to come.

 

Did he not already have a suspended sentence before him?

 

I don't follow the matter closely enough to know what he's been through.

 

Personally, I think the problem is a law that hasn't been thought through ... hasn't caught up with time. There was a time somewhere between leaving the caves and this era of political correctness when the average citizen didn't really need many laws. "Don't litter" made sense. But "Don't call a man in a dress sir" confuses me. Most of these new laws confuse me.

 

Police states seldom change their laws

They just build more prisons

 

I wrestle with this also, my common denominator is protect the words that you do not want to or care to hear foremost.

Once government speech law becomes selective you are next in line to be single out and become the target.

If you have a better way, I will listen.

 

I had a friend from pakistan years ago who insisted his country had a free press when it was obviously controlled by the ruling dictatorship

According to him the press was free to print the truth after government decided what the ttruth is

He would fit right in with liberals today

 

I never understood the government approval stamp when it comes to speaking. I say things that are wrong sometimes but we all do, who wants government looking over your shoulder with the force of law? To me this is the very definition of mob rule.

 

Blame the victim. Classic!

 

That's why I support one penalty for any violation of any law: death.

If the penalty for selling raw milk was death, there would be no law against selling raw milk. If the penalty for growing tobacco was death, there would be no law against growing tobacco, etc.

The problem is bureaucracy. And to punish little victimless crimes they need little punishments or the public won't go for it.

 

I'm not sure how that would work.

Yes, I am with you 100%. Stalin claimed that his government (the Soviet Union) and its’ satellite nations stood for anti-Fascism and were unique for that very reason. But Stalin has gone into the annals of history as being one of the most belligerent Fascists of modern history. Now, slowly but surely (yes, I am thinking of George Bush Jr.) "the West" is going down the same road.

You know that I don't but I think a good starting point might be to sift through what sort of "speech" might be stifling to the population and to test out new laws accordingly. But "speech" about government should be allotted free reign. A "one-way street"? Maybe.

 

I'll have to think about that for a while ..... before I respond.

 

Words or speech short of causing physical harm should never be bridled. We all have the opportunity to simply walk away or turn it off.

Being offended has value, even if I am the one offended.