Petraeus Says Quran Burning Endangers War Effort .

A lot of people seem to be against the idea of this Koran burning, and still claim that they support free speech. To me that's a contradiction. It's really easy to stand for freedom of speech, or any freedom, when there is nothing at risk. But by caving into terrorism, you simple prove that terrorism works. And if that's how we are a country are going to operate, what good is freedom of speech then?
 
tom prendergast said:
I have great difficulty in understanding why there are laws to protect the US flag, which is a symbol of the state, yet you feel that there is no parallel with religious symbols.
Click to expand...

Your cognitive disabilities are your own affair.
 
Yurt said:
why are you bent on this? you can burn the flag just like you can burn the quran....
Click to expand...

Maybe he's jealous.

The British don't have the same free speech rights.

In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. UK laws on defamation are also considered among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant.

In 1988, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher imposed a ban on the broadcasting of Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams' voice. The ban lasted from November 1988 to 16 September 1994, and denied the UK news media the right to broadcast the voices, though not the words, of all Irish republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. To allow the continuation of news reporting on the subject, during a time when 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland were a matter of great importance and interest, the BBC used actors to speak Adams' words. The net effect of the ban was to increase publicity.

UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords - the highest UK court - revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time.

The ruling removed the awkward - and hitherto binding - conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3-2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding.

Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to “the jargon of the old Soviet Union.”

Illegal literatureOn 6 December 2007, Samina Malik was convicted of possessing literature deemed illegal by the Terrorism Act 2000. The illegal literature included poems she had written. She received a nine-month suspended jail sentence.

Abdul Patel was found guilty of possessing a document likely to be useful for terrorism (a book on explosives).

Mohammed Siddique was sentenced to eight years of prison for possessing and distributing through his website freely available videos inciting martyrdom.

On 27 February 2008 civil servant Darryn Walker was arrested by officers from Scotland Yard's Obscene Publications Unit for posting a work of fiction allegedly describing the kidnap, mutilation, rape and murder of the girl band 'Girls Aloud' on a fantasy pornography website. While the website was hosted outside the UK, Walker's prosecution was possible under UK law as he is a British citizen living in the UK. He was found not guilty on 29 July 2009 as the CPS offered no evidence.

The 1959 Obscene Publications Act makes it illegal to publish material that tend to deprave and corrupt those reading or viewing it. In 1960 a prosecution under the Act was brought against Penguin Books over the novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. Penguin was found not guilty and within a year the book had sold more than two million copies.

In 2009, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to prison time for publishing material that was likely to incite racial and religious hatred. They had tried to escape to the United States but were not granted political asylum and were deported back to the UK."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom
 
King of Proles said:
A lot of people seem to be against the idea of this Koran burning, and still claim that they support free speech. To me that's a contradiction. It's really easy to stand for freedom of speech, or any freedom, when there is nothing at risk. But by caving into terrorism, you simple prove that terrorism works. And if that's how we are a country are going to operate, what good is freedom of speech then?
Click to expand...

It is not a question of caving in to terrorism, everybody knows that what happened in Afghanistan was wrong but it was also entirely predictable. I am the first to defend the right of free speech however there is also the concept of responsibility for your actions. I can't really understand why anybody would want to defend a loony preacher in some backwater of the USA whose primary motive was to stir up race hatred.
 
tom prendergast said:
It is not a question of caving in to terrorism, everybody knows that what happened in Afghanistan was wrong but it was also entirely predictable. I am the first to defend the right of free speech however there is also the concept of responsibility for your actions. I can't really understand why anybody would want to defend a loony preacher in some backwater of the USA whose primary motive was to stir up race hatred.
Click to expand...

Who's defending him?

You don't have to agree with the sentiment to defend the right to express it.
 
tom prendergast said:
It is not a question of caving in to terrorism, everybody knows that what happened in Afghanistan was wrong but it was also entirely predictable. I am the first to defend the right of free speech however there is also the concept of responsibility for your actions. I can't really understand why anybody would want to defend a loony preacher in some backwater of the USA whose primary motive was to stir up race hatred.
Click to expand...
As I said Tom, what good is freedom of speech if you're afraid to use it?
 
Yurt said:
i guess you do enjoy making an ass out of yourself....but the lies? really....they're old onceler, just like your constant petulant whiny bullshit comments....

yawn
Click to expand...

LOL

I knew the braindead one would dodge & weave.

Stupid OP, stupid continuation of the argument. I think you know it at this point, too. The idea that Petraeus was "chilling" free speech is one of the best examples of Yurtsie-ness that I can think of...
 
please explain why you think they're responsible. I think they're not reponsible because they DIDN'T FUCKING KILL ANYONE
 
tinfoil said:
Are the savages that did the fucking killing responsible for their actions, you idiot libtards?
Click to expand...

Well, that may be, but would kick a hornets nest and not expect them to sting? They are backwards, we can't expect them to act civilized in the same way that we do.
 
Rana said:
Well, that may be, but would kick a hornets nest and not expect them to sting? They are backwards, we can't expect them to act civilized in the same way that we do.
Click to expand...

How paternalistic of you. Patronize much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top