351–360 of 443 posts
> The day after his death, Kelly, 36, tweeted “the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn.” This is nothing compared to what people tweeted the day after Margaret Thatcher died. You absolutely should not be prosecuted for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shooting someone can be illegal or legal based on the intent of the perpetrator, establishing the state of mind of someone accused of a crime isn't exactly a legal novelty
True, but the intent here is very subjective, the court basically has to fantasize about the perpetrators intent. And what it usually comes down to is if the perpetrator is "good" person or not. Speech laws invites courts to be subjective in their rulings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is racism actually worse in the US? I feel like in many other western nations it's just more socially acceptable, and not so controversial.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by racism. Interpersonal racism seems to fly under dogwhistles moreso than outright statements now that it's socially unacceptable (in most places), where e.g. casual racism against Romania people is still pretty common in Europe. Judging from economic outcomes, though, I'd say the US is still pretty racist, even if being individually racist is mostly condemned (though I think it…
I know what you're implying there, but your logic also says the US is racist against whites since they're poorer than Asians. Is it? Or is your logic wrong?
A bit steep but I like the idea of toxic individuals getting some fresh air and working with the community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is exactly that the law shouldn't exist in the first place. Such laws violate the fundamental human right of free expression. Repeal the law and then you won't have to worry about uneven application.
There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to free expression. You would be better served by pointing out that governments tend to become more authoritarian over time & the harder citizens resist authoritarian creep, the longer they have before a bloody revolution is usually required.
There's something I find loathesome about this "Send a message" sentencing. What the judge has done is send a clear message, that he won't sentence you on the merits of the case but will sentence you to serve his own agenda. The only message this sends is that justice has failed. It's always completely transparent who exactly gets made an example of, and who gets off with a slap on the wrist. We'll spend months hunti…
There’s something I find holistically loathesome that a) other people read twitter at all, leading to b) it actually matters and has to fall under legal jurisdiction. If people moved on and quit reading twitter, this just wouldn’t matter.
You might not like it yourself, but surely you can see the appeal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many countries, including many in Europe have some very serious, heavy racial issues that are both more ingrained than those of the U.S and in quite a few cases more violent or openly discriminatory. The U.S. however is generally at or close to the center of global media familiarity and attention, so naturally, the theme of its own racial issues is disproportionately magnified. How many major countries are overtly et…
What European countries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s something I find holistically loathesome that a) other people read twitter at all, leading to b) it actually matters and has to fall under legal jurisdiction. If people moved on and quit reading twitter, this just wouldn’t matter.
Twitter is quite different from most of other social networks out there. It’s much more immediate, which has a lot of benefits but also a lot of drawbacks. You might not like it yourself, but surely you can see the appeal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTN9We8unmU
I still think it applies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire concept of "setting an example" seems like a bit of fascism that has snuck its way into liberal democracy.
Is that liberal democracy thing some time in the past when this kind of things didn't happen? what period would be that?
No, it's an ideal that some countries claim to aspire to, and some seem to be moving away from. (Those lists of countries are not as disjoint as they might seem).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get it’s UK and may be the most influential western country in the last 200-300 years. But time goes on, countries evolve and often they do so in unexpected ways. My argument is that, at some point we must detach a country from its past (whatever that means) and accept the direction its constituents are now wanting to take. Even if we personally don’t approve of said direction.
Except it's not an evolution. There's nothing organic taking place. It's a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce populations into going along with things that are expressly against their own freedoms and interests by people who are by any standard their enemies.
It's actually kind of amazing how free the internet is compared to TV and radio. Nobody seems to be worried that you can't broadcast such offensive things on those traditional media. Why should the internet be a special free-speech zone when it can have the same reach as them? Not saying I agree with it, but that could be the common feeling among British voters.