151–160 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can criticize speech laws for now. And tbh, not sure to which extent it is true. You are commenting on an article which critiques these laws. It's not the first either. So what you're saying is demonstrably nonsense.
So how do you think dictatorships come to be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested. https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...
That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion. > On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also noted in the article: it was posted in the days after the riot and in response to seeing people cleaing up and repairing the damage.
Connolley's message was posted at 8.30pm on the 29th July. One day before crowds attacked Mosques in Southport. Related disturbances continued until August 5th.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion. > On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo
Got it, standing and thinking could be a criminal offense, depending on what you are thinking. Understood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got it, standing and thinking could be a criminal offense, depending on what you are thinking. Understood.
I don't think you've got a clear understanding of how PSPO orders work. Do you really think that standing and thinking would be a criminal offense? Maybe if you stood somewhere awkward (e.g. blocking the doors to an A&E department) and refused to move when asked, then I can understand it, but I think you're being disingenuous.
If his message to the council said he’d be standing there reading the newspaper, would the arrest and conviction have been made?
i honestly don’t know - making people think twice about what they post is a social good and maybe we should keep the law simple and let the courts drive through this new harsh application
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you've got a clear understanding of how PSPO orders work. Do you really think that standing and thinking would be a criminal offense? Maybe if you stood somewhere awkward (e.g. blocking the doors to an A&E department) and refused to move when asked, then I can understand it, but I think you're being disingenuous.
In the linked article, the criminal was not alleged to have obstructed anything. He did message the town council saying he was holding a silent vigil, which he had done before apparently without incident. This time he was arrested, PSPO was applied, and he was fined £9000. If his message to the council said he’d be standing there reading the newspaper, would the arrest and conviction have been made?
The PSPO specifically prohibited activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. He was blatantly holding a vigil and even then, I expect he could have just moved on when asked and faced no charges. Reading a newspaper would be fine, obviously, unless he specifically concocted his own newspaper with slogans on it which would then surely be a protest of some kind.
Britain has a problem. But so does America. Quite a few people (non citizens so far), have been arrested for criticising the actions of the current Israeli government.
Britain has a problem. But so does America. Quite a few people (non citizens so far), have been arrested for criticising the actions of the current Israeli government.
I think we need to be more specific: not criticizing Israel per se, only criminal actions of the current government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In dicatorships there is no opportunity to speak out. There is always opportunity to speak out. In dictatorships, it usually costs more energy, money and sometimes lives. It tends to culminate in revolutions, and then the system changes. In censored quasi-democracies like what we see in "the west", it tends to culminate in being ignored and the status quo being maintained or gradually worsened. Alternatively, you m…
I'm not sure I follow the logic. I mean all the arguments are valid when taken separately, but the construct fails me. You mean, the dictatorship is then better because you might die but the survivors can have a revolution? Why couldn't then a democracy have a revolution as well, by exactly the same argumentation? And how's all this black and white thinking, like because democracy is not perfect, dictatorship becomes…
First, I don't really consider what exists in "the west" as actual democracies. They are oligarchies or autocracies disguised as democracies instead. They've always been that, only now it's becoming more obvious.
> the dictatorship is then better
No, not at all. But it does have a clear path toward something better. This doesn't make it better, but it is a silver lining.
> Why couldn't then a democracy have a revolution as well
It could, but more frequently what happens are coups - and they descent into authoritarianism. Or the authoritarians get elected.
> And how's all this black and white thinking, like because democracy is not perfect, dictatorship becomes suddenly acceptable???
I definitely didn't say or think that.