Yes, they’re quotes which you’ve cherry picked and missed out most of the conversation. What are you trying to prove here? You’re just deflecting as you know in correct about free speech and you’re now stuck in your own argument
It is a dog whistle. It means: Hey, we can't directly say this, but we all know a certain kind of person is evil. These lefties are protecting the evil with their silence. But these foreign, evil people... we need to get rid of them.
You lost an argument so you trawled back through some previous conversations and Cherry picked them to try and attack the poster instead of the argument. Strange behaviour
https://x.com/anthonyboutall/status/1823624132275118495?s=46 Here is Keir Stalin in his own words from a few years ago btw saying that free speech must be protected. So even he agreed with me before his lust for power began
You still don't understand the difference between free speech and hate speech. If it is legal speech you cannot get in trouble for it. Maybe just don't be racist.
“Everyone that disagrees with my politiclal opinions is racist”. Yawn. Define hate speech? I’ve said it many times but as you are quite simple I will try again; “Hate speech” is impossible to accurately define and therefore can be exploited by authoritarian governments to censor citizens legitimate political concerns. Once “hate speech” is a jailable offence, it is possible for governments to move the goalposts and make any opinion “hate speech”. This has been seen many times throughout authoritarian regimes. This is why it matters now. This is not a racist viewpoint.
Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia It isn't complicated. No, fighting for free speech isn't racist. Using that free speech to say racist things is racist.
I really don’t understand what is so difficult here. Just don’t be racist. It boggles the mind really.
Or isn’t it bad faith point “on day a government you don’t like will change the definition”. I mean I partially get it - there are prominent voices on the left that have adjusted the definition of racism to make it so some groups can’t be the target. That is hogwash. But that is the opposite of the concern being cited - the concern is the definition will be broadened by a tyrannical government to capture more people. Not fewer
Somewhat appropriately I have just seen an opinion piece video about how the UK right wing is flailing at the moment after being dumped from power and how the riots they helped instigate and clearly thought would be worse have passed and they now risk being blamed and subject to rules they should already have been following Seems well timed as from the weird disjointed nature of this thread I can only assume there is definitely some frantic flailing going on. Aside from some of the flailing I can actually see as well.
Free Speech! Just a joke! Chester: A 53-year-old woman from Church Lawton, Cheshire, is charged with sending a threatening message suggesting to "blow up a mosque with adults inside” on 3 August. Protect her rights!
I’m not so confident. They’ve been about for at least 8 years now and wrecked the country. Always looking nervously to America as well. As we’ve seen on this thread - stuff from there is just echoed without thinking even if it is not applicable in the same way. So how things go over there will have an impact
An interesting thought I had today. Forget the politics of it and the underlying causes, but I wonder what the reaction would have been to the PM's response to the race riots (let's face it that is what they were) if the PM was still the British born, but Indian descent and Hindu Rishi Sunak?
Yeah, I'm very wary of the conceit that the US is the leader of the free world, but their next Presidential election will reverberate around the world for sure.
