Look at your signature, mocking Tash who made a valid point, anyone who mocks Gary Speeds death is a nasty piece of work. But I guess you are just trying to gain the respect of the GC crew. Well done. a* And perhaps you where drunk when you wrote it, so it's OK. Love the gay badge too.
Thought you were going out into the sun? By the way, thanks for proving a point You never read anything fully through. Should I make bold the bit of the quote that is amusing?
Getting it back on topic, some people think the internet should be lawless, and brutal, like the old wild west, and most people post nasty comments because they feel they are safe behind their keyboards, and in real life would not say boo to a mouse. But like the Wild West, it was not long before the sheriffs and marshals started sorting it out. It is human nature to figure out where the boundaries are, and if there are no boundaries, some people just don't know when to stop. Freedom of speech is bollox, defining it as total freedom to say absolutely anything is stupidity at the extreme. Just look at that stupid American church that went to the funerals of soldiers and waved banners claiming the dead were ***s and god hated them. That cannot be a "right" of freedom of speech, you cannot look at it as black or white, you cannot be that simplistic, and by doing that, you do end up with that stupid church. You can talk to me about it being a slippery slope, but common sense has to draw a line in the sand that is not at an absolute edge, it cannot be a freedom of speech to abuse others.
Baz; no worries mate, was probably too quick to see accusation! Noble; for research (long time ago) I've actually asked service people what they think of people using the freedom they die to protect against them. A mix of WW2 up to Falklands( the more recent hadn't happened at time) they all with one exception said that while they hated what people were saying they smiled inside with the knowledge that without them these people wouldn't be able to do it. They also stated that you could point to generations that didn't have a war as they were the mouthiest about their "rights" I think this all boils down to your view of how much influence one person can have over another. As I've said; I think no matter how thick , how drunk you are responsible for your own actions. So this man should be taken to task for expressing unsavory opinions: but I believe the appropriate level of response Would be social I.e every decent person who reads it responds verbally against it in the same forum if possible.This shows a mature society confident in its rights and sense of what is right. Making a law to curb thought shows a very immature unconfident society that really believes the individual in general can't be trusted: I don't think our society is that immature. I have confidence in the inherent right or wrong in most people. That may be naive. If a person takes any kind of physical action based on their twisted beliefs then the laws which exist already (outside of additional minority based laws) step in. Physically abusing someone is assault: it doesn't need extra sentence dependent on motive. Again I point to the equality acts. Everyone has the right not to be intimidated or bullied or assaulted, or denied freedom of movement or freedom of employment or life for ANY reason. You don't need subcategories to an inalienable right.
