Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums
Sign in to follow this  
nbohr1more

Why doesn't Britain have a 1st Amendment?

Recommended Posts

If a progressive like Bill Maher went to Britain to warn about the dangers of Theocracy:

 

 

he would be arrested for hate speech.

 

Was there ever a movement\initative to mirror the 1st amendment in the US Constitution?

 

How far fetched would it be to enact one now?

 

Brits always seem very outspoken to me so it's quite paradoxical that they don't protect something

that's so integral to their cultural identity.

 

Pat Condell Video to get me in trouble:

 

 

My favorite zinger:

 

"Somewhere in Britain, a young girl is having her genitals mutilated whilst a police officer whizzes past

in a rainbow colored car to collect his diversity award."

 

It's like the ultra sharp cheddar of sardonic commentary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's the bill of rights 1689 most of the laws come from that.

 

or the one from 1688

 

they have the laws for freedom of speech in them.

Edited by stumpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The accusation of "hate speech" must be limited to those characters actually talking of *general* use of violence (and state coercion too :P ).

Opinion crimes are a form of mankind infantilization.

And they're simply a stupid/convenient way to BELIEVE you're "improving" the world with some kind of FALSE respect.

 

So, often, the pseudoprogressive men/women are in fact cryptomoralistic people.

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same reason why it has an intact royal family. Freedom ain't free. B)

Just don't make others pay for your freedom :P

Oh, the frontier between "wicked" and "cunning".....make others WILLINGLY pay for your freedom.

 

How about that kind of freedom? The one conquered using other people willingly enrolled in the cause?

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK has had a "1st ammendement" since 1689, which covered only freedom of speech for parliamentary officials (not citizens or serfs/proles).

He wouldn't be arrested - due to the havar being construed as a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.

This is part of article 10 of the European convention and guarantee of freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act.

There is ambiguity to the law as there are exceptions that might include threatening, abuse or behaviour that causes harassment or distress, a breach of the peace - such as prohibition of racist speech and related rallies / protests.

This "upgrades" the offense to indecent or gross offense with intent or incitement to cause distress of anxiety, usually used in hate speech against race or religion or towards acts of terrorism.

Believe there was also some treason if it involved the crown (as in state, and monarchy), that may have been abolished by section 72 of justice act 2009, that continued to cover obscenities (often overlooked, unless you push it), indecency causing corruption of public morals and outrage of public decency. Especially if it is not a first offence (eg, Abu Hamza's hate speech vs English, which was tolerated for a long time before he was nicked or C18 rallies, which usually turn into brawls with people rrested for violence and additionally charged with hate speech).

While UK may have the strictest laws on defamation - prosecution requires an exceptionally high burden of proof.

The guy in the video, as he is "teaching" does not fall under this category, due to the Education (no.2) act 1986 of UK defamation law.

Video Recordings Act 2010 only requires that it contain BBFC (censorship) certificate.

We still allow Family Guy and Southpark to play uncensored with its anti-Semitic and "hate-crime" jokes and stereotypes.

Defamation Act 2013 was the reformation of such act. Do not believe it changes much except for the right to protection of reputation.


I hear plenty of racism and hate-speech in my town (of 11,000 people with ... 3 black guys, 4 chinese, 2 Turkish, a few Russians and a dozen Indian and Pakistanis, plus many Europeans and Eastern Europeans (ex-soviet bloc) every single day.




If no-one's around to witness the hate crime, then does the hate crime exist?


It's funny to see US ideology applied to UK law.

// it's a part of brexit they ain't clarified yet.

// oh - the other thing that cuffs us is: you can't talk to jurors about the crime. That's a big no-no.

Edited by teh_saccade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and a dozen Indian and Pakistanis

Well, how the original imperialists :D and now proud brexiters :D can forget that those countries were UK colonies for centuries so that "xenopresence" :D is quite obvious?

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call hogshit on hate speech being okay to be legal. If I were to call for a genocide or the reduction of rights for everyone who came from the British Isles, it would be blatantly seen as what it is: immoral and stupid. Same goes for all the cunts calling for anyone who is nonwhite who wishes to enter the US or Europe to be sterilized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to be stupid or immoral can't be tout-court a crime.

 

Let the stupid be MORE stupid and maybe everyone will see him for what he really is.

Criminalize the stupid and you'll see the victimhood (->victimism) starting, rolling and crushing the reason.

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can be after they do something as reprehensible as the Holocaust. I'd rather kill an aspiring neonazi about to take power as a state official than just "try to ignore him".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can be after they do something as reprehensible as the Holocaust. I'd rather kill an aspiring neonazi about to take power as a state official than just "try to ignore him".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But racism is inconsistent because, you know, there's no such thing as a human "race".

So they can keep talking about it like they talk about fairytales.

And you must tell with a smile that's a fairytale and nothing more. 'cause it's the rational view of reality.

 

Really, don't help a never-grown up man - like the one who believes in "race" or any kind of idealism - remain a child attacking throught the "state power" his petty moral values set.

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time doesn't stand still. Authority you grant the government today can be used against you tomorrow.

 

Good thing you don't toss around insults that could be misinterpreted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authority you grant the government today can be used against you tomorrow.

It's ONE of (among?) several reasons to detest some authority celebration movements (like italian fascism and its nephews).

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, the American First Amendment was a copy of the same provision in the Virginia constitution which was a British colony at the time. So ... the first draft of the First Amendment was originally a British law, for starters. Britain has long protected (and still does) free expression and religion in both common law jurisprudence and by legislation in substantively the same way as the US First Amendment with a few minor differences, for the appetizer. (The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but it still has constitutional law, so it's not really all that different in the end.) And the entire concept of freedom of speech and religion from the start developed primarily in Britain over the 17th Century, for the main course.

 

So the basic answer to your question is "because it does have a 1st amendment for all intents and purposes."

 

That said, a few things that run against free speech in the UK, like defamation law, are dumb and should be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, how the original imperialists :D and now proud brexiters :D can forget that those countries were UK colonies for centuries so that "xenopresence" :D is quite obvious?

We are all English, sure as eggs is eggs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, a few things that run against free speech in the UK, like defamation law, are dumb and should be fixed.

At least our country isn't run by a warmongering dictator.

 

Defamation law is there mostly for rich people and to prevent slanderous lies and misinformation regarding invidividuals - you are allowed to defame someone, say/print what you like, "heh, Pete's a homo, racist, gangster and killed people in their sleep"... but if I can prove none of this is true and it has cost me not only my reputation as a straight, not-racist, law abiding citizen - that particular law is my defense against people doing such a thing, if anyone were to take it seriously and their statements regarding my character caused me any issue such as - "you're fired, you homo, racist murdering gang-banger".

 

That's when I could bring discrimination law into it... because I'm allowed to be a homophobic homosexual racist and have been ordered to take a life in "defense" of the realm - the politics of which is basically one big gang-bang. Plus they'd have to prove I was even in a gang.

 

Case dismissed, gimmie mah cheddah, yo.

Edited by teh_saccade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is not "warmongering" is a classic ennerving bully. A glorified (by money) jerk :v

"Warmongering" implies some political vision :P and nobody can even imagine such thing about our special Donald.

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defamation law is there mostly for rich people and to prevent slanderous lies and misinformation regarding invidividuals

Here in Italy you can be charged of defamation speaking the truth too (about someone), the only requirement is the "honor damage" (sigh) taken by his/her social image.....

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides The Human Rights Act, as a member of the Council of Europe and a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, Britain is legally bound to respect all up to date jurisprudence concerning the interpretations given by the Court in Strasbourg and adjust its law and practices to enforce them.

But freedom of speech does not = discriminating against an entire people's religious/ethnic background and allowing people to promote a segregating mentality against any such group. Proportionality and rule of law includes banning clothes of extremely conservative clothing that carries the risk of succoring terrorism.http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2017/07/11/Top-Europe-court-upholds-ban-on-full-face-veil-in-Belgium-.html

 

But alienating against an entire people in a generalized, hysterical manner is not and is punishable by law under justified circumstances. Or else this discourse will become mainstream.

You can't reinvent the wheel. You have to ride it. Diverse society as the US example shows is the future and globalization will enforce it for those of us lucky enough to live in civilized countries.

Edited by Anderson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diverse society as the US example shows is the future and globalization will enforce it for those of us lucky enough to live in civilized countries.

Old URSS too :P

 

The fact is:

1) someone is childish and does not want that future and is free to be childish

2) someone is eager to collect votes of 1) - classic example of the pervertion of representative democracy - fearmongering & autovictimizing

 

See Marine Le Pen, our italian Salvini (the perfect poor match of Trump), etc.

Edited by lowenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...