Personally I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for them. I know there are quite a number of people who believe in complete freedom to say what you want without having to face being prosecuted and am curious as to whether you feel this is a harsh or just punishment? Personally I don't believe anyone should be permitted to use words of extreme hatred or words encouraging violence.

You can read about the story here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904622.stm

Opinions?

Freedom of speech is one thing - but defamatory and enticement are a different cow. Especially with regard to terrorism, etc.

Most folks exercise a fair amount of common sense when exercising FOS - but there are those (obviously) who take it far beyond FOS... and it's usually those that are violently against the country they are a "citizen" of.

I'm of the opinion that if you hate the country you live in, or hate the job you are in (or any other "life" situation) - then LEAVE. Buy a plane ticket and get the hell out. Move to the country of your choice and exercise your FOS there - and get killed for denouncing their government.

Yeah there are always people who abuse that right unfortunately. My interpretation of "freedom of speech" was always being the right to say whatever you wanted otherwise it's really not complete freedom is it? It's more "freedom of speech but with some restrictions".

Not really, because your rights end where the next person's rights begin.

I can't speak for the UK as I'm not too familiar with their history (same can be said to an extent for the US as well), but I believe that our "founding fathers" had good intentions with FOS (and all pertaining to religious freedom) - but I don't believe they envisioned the kind of world that has evolved over the past 200 years or so. The world has gotten smaller (figuratively speaking) and we are now in each others backyard, so to speak.

I know this is apples and oranges, but it goes to prove a point (somewhat) with respect to the media, etc.

Back in the 1920's/30's there was a baseball player who was a womanizer like no other. He drank to excess - and openly cheated on his wife. However, due to his popularity and out of "respect" to this national "hero", the press/media cut him some slack and didn't report on his debauchery, etc. Babe Ruth.

Nowadays, and seemingly without regard to whatever, the media will report on any/everything. I do believe in freedom of the press and I support it, but when FOS and FOTP endangers lives (Princess Di is a perfect example) - then the line has to be drawn somewhere. I doubt it ever will though because too many folks THRIVE on the personal lives of someone in a celebrity status.

I digress...

Exactly... good point, Jay.

Reminds me of a "non-disclosure" form many folks have to sign. Companies effectively take away FOS by having their employees sign that piece of paper.

I am not sure what you mean by that - can you elaborate?

Watty: Looking back at the past, I agree with how the boundary has been pushed and stretched throughout to the point of accommodating extreme behaviour, and the need to clamp down on such behaviour.

I believe Jay is saying that .... yes, you have FOS but only until you violate my rights.

A couple of people have voted "harsh". Come on, own up. I am curious to hear your opinion why you feel the law has acted unreasonably.

You mean the right not to be harrassed?

It's not an easy choice to make. Stating they wanted things done to me doesn't seem enough to jail them.

This photo sums up the protesters for me:



I hope their stay in HMP is terrible!

As much a civil liberties loving freak as I am, there is a point where enough is enough, once you start openly calling for murder, you reach that point.

Yes, laws supporting the freedom of speech have been very carefully written to allow the possibility to charge people for crimes like this. It's one thing to speak out about what you believe in but quite another to incite violence and ignorance.

Nowt wrong with inciting ignorance. Else Britain wouldn't have any newspapers.

You say that like it'd be a bad thing

Sometimes I think that would be a good thing.

<edit> Beaten to it

Corrected.

TBH: Religious rantings are all insane, I think only jailing some of them is harsh. Jailing all of their insane bullfaeces is fair.


However, not protected under freedom of speech, but it's technically not fair, at least to us sane people dealing with the other insane religious rantings. Just Muslims are the new black.


TBH: I think our reactions to violent acts of 'terror' these guys were talking about shows that it works perfectly fine. We've lost more freedoms in the past 7 years than most Americans probably know exist. IMHO: Rebuild it bigger, rebuild it better, we're free, they cannot knock us down.

Talks of not building anything as large as the WTC again after the attacks made me sick.

Harassed, endangered, or otherwise adversely affected by the words of another.

"Harassment" is not clear enough of a definition to be a freedom, really. Frankly any kind of a protest is harassment. Religious nut jobs "harass" me every day with their inane ramblings, I'm not seeing them be put in Jail.


Only reason this is "ok" (not "fair") is because it induces violence. Which is way beyond harassment. There isn't a freedom from living your life with other people. You will be harassed, you will be offended, you will not have your life put at risk or your life made undone (slander). It has to become severe for it to be considered really...


I swear some people love claiming there are freedoms that don't exist(legal)/make sense("human rights") so often.

No, there's a difference between "annoying" you and "harassing" you. If those "nut jobs" were calling your job on a consistent basis interrupting your work, or constantly visiting your home after being asked not to, *that* would be harassment and you could certainly take that up with the police.

Not liking something somebody has to say on the street is far from "harassment", and anybody that thinks it is seriously needs to chill out.

Did I miss something here? Were they not openly calling for mass murder?

Inciting a riot is not covered in Freedom of Speech. Just like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Do I think 6 years is excessive? Yes. However, I don't know the British legal system.. Here, in most states and the federal government, if they recieved 6 years, which is 72 months (That scientific calculator is coming in handy) that would mean that they would do 85% of their time at a minimum, which would be 61 months, or 5 years 1 month.. That's a bit excessive IMO. Now, if they showed up passing out dynamite and running their mouths like that... The sentence would be too low. Of course.. I think handing out 5 years (or more!) to someone who smokes dope is insane. Sell it to a kid, ok, but for personal use? Libertarians unite.


People confuse Freedom of Speech all the time. Case in point.. The Dixie Chicks. They ran their mouths and there was a huge backlash against them. Radio stations stopped playing their music, retailers stopped selling their Albums, consumers stopped buying their albums.. Then people started yelling Freedom of Speech. Apples and Oranges. They faced no criminal or civil penalties by saying what they said.. However, it was offensive to many people, so they retaliated against them. As a consumer, if I do not like your policies or statements, I don't have to buy your product. In this case, they confused Freedom of Speech with requiring people to listen to and support what they said. There is no right to that.

Just because you have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean that you should always use it, you do have a Freedom to STFU as well, and that's the one that is too often overlooked. Remember.. The Klan is covered under Freedom of Speech as well.

Oh.. And my vote? Abstain. I think both.. The sentence is too harsh, but they deserve to be jailed.

I dunno, I have to listen to their ramblings every day, and their arguments to keep science out of schools and even more illogical bullfaeces that ruins our society even more, thats a persistent disturbance. Hence it falls under harassment technically. ;)

No it doesn't. From the way you're describing it, they're not singling you out, you're the one that goes around *them* on your way to wherever. If they were hunting you down personally, then maybe it would be different, but I'm willing to put $50 on them not knowing your face in a lineup.

In short, I think you should reevaluate the definition of harassment (note: keyword is "targeted").