Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

ChicagoBlue said:
Feel free to label yourself any way you see fit, but don’t try to stretch the very limited 1A exceptions to fit this narrative, and, while I believe some speech is abhorrent, I trust people to see that, recognize it, and reject it, not be thrown in jail for it!

I’m not in favor of the slippery slope in Britain, that’s for certain!

Ridiculous law, my arse!
Click to expand...
Nobody is thrown in jail for speech in Britain unless it breaks serious other laws such as incitement to violence.
If I say “ all black people are disloyal to uk” that might infringe laws against hate speech which is usually dealt with by issuing a warning. If I say “all black people are disloyal to uk and should be physically attacked for it” that is the crime of incitement, which may sometimes (but not usually) be punished by imprisonment if repeated or said in circumstances where violence is likely to occur.
What is the slippery slope to which you refer?
You would do well to read the English Bill of Rights 1689, a major source of the US Constitution, if you wish to understand freedom of expression, not the ‘right to free speech.’
If you think the right to free speech should be unfettered, just ask those on the other end whether their freedom is thus enhanced. People in Britain who belong to racial minorities or who are gay etc believe our hate speech laws enhance their freedom.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
Nobody is thrown in jail for speech in Britain unless it breaks serious other laws such as incitement to violence.
If I say “ all black people are disloyal to uk” that might infringe laws against hate speech which is usually dealt with by issuing a warning. If I say “all black people are disloyal to uk and should be physically attacked for it” that is the crime of incitement, which may sometimes (but not usually) be punished by imprisonment if repeated or said in circumstances where violence is likely to occur.
What is the slippery slope to which you refer?
You would do well to read the English Bill of Rights 1689, a major source of the US Constitution, if you wish to understand freedom of expression, not the ‘right to free speech.’
If you think the right to free speech should be unfettered, just ask those on the other end whether their freedom is thus enhanced. People in Britain who belong to racial minorities or who are gay etc believe our hate speech laws enhance their freedom.
Click to expand...
While it may have been considered an inspiration, as I understand the English Bill of Rights, it gave the common man the right to petition the King, but reserved the freedom of speech to Parliament.

Hate speech, per se, should be (and is) protected in the U.S., but as with most things, if it crosses the line…in this case, incitement to action…it crosses the legal threshold into illegality.

An example of speech leading to incitement of crime is the march in Virginia where people marched chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil.” Absolutely abhorrent, and it received the negative reaction it should have, except with Trump, who saw “fine people on both sides.”

However, later that day, there were clashes and a car mowed down innocent people in the street, killing one woman. That was considered a hate crime, which receives additional sanctions.

Speech - OK.
Incitement to action - Not OK.

However, no-one was prosecuted for the speech, because there was no call for violence, but the violence that subsequently occurred was labeled as a hate crime.

I can live with that, whether I agree with it or not, as I abhor personal violence, including racist mob action.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
While it may have been considered an inspiration, as I understand the English Bill of Rights, it gave the common man the right to petition the King, but reserved the freedom of speech to Parliament.

Hate speech, per se, should be (and is) protected in the U.S., but as with most things, if it crosses the line…in this case, incitement to action…it crosses the legal threshold into illegality.

An example of speech leading to incitement of crime is the march in Virginia where people marched chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil.” Absolutely abhorrent, and it received the negative reaction it should have, except with Trump, who saw “fine people on both sides.”

However, later that day, there were clashes and a car mowed down innocent people in the street, killing one woman. That was considered a hate crime, which receives additional sanctions.

Speech - OK.
Incitement to action - Not OK.

However, no-one was prosecuted for the speech, because there was no call for violence, but the violence that subsequently occurred was labeled as a hate crime.

I can live with that, whether I agree with it or not, as I abhor personal violence, including racist mob action.
Click to expand...
You have misunderstood the refs to free speech. The Bill did not reserve it to parliament, it conferred privilege on speech within parliament, ie such speech is not actionable. The US speech and debate clause in the constitution is based on this.
 
The desperation to associate the suspect with the trans movement is utterly ridiculous.
I was reading that Donald had said that something akin to the trans movement being as dangerous as Al-Quidah and that nearly all recent mass shootings involved trans culprits.
By point of fact, he is a liar: seven out of 4,147 mass shootings from 2018 to 2025, (involved an identified transgender culprit) based on Gun Violence Archive data — a rate of 0.17% as of Sept. 4.

This is the level of political manipulation being experienced in the US and in the UK and there is no way I would cooperate under such conditions.

IMO, this is why we are seeing mass protest more than any other influence bar inequality - political lies, misinformation, and deliberate intention to divide society.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
You have misunderstood the refs to free speech. The Bill did not reserve it to parliament, it conferred privilege on speech within parliament, ie such speech is not actionable. The US speech and debate clause in the constitution is based on this.
Click to expand...
While “based on,” isn’t it qualitatively different, though, as 1A infers the privilege not only on speech within politics, but to the common man on the street? This is not written as a foundational principle in UK law.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
While “based on,” isn’t it qualitatively different, though, as 1A infers the privilege not only on speech within politics, but to the common man on the street? This is not written as a foundational principle in UK law.
Click to expand...
No, the speech and debate clause applies only to words uttered in pursuit of legislative needs, not necessarily within Congress. It is not of general application, so you could not avail yourself of it, except if you were reporting privileged speech. You could reasonably argue that it applies more generally by extension as it was in England in the early 18thC.
England is, of course, a common law country, so you would not expect ancient practice to be “written as a foundational principle in English (not uk) law”. Almost nothing is, in contrast to US which, despite being a common law country, has codified almost everything from the Constitution to jay walking.
We have no statutory law outlawing murder, for eg, it is a common law offence. We have no codified constitution. Thus, only legally enacted restrictions apply to speech, otherwise there is no proscription of freedom of expression. The licensing provisions on printed matter (an example of legal restrictions) were abolished in 1695, under the aegis of the Bill.
Freedom of expression developed both before 1689, see Milton 1644, and by extension after the Bill. Interestingly, Locke was not in favour of free speech, due to his respect of religious sensibilities.
In modern times, it was included in the UDHR (article 19)and subsequent Acts. (The codification under the European Declaration of Human Rights which Uk has adopted is problematical as it clashes with common law in several respects.)
Other than these modern codes, do not look for written foundational principals in English law, you won’t find them!
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not cooperating apparently. Who the fuck can blame him when the President has already called for him to be executed before he’s even been charged. I’d definitely be telling him to say fuck all.
Click to expand...
Alternatively, he could say: “ I hold my hands up. You’ve got me bang to rights, guv.” Not recommended, although since PACE apparently that’s the usual answer in the squad car.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Feel free to label yourself any way you see fit, but don’t try to stretch the very limited 1A exceptions to fit this narrative, and, while I believe some speech is abhorrent, I trust people to see that, recognize it, and reject it, not be thrown in jail for it!

I’m not in favor of the slippery slope in Britain, that’s for certain!

Ridiculous law, my arse!
Click to expand...
Thankfully you don't live here. I'm not in favour of Americans, or people who live in America, trying to influence British politics. I think it's a huge impending danger to our way of life.
 
hcblue95 said:
Thankfully you don't live here. I'm not in favour of Americans, or people who live in America, trying to influence British politics. I think it's a huge impending danger to our way of life.
Click to expand...
Humans are a tribal species and we have not evolved to mentally cope with the level of intercommunication that we have with each other. This is summed up by the fact that some will hear of the shooting of Kirk and they will feel threatened because of their political association with him despite the fact being they aren't threatened.

This is being more heavily utilised in the UK where the right and left are using social media to impose mild or totally non-existent threats whether that's the evils of capitalism or migration. Any sensible person knows that there are good and bad sides to everything but society is being taught to deal only in the absolute of 100% bad or good.

The people responsible for this are those who are most involved in politics on the right or left. Kirk wasn't really an encourager of free debate because he really did his tours to both make money and further the goals of the right and Trump. To somebody like Trump though he's just a useful tool that he'd throw out and sacrifice.

This level of imposed hate and identity politics is literally making us mentally ill and that level of mental illness is almost certainly what led Tyler Robinson to shoot Kirk in the first place. The only saving grace that we have in the UK is we do have strict gun controls so at least it's not quite as easy to act upon your hatred.

Kirk's death was obviously a tragedy for himself and his family and as somebody who recently became a father that's what I find extremely sad about this. Nobody deserves to die for the simple act of talking irrespective of what they have said.
 
hcblue95 said:
Thankfully you don't live here. I'm not in favour of Americans, or people who live in America, trying to influence British politics. I think it's a huge impending danger to our way of life.
Click to expand...
Haha!

I’m a British citizen, so maybe I’ll vote Reform just to piss you off!

Britain has much greater, and deeper, problems than my opinions could ever describe or affect, but you personalize it to “American influence” and go with that, if it helps you sleep better at night.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Haha!

I’m a British citizen, so maybe I’ll vote Reform just to piss you off!

Britain has much greater, and deeper, problems than my opinions could ever describe or affect, but you personalize it to “American influence” and go with that, if it helps you sleep better at night.
Click to expand...
Go for it, I won't be offended or bothered who you vote for. I said thankfully you don't live here because you are clearly worried about the slippery slope we're on. You crack on and enjoy life under Trump.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Feel free to label yourself any way you see fit, but don’t try to stretch the very limited 1A exceptions to fit this narrative, and, while I believe some speech is abhorrent, I trust people to see that, recognize it, and reject it, not be thrown in jail for it!

I’m not in favor of the slippery slope in Britain, that’s for certain!

Ridiculous law, my arse!
Click to expand...
What words would you want to say but can’t in the uk?
 
hcblue95 said:
Go for it, I won't be offended or bothered who you vote for. I said thankfully you don't live here because you are clearly worried about the slippery slope we're on. You crack on and enjoy life under Trump.
Click to expand...
Trump is a passing phase, your slippery slope? Not so much! Been watching it happen for 40 years!

And, while I despise Trump and almost everything he stands for, his policies are only affecting me in relatively positive ways. Sad, but true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top