Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

ChicagoBlue said:
I didn’t say that. Indeed, even 1A doesn’t allow that, as there are exceptions to complete freedom of speech. But, it seems like everyone is fine with curtailing the free speech of people they don’t like, which is a slippery slope.

Yet I didn’t. Quandary, huh?!


I hope they’re better than your “guarantee” above!


The problems with such laws are that the deciders constantly change and the list only gets bigger, never smaller.


Agreed, but there is always much more to someone committing suicide than a “hurty word.”

Click to expand...

After reading that, I honestly don't know what your true position is. On the one hand, you were advocating the right to say whatever one wants but on the other you acknowledge there should be limitations, but it feels like you should be the one who decides what those limitations are. You're not in a position to do that and nor am I because neither of us are lawmakers.

As for what Ricky Gervais said, there's a big difference between someone saying something that could be deemed offensive as part of their comedy act and saying something in a real life situation. I'm a huge fan of a lot of his work but I know it's just part of an act. I don't ever see him peddling offensive speech or hate speech in real life.
 
M18CTID said:
After reading that, I honestly don't know what your true position is. On the one hand, you were advocating the right to say whatever one wants but on the other you acknowledge there should be limitations, but it feels like you should be the one who decides what those limitations are. You're not in a position to do that and nor am I because neither of us are lawmakers.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge there are already limitations (famously, shouting “Fire!” In a crowded theatre) that have been agreed upon for a long time for the safety of people. This is settled law.

However, the significant expansion beyond this is what concerns me.

We live in a time of professional faux outrage and increasing political correctness, at a time when there is a lurch to the political Right. Free speech, including speaking truth to power, is needed more than ever, even if it allows the occasional bad actor a platform for ugly prose you or I might not like.

M18CTID said:
As for what Ricky Gervais said, there's a big difference between someone saying something that could be deemed offensive as part of their comedy act and saying something in a real life situation. I'm a huge fan of a lot of his work but I know it's just part of an act. I don't ever see him peddling offensive speech or hate speech in real life.
Click to expand...

“Real life”? Standing on a stage, speaking into a microphone, and being broadcast to millions of homes across the world isn’t “real life”? Such speech is often at the forefront of the free speech movement, as Gervais, Chappelle and many other comedians know all too well.

It is an idea, a concept, that I’m trying to protect, not any word, or a phrase. The idea that there are more and more words and phrases that are being added to the shopping bag of no-nos is what I’m against. Indeed, in previous posts I have referred to it as a dragnet, which seems apropos. It is being pulled through society, ensnaring certain people, which then serves as an example, or more likely has a chilling effect, on others.

It is a behavior modification tool used to shape your behavior to that chosen FOR YOU by someone in power, when your freedom of speech is designed to enable you to speak out AGAINST that power, without fear of reprisal.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
I acknowledge there are already limitations (famously, shouting “Fire!” In a crowded theatre) that have been agreed upon for a long time for the safety of people. This is settled law.

However, the significant expansion beyond this is what concerns me.

We live in a time of professional faux outrage and increasing political correctness, at a time when there is a lurch to the political Right. Free speech, including speaking truth to power, is needed more than ever, even if it allows the occasional bad actor a platform for ugly prose you or I might not like.



“Real life”? Standing on a stage, speaking into a microphone, and being broadcast to millions of homes across the world isn’t “real life”? Such speech is often at the forefront of the free speech movement, as Gervais, Chappelle and many other comedians know all too well.

It is an idea, a concept, that I’m trying to protect, not any word, or a phrase. The idea that there are more and more words and phrases that are being added to the shopping bag of no-nos is what I’m against. Indeed, in previous posts I have referred to it as a dragnet, which seems apropos. It is being pulled through society, ensnaring certain people, which then serves as an example, or more likely has a chilling effect, on others.

It is a behavior modification tool used to shape your behavior to that chosen FOR YOU by someone in power, when your freedom of speech is designed to enable you to speak out AGAINST that power, without fear of reprisal.
Click to expand...
If you can’t tell the difference between stand-up comedy and real world hate speech/verbal bullying then I can’t help you.
 
Earlyriser said:
Unfortunately this new class of 'patriots' do not have a flag pole in their garden nor would consider installing one. Their usual choice is to hang it out of the window on days of national importance such as England playing in The Euros or World Cup. Any other time their neighbours complain it lowers the tone of the neighbourhood
Click to expand...
I think it is wonderful the amount of people who have hoisted the St Georges Cross in support of the English Ladies cricket team.
Not sure why some have put up the Union flag though as Ireland and Scotland are not involved
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I hate the guy, dislike totally what he stands for but I'm glad or govn can't just stop (any) people and claim they're terrorists.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tommy Robinson not guilty of terror offence after not giving police access to his phone

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was found not guilty at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on. We either live in a democracy or we don’t, it’s not selective. The police or whoever can’t just say that’s so and so, I don’t like his views, let’s pull him under the terror legislation. That is a very slippery slope.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I hate the guy, dislike totally what he stands for but I'm glad or govn can't just stop (any) people and claim they're terrorists.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tommy Robinson not guilty of terror offence after not giving police access to his phone

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was found not guilty at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Was the terrorist at the weekend a terrorist before or after he decided to go out and kill people? Obviously it was afterwards but the Police can only prevent such things by gathering evidence and they have powers to arrest people who refuse to comply with gathering that evidence. Robinson fits into the latter which is why he was prosecuted.

The real question is what were the Police expecting to find on his phone and why? The CPS must of had a convincing case or else they wouldn't have charged him. We are not privy to what they know nor the intelligence that the security services have on him.

Will Robinson go on for example to help instigate and fuel riots again? Robinson is somebody who constantly says that there will be civil war on the streets. His backer Elon Musk has said that himself. Who knows what is on his phone and what is being planned but nobody will ever know without looking and that's perhaps the point.

The offence is classed as minor and tried in a Magistrates for a reason, it's the bare minimum of what the Police can do. It was never going to make him a terrorist but perhaps he was suspected of being involved in something. Totally understandable given his history. The judge however wasn't convinced and well that just means that there's an absence of evidence but not necessarily an absence of reason.

Btw - attempting to overthrow the government, instigate civil war or instigate riots for a political cause does potentially class you as a terrorist as Palestinian Action have found out.
 
Last edited:
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