This ruling will be appeal to higher court(s) so don't count on it meaning anything in the end.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
The only source of appeal left in UK is the 12 judge panel making up SCOTUK.
The ruling only means the same as the US 1st amendment does. "Free speech" is only enforceable if it is effected/enforceable by members of govt or it's agencies. Any internet board or paper media can still put it's own rules into effect as the owner of that media sees fit.
The only source of appeal left in UK is the 12 judge panel making up SCOTUK.
The ruling only means the same as the US 1st amendment does. "Free speech" is only enforceable if it is effected/enforceable by members of govt or it's agencies. Any internet board or paper media can still put it's own rules into effect as the owner of that media sees fit.
Thats the most important part. It means the Brits can no longer be arrested and jailed for refusing political-correctness and woke culture.
"Private" rules ??? Cancel culture works both ways. I suspect the woke in England are about to get a BIG lesson in that. We used to call them boycotts.
I dont know for sure about the US or GB, but here another not uncommon factor is business licensing. Want to run a business, then to get and maintain the license you must meet and uphold certain standards. If the individual jurisdictions in England choose to make "free speech" part of that standards, then the private owners choices are uphold free speech or choose another source of income.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-18-2020).]
Both of those judges look comic, but who wouldn't in that kind of official or ceremonial garb?
When I saw the one judge named as "Lord Justice Bean" I was thinking that article is satie (think "The Onion") and that I was looking at Rowan Atkinson in his "Mr Bean" character. The other judge--I couldn't put a name to him--but I thought that must be another actor known for comedic roles. He also resembles MSNBC's Ari Melber, but less than one percent of Americans regard Ari Melber that way. (The other 99+ percent recognizing neither the face or the name.)
Thats the most important part. It means the Brits can no longer be arrested and jailed for refusing political-correctness and woke culture.
"Private" rules ??? Cancel culture works both ways. I suspect the woke in England are about to get a BIG lesson in that. We used to call them boycotts.
I dont know for sure about the US or GB, but here another not uncommon factor is business licensing. Want to run a business, then to get and maintain the license you must meet and uphold certain standards. If the individual jurisdictions in England choose to make "free speech" part of that standards, then the private owners choices are uphold free speech or choose another source of income.
The number of times your suspicions proved correct are few and far between. Most of the UK is far far more focused on BREXIT and Covid than on what some tabloid has reported. This is old news. US courts long ago ruled basically the same thing unless it (speech) is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." . Brandenberg v. Ohio
Rulings such as this tho, do not mean someone can't/won't sue (and often do prevail) in civil court. Nor do they mean people can't be kicked off internet media for offensive language or for advocating violence against others. Choices have consequences.
Some (a lot actually) of the hairless ape species are simply too stupid to understand the word "no" and want to keep on yappin, louder and louder, thinking they are in charge and you are going to say/think/do/believe what THEY decide.
They just aren't smart enough to shut-the-hell up and go away on their own until Lucy shows up and says "Go ahead, one more word".
This is Lucy. She is VERY good at making crack-heads shut the hell up and go away. In fact, she had a 3 1/2 year career at it in close quarters. Mostly because hairless apes in blue clown-suits were too lazy to do the job they were paid to do. So Lucy volunteered instead. WWHAT a girl !!
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-18-2020).]
Some (a lot actually) of the hairless ape species are simply too stupid to understand the word "no" and want to keep on yappin, louder and louder, thinking they are in charge and you are going to say/think/do/believe what THEY decide.
They just aren't smart enough to shut-the-hell up and go away on their own until Lucy shows up and says "Go ahead, one more word".
This is Lucy. She is VERY good at making crack-heads shut the hell up and go away. In fact, she had a 3 1/2 year career at it in close quarters. Mostly because hairless apes in blue clown-suits were too lazy to do the job they were paid to do. So Lucy volunteered instead. WWHAT a girl !!
However, there's no free speech if a pastor (or anyone) were to stand on a public street quoting bible scripture that homosexual male behavior is an abomination before God. Likewise there is no free speech for publicly questioning any part of the holocaust claims of WWII Germany.
However, there's no free speech if a pastor (or anyone) were to stand on a public street quoting bible scripture that homosexual male behavior is an abomination before God. Likewise there is no free speech for publicly questioning any part of the holocaust claims of WWII Germany.
Sure there is...Just remember a right to speak does not mean a right to an audience.
However, there's no free speech if a pastor (or anyone) were to stand on a public street quoting bible scripture that homosexual male behavior is an abomination before God.
Likewise there is no free speech for publicly questioning any part of the holocaust claims of WWII Germany.
There's a certain amount of "red tape" with the city or county government or police that you or I would be required to complete BEFORE engaging in any public assembly and speech of that kind. But there's First Amendment protection for it. It CAN be done.
Am I misinformed?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-18-2020).]
In a "perfect" world you could walk down the street rambling about how the shadeballs have saved the deterioration of Amelia Earhart's wreckage due to sunlight reflection....no permit or permission required
Anybody who thought you were off your rocker would simply walk away saying .
Nobody would think they have the power to get in your face and say "You cant say that !!".
The difference between left and right. The are want the power and the right are always telling them just shut up and go away.
Sure there is...Just remember a right to speak does not mean a right to an audience.l
That's an article from the UK? If so, then no. Or maybe it's only London, but if you make either statement in public (period), you are subject to arrest and charges. It's England. No free speech. Only permitted speech. "Sir Mark David John Warby (born 10 October 1958), styled The Hon. Mr Justice Warby, is a judge of the High Court of England and Wales."
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-19-2020).]
It's not what you are saying (here anyway). Street preachers and pamphleteers (standing around handing out bibles or watchtower magazine or books or something) isnt new at all in Ontario. Nobody bothered with it until these 2 yahoos came along and made asses of themselves. I've personally had to tell them to FRO more than a few time before I left London (LOL, seems 1/2 the city did)
Nor here, but the story is in England, right? No free speech in England. You have permitted speech only. Thou shalt not offend a homosexual with scripture about it being a sin. This particular homo wanted to extend the restricted speech and failed.
I really do forget what movie the quote comes from, but it fits perfectly.
"If you want forgiveness go to church. They might. I wont. Ever."
It's actually a pretty simple philosophy...once called freedom.
I don't like bullies. I don't like power-trippers. I don't like holier-than-thou's and I don't like political-correctness and all the "you cant say that"..."You cant think that"..."you cant have that"
Yeh ? Really ?
I just did. And I'll do it again, go pound sand. Got a specific charge and evidence then lay it, otherwise shut your pig yap and get out of my existence. This is a free country I once defended, not a 3rd-world police state. You are not in charge of my existance. I am.
Is THAT clear enough, Don ??????
Oh yeh...I fogot one thing. I'll decide my own beliefs and anybody who doesnt like it should join Jonestown and drink your own kool-aid
Again, as a Canadian its my right and I said so.....kiss my ass if you dont like it.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-19-2020).]
Since the subject of the Bible (scripture) and homosexuality has come in here, I have a thought.
I remember (like umpteen years ago) there was something on the History or maybe the Discovery channel. It was about research into the origins of the Old Testament. I'm not at all educated in scripture, but the first connection that I make is the Old Testament story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom (of course) has become the root word for "sodomy."
But during this segment, they were saying that the scholars were uncertain about whether the idea that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was actually meant to be a blanket or unqualified condemnation of male homosexuality, during the pre-Christian times when these stories were first being recorded as texts. Because there's nothing explicit in the original texts (the most original texts that have been discovered and translated) about homosexuality (or male homosexuality) being the thing or one of the things that got the inhabitants of Sodom "crosswise" with G_d. (Gomorrah, I don't about it...
So guess what? I just did my Google thing. And I found this:
quote
There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two Second Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27). The author believes that these do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20–27, 19:1–11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26–27). If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon. The author attempts to introduce some new arguments into this long-standing and passionate debate.
It's an Abstract. For this.
"Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality" Robert K Gnuse for Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture; April 22, 2015. https://journals.sagepub.co...097?journalCode=btba
I really do forget what movie the quote comes from, but it fits perfectly.
"If you want forgiveness go to church. They might. I wont. Ever."
It's actually a pretty simple philosophy...once called freedom.
I don't like bullies. I don't like power-trippers. I don't like holier-than-thou's and I don't like political-correctness and all the "you cant say that"..."You cant think that"..."you cant have that"
Yeh ? Really ?
I just did. And I'll do it again, go pound sand. Got a specific charge and evidence then lay it, otherwise shut your pig yap and get out of my existence. This is a free country I once defended, not a 3rd-world police state. You are not in charge of my existance. I am.
Is THAT clear enough, Don ??????
Oh yeh...I fogot one thing. I'll decide my own beliefs and anybody who doesnt like it should join Jonestown and drink your own kool-aid
Again, as a Canadian its my right and I said so.....kiss my ass if you dont like it.
Man shall not lay with man as with a woman. It is an abomination (a sin).
It's the most direct condemnation of a specific act. So man set about rewriting it to all the things that God didn't say you can't do. This is where the lawyers come in. Religious lawyers. Now these people weren't the Christians and they created the Talmud wherein the rabbis declare what God really meant. When He said "man" and "man" he didn't say you can't lay with a boy, since everybody knows aa boy is not a man. So they put it down in words that you can lay with a boy below a certain age and the boy want defile a man with sin. How's that for irony? In the modern Christian world that was declared rape, but back then the rabbis said the boy won't sin on you for doing it. And woman can lay with woman but she can't marry a man holding high religious position. And while they were at it they declared you can lay a girl below a certain age and she can't defile the man with sin. In fact her virginity will grow back because it's nothing more than a finger in the eye.
And so, today here we are having these discussions in what was formerly Christian West and the same people are pushing the subject matter to overturn laws.
Stating all of these things above will get you arrested in England for hate speech.
You'll have to do lots better than that to get under my skin but I do think I remember reading about that fracas.
quote
Greatest civil aviation pilot/ future majority owner of successful EBike company/ former self confessed adult film star reportedly calling himself Bigus ******, beats up 2 Marines
And don't let my own youth bother or hinder you any. I'm not hard to find.
Seriously, man? You've said a lot of outrageous stuff here over the years, but now you're stooping to this?
I'm sure that even at 70 years of age, Don can take care of himself (not that you'd ever appear on his doorstep), but posting crap like this is just plain infantile. Get outside and go for a walk.
You'll have to do lots better than that to get under my skin but I do think I remember reading about that fracas. And don't let my own youth bother or hinder you any. I'm not hard to find.
Seriously, man? You've said a lot of outrageous stuff here over the years, but now you're stooping to this?
I'm sure that even at 70 years of age, Don can take care of himself (not that you'd ever appear on his doorstep), but posting crap like this is just plain infantile. Get outside and go for a walk.
Don has been taking digs and pokes at me trying to provoke a reaction for over 10 years.
Well, he finally got one. Even the nicest dog bites when poked enough.
I dont need weapons or fists to do it. An open-handed ***** -slap and a little "settle down" should do just fine.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-23-2020).]
Old men threatening one another "to punch it out" because of words exchanged on an internet forum is kind of... silly... especially when separated by 2000 km... and a closed border.
However...
quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
I dont need weapons or fists to do it. An open-handed ***** -slap and a little "settle down" should do just fine.
Whether it's with the use of weapons, fists or an "open-handed ***** -slap", I suspect that the threat of doing so to a fellow PFF member possibly contravenes a forum rule or two. Individuals have been permanently banned from here for lesser infractions.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-23-2020).]
Since MeM has been visible here (this thread) I have decided to chuck one particular "charcoal" onto the fire.
Many of MeM's messages have "dissed" the Canadian government (at all levels) for the measures that have been undertaken, backed by governmental resources and authority, to counteract the spread of the coronavirus.
MeM seems to be hanging a hat (so to speak) on the high survival rate (97 percent, I think he has said) for people who are diagnosed with Covid.
That's a statistic. It's produced by averaging across large numbers of cases.
Has MeM considered how that relatively high survival rate might need to be adjusted downwards, based on the medical profiles of specific individuals? Looking at this using an evidence-based or scientific methodology?
I think this kind of messaging from MeM has not sat well (figure of speech) with maryjane.
I find it disturbing, myself.
I hope I don't have reason to regret expressing myself in this way.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-23-2020).]
No, you won't. You'll do just as you've done for years here on PFF and probably everywhere else you have an internet presence. Rant, rave and embellish your life while looking for someone else to blame for things that went wrong. You talk about 'taking guns from the cops or 'poking a ball point pen into their jugular' or whipping this guy or that guy' or being a p*** star. You haven't and aren't going to do any of that. It's all just talk. Why, do people have to embellish the story of their lives with such nonsense? That's jr high school stuff.
Topic Closed
. 
