The above link refers to conservative billionaire Taki Theodoracopoulos, who is being investgated and may be prosecuted in the UK for so-called "hate speech" for a controversial columni he wrote in a London newspaper.
This is the kind of nonsense certain pressure groups wish to bring to American shores and is consistent with the so-called "PC police" that attack certain American celebrities and politicians.
Nobody is saying what Taki said was right(or even acceptable). But I for one am glad that we still retain the protections of the 1st Amendment(at least for now...)
Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
I, for one, am wondering what this law that he's being prosecuted under, is. Is it common to use this law for instances like this? Could one of our British wieners please shed some light on the situation?
Also, if the editor of the paper was on vacation that week, shouldn't the guy in his place have, maybe, axed the column himself?
Fashion Reporter Extraordinare
Thhhor tries to explain economics to SPP, but he doesn't use the phrases "freaks and peaks", "boomshakalaka", or "booty daddy" so SPP can't understand him.
Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuyI, for one, am wondering what this law that he's being prosecuted under, is. Is it common to use this law for instances like this? Could one of our British wieners please shed some light on the situation?
I'll do my best.
While obviously we pride ourselves over here on being pretty liberal with regards freedom of speech, there are laws governing the publication of literature that is judged to be written in a manner that could incite racial hatred.
It would be acceptable say for somebody to write a column saying that Britain needs to tighten border controls in order to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.
What would not be legal would be posting leaflets that say "Pakis and Blacks are stealng our jobs. Our government is doing nothing to stop this, so its up to you to fight back and rid our proud nation of this cancer."
I think the idea is basically its fine to hold strong beliefs and to state them, but if its done in a manner that is likely to lead to violence then thats pretty naughty and frowned upon.
The first time I became aware of it was when that loveable bunch of racists the BNP (or at least one of their members) was charged as a result of some leaflets he posted round his neighborhood which were basically full of lies about how x% of the Asians in the community were there illegaly and should be removed by 'any means necessary' (I'm paraphrasing but you get the idea).
If memory serves (and I'm getting old so it quite often doesn't) The Nation Of Islam were also in danger of being prosecuted under this law due to their actions during the Steven Lawrence case but I dont know if that ever came to anything.
In response to Grimis's original post, I agree with the principal of the law. We allowed a group of Islamic extremists to march near the anniversary of 9/11 over here because they did so in a peaceful manner. Theres no reason why anyone cant express there opinions without resorting to the sort of shit thats only purpose is to induce riots
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" Benjamin Franklin
That's not analagous. In Brown the court did not cite foreign law as its precedent for the decison. They have in recent decisions, most prevelant being the decision to outlaw the execution of those who committed crimes under the age of 18.