Abandon4093 said:
A bad thing that people aren't allowed to organise hate rallies. Like the KKK.
As long as they file for the right to protest, and it meets the requirements that are set for all organizations, why should they not have a right to say (imo) stupid crap? I could understand if you disliked how its done here if we didn't make people go through certain procedures, but people do have to do these kinds of things in an orderly way.
Abandon4093 said:
Like that's not what happens here. People are allowed to voice whatever opinions they like. But the minute they start inciting hatred or acting aggressively, they will be punished.
The difference is I typed that the
company that owns the radio/tv station would do this, while over there(in the UK) the
government is the one doing this.
Abandon4093 said:
You know, because the rest of us shouldn't be forced to put up with it. Like the crazy (probably drunk) train lady.
Why shouldn't people put up with the train lady, especially if people are somehow forced to put up with Anjem Choudary?
Abandon4093 said:
I've already said our government is letting certain demographics get away with more than others. That's nothing to do with being selective with freedom of expression and everything to do with them being terrified of being accused of racism.
You tell me that your government allows
demographics to help determine if a group of people are allowed to say and do things, and if the group of people are not part of the specific demographic, the government is less than considerate of what they have to say. Yet, you still claim that,
that action is not an example of being selective with freedom of expression? Are you kidding me? If not called "being selective with freedom of expression", then what else should I call it, racism perhaps? Because
those kinds of policies seem pretty racist.
Also, your politicians being motivated by fear doesn't change what they are doing.
Abandon4093 said:
It's a symptom of a much larger issue. But the meat and potatoes of how we treat freedom of expression is much more logical than the 'fuck it, let's just let them all scream and call each other names.' approach the US takes.
lol, you keep claiming you have a more logical system, and yet earlier on you admitted that the government doesn't even follow its own system. Again, you government is not practicing what it is preaching. Your describing something that your government doesn't do.
Abandon4093 said:
Some movements are designed to do nothing but incite hate and discriminate.
You mean like the
Orange Order and their marching through Catholic neighborhoods?
Abandon4093 said:
US law doesn't recognise that because damn near everything is protected under the first amendment.
Yes, that damn First Amendment! Always (amongst other things) protecting freedom of assembly and speech to people who do not have the same opinion/views as the majority of the population! I mean who cares [http://en.proverbia.net/citastema.asp?tematica=493] if these people
don't act out violently, we shouldn't allow them to speak or assemble because they are saying things that go against our ideology
(end sarcasm)!!!
Abandon4093 said:
Except if it violates the 'miller test'. Which is a pretty useless standard that just allows the judge to rule however he fancies. Leading to a lot of discriminatory publications and movements due to it's innate subjectivity.
Fair enough, your not the first person to point out its flaws.
Abandon4093 said:
Atleast with UK law all hatespeech is forbidden. Unless of course the governments terrified of being perceived as racist.
lol, again I don't know if your being serious or not with having that first sentence follow the second. Your contradicting yourself, first you state that all hate speech is forbidden, then you state that there are exceptions that the UK government makes if they feel motivated(see: fear of being called racist).
Abandon4093 said:
And you don't need to say it, I hate the hypocrisy of the current situation more than you could know. But our current... unfortunate, exception to the rule doesn't de-validate the logic behind the rule itself.
Apparently I do need to say it again because you keep mentioning this great system your government is supposed to have, but in actuality they don't practice it. When you stop telling me about how the UK government is supposed to be(when comparing it to the US), and instead start talking about how the UK government actually is(in comparison to the US system), then I'll stop bring up the injustice(how is this [http://images18.fotki.com/v674/photos/5/1222605/8339508/muslimAP1807_468x317-vi.jpg] ok, but this [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/09/edl2_1537927c.jpg] is not?) in your government.
Your right that your country's practice of injustice doesn't "de-validate" the logic behind that idea(to ban all hate speech), but its just too bad that your government doesn't use that logic instead of the "separate but equal" system that it seems to have now.
Lastly, don't get me wrong, I'm not some US nationalist. The UK is far from being a terrible government and country, there are actually a few things that I like [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iywIBCihyNU/Sw12IgGngUI/AAAAAAAADfc/tphlFVrp6fQ/s1600/Cheryl_Cole_04.jpg] about the UK, 
