Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

[DakAttack]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

So you see no difference between human thought and a space heater. I feel sorry for you, because the only people that can possibly consider analogies like that correct are the people that it does apply to.


If you think that security is more important than rights, then you deserve neither.

So you don't actually plan on contributing to this discussion?

[Ziero]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

The willingness of a people to give up their rights in favor of security, imagined or not, is a typical step on the path towards dictatorship.

The number of people in this very thread willing to apparently give up their rights is not surprising. There is a current belief that rights are not paramount, but security is. Little do people have the foresight to realize that we have the rights we do because they amount to a greater security internally.

Most dictatorships are formed via force, not political election. Singular events like this, where the person *warrented* their 'rights' to be given up do *not* lead to dictatorships.

Basically, am I more afraid of a terrorist bombing me or of the police across the street tasering me for looking at them the wrong way? Certainly, at this time, it is the latter. A taser may not kill me, but in a country of three hundred million people and ten million square kilometers, the chance of a single incendiary bomb going off somewhere is unlikely to kill me as well, probably even less so.

Let me think now, the amount of terrorists threatening to kill every single infedel they can vs the amount of cops tasering innocent people....yea, the terrosits have an EXTREME advantage in numbers in this situation. The chances of a cop you are not that high as long as you don't break the freaking law, and even then they will warn you *repeatedly* before ever taking action.

And for all of you who keep referencing the 'don't tase me bro' guy, you should know he was being chased by the police *before* he ever even entered the auditorium. It was by the good graces of Kerry that he was even allowed to ask a question instead of being dragged out on the spot. And on top of that the whole thing was just his attempt to become famous and get his name in the paper as he runs a web site full of political pranks he pulled. So that case, much like this one, are not infringing on anyone's rights because they both deserved what they got.

I value my rights as a facet of my security. I am not secure when I feel threatened by my own country's government and police force. I am not more secure as a result of my rights being trampled on.
The girl this article is talking about was foolish for doing what she did. However, that ought not give the government the right to trample on her rights. Investigate her, by all means, but convict her of "collecting information, without reasonable excuse, of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"? Unless they're putting away everyone who's downloaded a schematic of a pipe bomb or videos of a beheading, and they're not, that's simply not a crime. We don't need a "reasonable excuse" beyond curiosity for looking up information.

Many MANY people her age started out by 'researching and collecting' this type of information and end up actually living it out. So yes, what she did was signs that pointed to her becoming more involved in a terrorist activity. There's

Honestly, yes. I would rather die with my opinions than live in a state that punishes thoughtcrime.

If she had actually harmed people, lock her up. If she's doing stupid things in front of customers, fire her.

I don't know about you, but I'm sure a lot of people would panic if they saw terrorist notes about blowing themselves up on freaking Plane reciepts. That goes beyond doing something stupid and enters into promoting terrorism in my book because she's spreading fear, which is exactly what a terrorist does.

The only reason you (and I'm speaking in general here, not to a specific person) don't care is because you don't identify with them.
Which is exactly the problem. Most people don't care about freedoms being infringed until it's their freedoms, and by then it's generally too late. There are plenty of dictatorships that could show you this lesson very easily. They start with minorities, people that the general population is angry at or afraid of, they make them into threats. Then they move on to anyone that disagrees with them, or other groups that pose a threat to their power.

The only reason I (and I mean specificilly me) don't care is because I'm not an alarmist anti-government person who feels that 'the man' is out to get me. And in the world we have now when you can literally walk out on the street and protest...just about anything...having my 'freedoms' taken away is not that big of a threat. We're not going to wake up one day and be prisoners in our own home, or have newspapers, TV and the Internet censored to the point where we can't trade information freely. Ever.

The US is very much pussies too. One or two nights ago, we had a shooting in a mall, 8 people killed, 5 people wounded. This morning, they were talking on the news about putting armed guards in malls and increasing police presence in malls. In shopping centers, in the holiday season. Nobody is saying the US is better.

That's a normal reaction to things like this and either fades fast or never actually occurs anyway. But people always want to find ways to prevent things like this from happening, and thus try to think of how to do it. But in the end they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Because I certainly don't believe those people were as willing to die for their 'freedoms' as you seem to be.

The thing is, you can't compare space heaters and candles to intelligent lifeforms. You could also unplug it or put it out completely, risk of fire goes down to near zero that way, wouldn't that be even better?
Comparing human lives to inanimate objects is a dangerous slippery slope.
It's not the people that are demonizing that are the problem, it's the people believe it, which is actually surprisingly large.

I dunno, that metaphor seemed pretty spot on to me, as fire is a pretty close comparion to human beings. It's something everyone needs and wants, but can never fully control or predict. The smallest spark could destroy hundreds and thousands of lives, I think that fits the comparison pretty damn well.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

So you don't actually plan on contributing to this discussion?

I have no intention of talking to someone who can honestly compare their intellect to a space heater, yes.

Singular events like this, where the person *warrented* their 'rights' to be given up do *not* lead to dictatorships.

Yes, they do, no matter your perception. You can qualify it as a 'singular event', and say that the person had it coming to them, but that does not change what it is. These events are becoming more common, and convincing the public that the people that are being shut up and punished are a threat to them is a very common trait in dictatorships.

And for all of you who keep referencing the 'don't tase me bro' guy,

People aren't talking about him. Unwarranted tasering is becoming more and more common.

Many MANY people her age started out by 'researching and collecting' this type of information and end up actually living it out.

Many people also start out playing video games, and then become violent, if you believe the media. Which is exactly the problem.

Again, you are trying to punish people for their thoughts, and not their actions. I don't think a single one of us goes a day without thinking of beating someone up, that doesn't mean we have ever actually even slapped someone. Should I be locked up in Gitmo for reading Steal This Book? Or jailed for animal abuse if I get angry at my cat and start yelling at it, without actually hurting it, and a neighbor overhears? Should people that think that drugs should be legal be locked up for encouraging a criminal action?

Again, this is a slippery slope. It starts with people that the majority consider a pox or dangerous, and works it's way into enemies of the state, or even people that simply have a contrary opinion.

That goes beyond doing something stupid and enters into promoting terrorism in my book because she's spreading fear, which is exactly what a terrorist does.

By that logic everyone who has ever worked for a news company should be put to death. Spreading fear is not a crime-- hell, look at the WBC. Nobody in their right mind supports them, but at the same time it would be dangerous to deny them their right to protest.


Does anyone even know if these receipts were handed to customers? There are a number of things that could be called receipts besides what goes in your little plastic bag. I'd question the sanity of any artist that wrote on the material their customer received. Yes, those actions are stupid, and she should've been terminated on the spot if they happened, or even escorted off the property. However, if she was truly a threat, why would she be given such a short sentence?

Besides, if you read the article, she's prosecuted for 'gathering information'. Which again, by that logic should I be prosecuted for reading Steal This Book? 1984? Reading is not a crime. This is not a crime because she's gathering information, like the article says plenty of teenagers read things that might be "odd" to others, this is only 'acceptable' because she is seen as an oddball and a threat, which again is how it usually starts.

don't care is because I'm not an alarmist anti-government person who feels that 'the man' is out to get me.

Perhaps that is the case. However, liberty requires eternal vigilance in order to survive.

And in the world we have now when you can literally walk out on the street and protest...just about anything...having my 'freedoms' taken away is not that big of a threat.

And you are apathetic to your own freedom. Which again, is a key part of many dictatorships. People don't think their freedoms will be harmed, or don't see the problem with losing their freedom.

We're not going to wake up one day and be prisoners in our own home, or have newspapers, TV and the Internet censored to the point where we can't trade information freely. Ever.

While that would be nice, your certainty is ignorance. The illusion of freedom is not freedom, and freedom for a time does not mean loss of that is impossible. The only way to be sure that your freedom is never taken away is to fight for it-- and I do not mean by protesting or joining the military.

That's a normal reaction to things like this

The fact that you think that it's a normal reaction to want to arm security guards in a mall, or a school is a very sad fact. It is very much not normal. Beyond being a complete overreaction (remember, this is on a level of people who are distanced from this attack and who have to deal with many other deaths thinking this is a good response), this is also very dangerous. People shouldn't feel afraid of their local police, let alone security guards at the damn mall. Mall guards should be concerned with punks playing their music too loud and people trying to steal CDs, not people with AK47s. Turning your mall security into a pseudomilitary force is a very bad idea.

Because I certainly don't believe those people were as willing to die for their 'freedoms' as you seem to be.

Their ignorance of their freedoms would be unfortunate, then. However, I doubt any of them would want life to become worse for everyone else because of their death either. Yes, it is a Catch-22 in some ways; either limit people's freedoms or risk their lives. However, as Ben Franklin said, those that would sacrifice their liberty for a little security deserve neither. The far better way of dealing with things like this is to consider the bigger picture. Yes, 8 people died. However, that's only a very small fraction of the people that died in that time. I believe that someone dies something like every 3 seconds, although I haven't checked that in a while, and it could very well be far more common. Death is a fact of life. You can put it off for a bit, but if you want to stop people from dying, taking away liberty is a very poor way of doing that. However, taking away liberty is very good for governments that want more power. If you want to deal with this, keeping people from getting access to AK-47s and handguns easily is the obvious first step. This can be done without sacrificing freedom easily through stings. There are other things that could be done, but they would take too much time to discuss without starting a whole new conversation.

fire is a pretty close comparion to human beings.

You think it's ok to snuff out humans when they no longer serve you any purpose? Again, comparing humans to things that do not think is a dangerous comparison, and only applies to those whom thought it up at best.

[Vyuru]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

So, tell me this:

What is the difference between what she did, and making jokes about having explosives that you will use to blow up the plane as you pass airport security?

You know you're gonna get in trouble for the latter, so how is what she did any different?

[Mhurron]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

What is the difference between what she did, and making jokes about having explosives that you will use to blow up the plane as you pass airport security?
You know you're gonna get in trouble for the latter, so how is what she did any different?

Should you be jailed for it?

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

so how is what she did any different?

How is yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre and having an opinion similar at all?

[DakAttack]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

How are you guys actually arguing this? Niether of you make any sense at all.

I'm here comparing situations wherein one there's a space heater dangerously close to curtains presenting us with the possibility of sparking a fire, and a in another there's somebody with thoughts and actions that present us with the possibility of causing trouble. You can't seem to wrap your mind around that, but it doesn't matter, because the points all the same: fix your problems while they're small before they get any bigger.

ISSUES

[Mhurron]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

fix your problems while they're small before they get any bigger.

I hope you have fun in jail since at some point in everyones life they have said or thought something that looks like 'warning signs' of something bigger.

Writing poetry, having thoughts and seeking like minded people out are not crimes. There was no problem here to fix.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Dak: The fact that you can consider humans to be on the same level as household appliances both amazes and disgusts me. There is such a thing as a healthy disconnect, what you have goes beyond that and into the realm of mental problems.

[Grizzlebeard]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Writing poetry, having thoughts and seeking like minded people out are not crimes.

It appears my earlier opinion on you being naive was incorrect, I see now you're just being obtuse and argumentative for the sake of it. Oh, and pray tell me which nation currently has the pleasure of hosting you. I'm interested to know where this moralistic Eden is.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Yes, because the country a person lives in or is from represents everything about them.


Really, dude, you're bordering on racism there.

[Grizzlebeard]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Yes, because the country a person lives in or is from represents everything about them.

Really, dude, you're bordering on racism there.

Curb your righteous indignation there skippy.

The question is relevant to me after his previous comments. However, jump to any conclusions you feel make you look like an e-champ of justice.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Asking where he's from or moved to might be relevant. Getting pissy with other people for the country they are citizens of is not.

[DakAttack]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

I hope you have fun in jail since at some point in everyones life they have said or thought something that looks like 'warning signs' of something bigger.

Writing poetry, having thoughts and seeking like minded people out are not crimes. There was no problem here to fix.

Maybe you didn't read the article...

Samina Malik became the first woman convicted under new terrorism legislation after writing poems entitled How To Behead and The Living Martyrs.

Last month, Malik was found guilty of possessing records likely to be useful in terrorism by a majority of 10 to one. She cried as the verdict was read. Two female jurors were also in tears. The court heard that Malik stocked a "library" of material useful to terrorists at her family home in Southall, west London.

John Burton, defending, said: "She became hooked on Abu Hamza-type addresses and that affected her mindset." The jury was told that she joined an extremist organisation called Jihad Way, set up explicitly to spread terrorist propaganda and support for al Qaida.

Jonathan Sharp, prosecuting, told the court she visited a website linked to the jailed cleric Abu Hamza and stored material about weapons. The court also heard Malik belonged to a social networking website called hi5, describing her interests as "helping the mujaheddin in any way which I can".

The Muslim Council of Britain BSs a lot like you guys do:

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the decision by the judge to suspend the sentence. Inayat Bunglawala said: "It always seemed a rather bizarre decision to prosecute Samina when she is clearly not an actual terror plotter.

"Samina Malik was being prosecuted in effect for a thought crime because she had downloaded some material from the internet which anyone could download." Mr Bunglawala said the case demonstrated how ill-conceived and "incredibly broad-ranging" the law is under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act. "Teenagers download some quite nihilistic material every day and they are not prosecuted," he said.
"The fact that this case went to court sends a very worrying signal that if you are Muslim and you are downloading from the Internet you may be judged to a quite different standard from others. Fortunately the judge has been sensible about this. The wider Muslim community must be relieved that she hasn't got a custodial sentence."

And, finally:

In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Samina Malik was not prosecuted for writing poetry. Ms Malik was convicted of collecting information, without reasonable excuse, of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

[Grizzlebeard]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Getting pissy with other people for the country they are citizens of is not.

Are you implying I did that? Or are you just back-pedalling a few pages in a vain attempt to wrestle an imaginary point in yet another discussion you ran out of steam of again? This recipe of yours for posting in heated debates is getting old now.