Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

[Taskmage]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

I'm sorry to say but they let her off pretty easily. I don't know what you guys feel when it comes to free speech and expression, but I think this constitutes just a little more than simple expression. Say for example an individual was collecting photos of a world leader, advocated their slaying, and was found to possess a snipers handbook per say, how do you react? This is more than simple thought and expression. It would be only natural to investigate this woman and given her activities jail her. They understood the circumstance of the situation and she got off light.

Either there is freedom of speech or there isn't. Personally, I think the entire idea of natural rights is pretty silly, but if a government is going to take philosophy like that and claim it as a basic principle then it needs to put its money where its mouth is. This law says "you have the freedom to your beliefs and ideas unless we think they're dangerous in which case we'll deal with you as we see fit." Remember a time when the popular public opinion in europe was that non-christians were dangerous? If you extend terrorism to include saying things that the government doesn't like then the world is in deep shit.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Dak, call it what you like, but my only point is that it's impossible to argue with your statements because they human life and intelligence on the same level as appliances. I get the whole point about 'preventing danger', but locking a door and sending a girl to prison are two completely different things. Moving a space heater a couple feet over and sending someone to concentration camps cannot be compared.
------------------------------------------
oh, and Dak, I fully agree with your quote. Sadly you don't seem to be able to see the line in it.


And on a completely unrelated subject, I just got a copy of 1984 in the mail. Should be interesting reading with this situation fresh in my head.

[DakAttack]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

I get the whole point about 'preventing danger', but locking a door and sending a girl to prison are two completely different things.

Obviously you don't get the point, because the point is to circumvent aversive outcomes. You lock the doors so people can't walk in and take everything, just like you send a girl to jail (even though they didn't) because she's a terror threat. Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if this were ten years ago, but we're under different circumstances. Ten years ago a bomb threat wouldn't phase a school, but why is it when a rumor spreads and a kid doesn't show up to his first period class the FBI is suddenly dropping out of helicopters onto my high-school and escorting us to our cars?

Ideals and fun and all, but you have to look at it realistically.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Alright, and who can you possibly harm, other than yourself, by locking your doors? Criminals, people trying to commit crimes. Nobody else would care if you lock your doors.

Who can you possibly harm by sending a girl to jail? The girl, her right to think, and plenty of other people by precedent. You harm her family. All this because there's a small chance that she would pose a threat (which again, the court didn't say she did. She was prosecuted for reading, and nothing more, if you believe them.)

You can argue that the prevention here is making the material illegal, which would be a far less insane statement, but then you cannot deny that you are denying freedom of speech.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if this were ten years ago,

And what has changed since then? There were terrorists then, there are terrorists now, although some people might not like that they've hit closer to home. We're still human. We are still either entitled or not to the same rights we were then, threats are not an excuse to remove them. If you think that people do not have rights that must be respected, you're perfectly welcome to move to a dictatorship.

[Ziero]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Dak, call it what you like, but my only point is that it's impossible to argue with your statements because they human life and intelligence on the same level as appliances. I get the whole point about 'preventing danger', but locking a door and sending a girl to prison are two completely different things. Moving a space heater a couple feet over and sending someone to concentration camps cannot be compared.
------------------------------------------
oh, and Dak, I fully agree with your quote. Sadly you don't seem to be able to see the line in it.
And on a completely unrelated subject, I just got a copy of 1984 in the mail. Should be interesting reading with this situation fresh in my head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

First off, I think you should learn to understand what those are.

Second:

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.

You keep insulting others by saying they have no value for human life yet you post this garbage? The big picture is ONE person decided to end the lives of as many other people he could who did absolutely nothing to him. There is very little people can do to stop things like that, but if stopping ONE person from doing that can save other people's lives, then it's worth it. If a slap on a wrist and a watchful eye on one girl can prevent a possible suicide bombing which she repeatedly stated she wanted to do then yes, taking away this one person's 'liberty' IS the best way to save lives.

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.

But then you take away people's rights to own firearms. Who's to say these people would use them to massacre a building full of people. They didn't do it yet, they were just thinking about it.

See how that doesn't work?

However, as Ben Franklin said, those that would sacrifice their liberty for a little security deserve neither.

Every single official law sanctioned by a government is a sacrifice of liberty. Those speed limits take away my right to go as fast as I want. Who are they to tell me to slow down? Those laws against breaking into someplace take away my right to go wherever I want. Who are they to tell me I'm not allowed in? Those laws that prevent me from walking into a store, buying a handgun and shooting where ever I want take away my right to shoot a gun when I want where I want. And those laws that prevent me from gathering information on possible targets, supporting terrorist orginizations both morally and finacially and attempting to contact and join them take away my right to assist in terrorism and blow myself, and any hundreds of people unlucky enough to be in the same area as me, up.

But you know what, if I have to give up *those* rights in order for me, you, the guy over there, the chick in the skirt, the baby in the stroller and anyone and everyone else who follows these rule to be safe, then so be it. But my freedom of speech, it's pretty much in tact. Infact so is that freedom for everyone I mentioned, everyone posting here, everyone reading and responding on this website, and everyone in every free country in the world (of which the UK and US are members of).

For a country to prosper, people must find a balance between freedom and security. To do that, the people must be willing to give up some freedoms to actually be secure.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Ziero: I know what it is. Perhaps you should take the time to read what I'm actually saying before insulting me.

You keep insulting others by saying they have no value for human life yet you post this garbage?

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm simply stating that his argument is null because it places jailing people for crimes they did not commit with moving a space heater. A space heater does not have the ability to care where it is or what purpose you set it to. A human does.

As to my "garbage", you can disagree with it, but anyone who wants to save lives would be far better off making contributions in medicine, education, agriculture, etc., instead of locking up innocent people.

Again, you're sacrificing liberty for security. How would you feel if video gamers were judged to be dangerous? Someone could use the same argument against you-- you have killed people hundreds of times in video games, who's to say you won't act out your fantasies in real life? If locking you up might save lives, wouldn't it be worth it? You can use that argument against all of humanity. If you regulate it tightly enough, and life becomes a prison, yes, it might save lives.

But then you take away people's rights to own firearms.

First, owning guns is not a right anyone needs, it is a privilege at best.

Secondly, even disregarding that, I never said ban gun ownership. I said keep people from getting access to firearms easily. Requiring more than 48 hours to buy one, for example.

Every single official law sanctioned by a government is a sacrifice of liberty.

Two large differences-- one, human rights and anarchy are not the same; two, laws should be about not harming others, not impeding freedom.

Speed limits I disagree with myself, no argument there. A lack of speed limits or even any traffic signage at all can actually be much safer.

Laws against breaking and entering keep you from damaging and trespassing on other people's property.

Laws against firearms and firing recklessly is because there is no possible reason you should be firing a gun wherever you choose at whatever you choose (which almost certainly is someone else's property or someone else.); there is tons of reasons why you would exercise your freedom of speech.

my freedom of speech, it's pretty much in tact.

No, it is not. If you have to qualify it with "pretty much", you do not have freedom of speech. Either you can say what you want, or you cannot. What you describe is the freedom to say whatever the government allows. The UK has proven that they either do not acknowledge or respect people's freedom of speech.

[Ziero]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Ziero: I know what it is.

No, no you don't. Because you keep posting stuff like this.

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm simply stating that his argument is null because it places jailing people for crimes they did not commit with moving a space heater. A space heater does not have the ability to care where it is or what purpose you set it to. A human does.

The METAPHOR places stoping one dangerous situation before it harms anyone next to another dangerous situation before it actually harms anyone. You seem to be unable to comprehend that concept, either that or your completely ignoring it because you have no argument against it.

As to my "garbage", you can disagree with it, but anyone who wants to save lives would be far better off making contributions in medicine, education, agriculture, etc., instead of locking up innocent people.

No innocent person was locked up. She commited a clear and very blatant crime and was punished accordingly. But you trivialized the loss of life for 8 people by saying 'death happens'. You keep claiming others don't care because 'thier own' rights aren't infringed upon, yet here I am considering that the rights of *everyone* in that mall were infringed upon by that one crazy SoB.

Again, you're sacrificing liberty for security. How would you feel if video gamers were judged to be dangerous? Someone could use the same argument against you-- you have killed people hundreds of times in video games, who's to say you won't act out your fantasies in real life? If locking you up might save lives, wouldn't it be worth it? You can use that argument against all of humanity. If you regulate it tightly enough, and life becomes a prison, yes, it might save lives.

It's been proven that video games *aren't* responsible for violent actions. It's also been proven that people who support, encourage and engage in Terrorist activities DO actually kill people. While I may kill people in a video game, terrorist kill people irl. But if I started writing about how I wanted to kill people, going around finding information on how to kill people, sending money to people who will help me kill people and reaching out in an attempt to actually kill people, yea, feel free to lock me up.

First, owning guns is not a right anyone needs, it is a privilege at best.

Who are you to say what my rights are?

Secondly, even disregarding that, I never said ban gun ownership. I said keep people from getting access to firearms easily. Requiring more than 48 hours to buy one, for example.

You said to stop them before they did anything but how do you know there were going to do anything? Until they actually start shooting them, it's all a 'thought crime'.

Two large differences-- one, human rights and anarchy are not the same; two, laws should be about not harming others, not impeding freedom.

Again, laws will always limit one's 'freedoms'. What freedoms are limited is what really matters.

Speed limits I disagree with myself, no argument there. A lack of speed limits or even any traffic signage at all can actually be much safer.

...you don't drive at all do you?

No, it is not. If you have to qualify it with "pretty much", you do not have freedom of speech. Either you can say what you want, or you cannot. What you describe is the freedom to say whatever the government allows. The UK has proven that they either do not acknowledge or respect people's freedom of speech.

I use the qualifier "pretty much" because I am not free to walk into a theater and yell fire, or walk into an airport with a 'bomblike' device on my chest and call it art, or charge into a crowded auditorium and attempt to incite a riot or attempt to take information to terrorist orginizations. But I CAN say anything I want about the government. Here, watch.

Bush sucks

There, see, I insulted our president. I'm not being arrested.

She wasn't arrested JUST for reading terrorist stuff, she was TRYING TO BECOME ONE.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[Mhurron]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

She wasn't arrested JUST for reading terrorist stuff, she was TRYING TO BECOME ONE.

You aren't a terrorist until you commit a terrorist act. Up until that point, you haven't committed a crime.

[DakAttack]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

You aren't a terrorist until you commit a terrorist act. Up until that point, you haven't committed a crime.

Conspiracy is a crime in the United States, but up until you commit the actual terrorist act you're only considered a conspirator. Some would consider you a terrorist just by association though.

[Jarre]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

The thing people are missing the point with is that the law is the law whether it affects a person right or not.

The Uk terroist act has a section on human Rights and it is this section to which the judge looked upon which made his sentance as leanient as it was. She commited a minimum of 4 offenses under the Terrosim act of which she was guilty of fair and square. The fact she didn't act on them made the sentance not a jail term of up to 10 years per offense as stated in the act. The judge considered through all this media circus and who har that continuing in jail was not warrented and gave her a suspened sentance with a few conditions.

In the US if she was found guilty of breaking 4 pieces of law would she be let off that easily like she has here? In many other counties around the world she would have been locked up for a long time. you say there is no human rights here? How? Freedom of speach has its limits especially when it could insight problems, or lead to terroist activities. Justa tiny part whetehr to pass info on, supply money etc all helps the cause to start an attack, the governments have to juggle this with a persons right to express themselves. with the current situation for the publics safety that freedom has to be reduced, otherwise a situation could get out of hand and the people will demand an explanation from the government why they didn't deal with it ... (hey I'm rambling..)

what would you say to the relatives of families who died because her extreemist views got worse and she started acting out what she posted on the internet and what started as poems?

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

How do you people suggest we deal with the spread of fundamentalist ideas? They are spread over videos, dvds, music, books, and especially primarily over the internet. We do not tap these sources typically for displaying and propagating these notions. Their existence is a large reason why fundamentalism carries on and spreads to the masses. How do you suggest we deal with these things with the notion of freedom of speech? Are we destined to deal with effects and chalk it up to a unfortunate byproduct of the liberties we claim to be inherent?

[Taskmage]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

How do you people suggest we deal with the spread of fundamentalist ideas? They are spread over videos, dvds, music, books, and especially primarily over the internet. We do not tap these sources typically for displaying and propagating these notions. Their existence is a large reason why fundamentalism carries on and spreads to the masses. How do you suggest we deal with these things with the notion of freedom of speech? Are we destined to deal with effects and chalk it up to a unfortunate byproduct of the liberties we claim to be inherent?

Time to set myself up as flamebait. You fight ideas with ideas. The real enemy is radical islamic beliefs that encourage the killing of or marginalize the value of civilians who themselves have nothing to do with the conflict. Jailing a single terrorist, a large cell of terrorists, even slaughtering hundreds of radicals is like cutting the arm off an octopus. The organism survives, it heals and grows and when it comes back you're going to be on its shit list. The same goes for terrorists. The killing of all those people that our culture deems innocent did absolutely nothing to stem the tide of corruption that is our culture to them. Because the real enemy cannot be fought with physical force. It is not even our peoples that are at war, it's their beliefs.

Consider the persecution suffered by the Christians and the Jews. How many were imprisoned, tortured, slaughtered and yet what happened? Both survived to become prominent if not dominant world religions.

If one ideology must eradicate the other then the solution will be memetic. The war is to be waged through appeal and stigma, in the hearts of the people.

[Jarre]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Yet again its a war between religeons, being a universalist i.e. do not beleive in any religeon i just can't seem to work out why?

The question is would bannign religeon stop these scuffles that will eventually cause our extinction?

[Taskmage]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Absolutely not. Even if we were to ban the transmission of any idea that involves a concept of God, people would still acquire incompatible ideologies that they would fail to negotiate and ultimately fall into physical conflict over. See the racial massacres of Africa or the ostinsibly political bombings in the USA in the early 90s.