Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what do you think his views on the right to free speech would be then?
with suing your ass
so I ought to add a disclaimer where I say I have no reason to believe Nick Griffin is a paedophile and I was only using that as a theoretical example in an argument about free speech.
your allowed to tell the truth, no one can be sued for telling the truth can they
then yes, they can
in the good old days they'd have just firebombed you or beat you to a pulp
Surely slander and libel laws are an obstruction to allowing truly free speech in this country?
But it annoys me when people hide behind their right to free speech without really thinking it through so I went for the most extreme example possible.
If I were to follow you down the street screaming "cunt" in your ear repeatedly I'd hope I'd be open to some kind of prosecution...
But someone smarter than me is bound to explain it
But libel laws are basically there to say "you can't say what you want" (i.e. they're laws against free speech)
between negative and positive freedoms then?
he has been tried and acquitted of inciting racial hatred.
As such and in the absence of any criminal conviction this is only a conviction.
Alleging that he is a paedophile on the other hand would be a lie.
surely includes the right to lie?
Doesn't make you not a racist.
if you read the relevant clauses in the Public Order Act, it is a requirement that you are responsible for material which is "threatening".
It is perfectly acceptable to be racist and polite about it
that there has never, in all the history of the world, been an established society where you could say absolutely anything you liked. Freedom of speech is only ever protected up to a certain extent. There are always limits.
And there should be limits. Obviously nobody should be claiming people are paedophiles when they aren't but also people shouldn't be making claims about other cultures or religions unless they can back them up.
if its true, which lets face it, it is likely to be true.
Most of them are.
and I have no evidence.
I'm still in favour of bumming him until his glass eye pops out. Preferably with the help of a few immigrants with huge cocks and some of the diseases he thinks they all carry.
which is probably baseless prejudice.
Just to say that it's not strictly true that you can't be sued if it's true, more that you can't be sued if you can prove it to be true, which isn't the same thing.
its ironic use of their techniques, its a parody of generalisation, the NF and far right regularly used to call anyone liberal a 'commie pinko faggot'
I was merely applying jaunty insult trading in their absence
from an otherwise intelligent man
:) it was meant to be stupid and purile :D im not always straight.
But can you prove that most of them arn't? Or would I have to pove that most of them are? woiuld I be given a legal aid budget to investigate all of them to try to come up with details of their sordid pasts?
Actually interestingly a previous NF leader was arrested and convicted of (stealing womens underwear from M&S ) Im being serious here
not agreeing wit htheir views, they also used far stronger language and threats and intimidation..............do you think I should wag my finger at them and tut?
deserted me momentarily :)
You'd have to prove they were. That is how the law works (providing you aren't a Muslim who looked a bit shifty once) in this country
with such a heated topic. Of course you are right......but so am I.
They would be the first people to abandon the laws that would defend them in this case. They would allow themselves to defame and slander other groups more.
It is kind of ironic that they would indeed be able to sue or prosecute for foundless allegation when it is only recently that they have taken such care as to skirt carefully rpound things that they can be done for.
if it can be proven that the holocaust occured, and I believe that it was proven, then the denier is basically slandering and libelling every survivor and the families of victims of the holocaust, so he quite rightly should be convicted.
irving was never prosecuted
sorry, i thought you meant the lipstadt case..
i don't see why not. didn't someone prosecute irving for defamation when he accused a specific holocaust survivor of 'being a fantasist' or something?
sweeping generalitions about other races and cultures, you could always say he's a binge-drinking football hooligan with an asbo, a few teenage pregnancies and STDs in his personal history, a killer of iraqi children, a supporter of flawed, spin-heavy, undemocratic political system whose great-grandparents used to boil black people alive and sell drugs to China.
at the accusation his grandparents established trade relations with a foreign country.