https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v24JodvvxnY
Should I be surprised?
Fuck islam, barbaric ideology.
Come get me coppers.
OSS was in bed with the Italian mobsters in WW II. It was created by Irish mobsters. The Israeli Mossad was created by Jewish mobsters.
The OSS morphed into the CIA. The FBI continued for decades under degenerate J Edgar Hoover, who himself was under blackmail because of his drag queen activities. Is anyone surprised, after decades of misbehavior, including drug running and money laundering, that the spooks are rabid?
The spooks love the Saudis.
Depends a lot on details of the law and whether the threats are sentencing extremes not subject to the specific situation the commentator was mentioning. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the video person, but I do recognize that a talented commentator can turn a jaywalking conviction into a 20 year sentence by adding or leaving out some details. Like "was also found with a pound of drugs in his backpack".
I never judge a matter by videos or headlines.
I see the truth is something that is still very important to certain posters here, as is avoiding anything that leans to the left or right.
The people who are actually effected by this law are people who are calling for direct violence against Muslims (or any other group). One guy received prison time for saying that Muslims should be sterilized and gassed, two more for calling for Muslims to be killed. If you are calling for violence, and particularly death, against someone... shouldn't you be arrested for it?
I seem to remember certain posters here who have been extremely critical of Imans who call for violence against the West, and how they have no place in Western society... but apparently calls for violence against people they don't like is acceptable (or at least, shouldn't be punished as heavily, because the enemy of my enemy...).
For people who want to protect "Western values" so much, they sure seem to bitch about those values all the time and have no desire to practice them themselves. Interesting how that works.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on September 20, 2018, 01:30:54 PM
Should I be surprised?
Not particularly, he does have a track-record of outright lying to our faces, and his lapdog not once fact-checking him or holding him accountable.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 23, 2018, 01:12:25 AM
I see the truth is something that is still very important to certain posters here, as is avoiding anything that leans to the left or right.
The people who are actually effected by this law are people who are calling for direct violence against Muslims (or any other group). One guy received prison time for saying that Muslims should be sterilized and gassed, two more for calling for Muslims to be killed. If you are calling for violence, and particularly death, against someone... shouldn't you be arrested for it?
I seem to remember certain posters here who have been extremely critical of Imans who call for violence against the West, and how they have no place in Western society... but apparently calls for violence against people they don't like is acceptable (or at least, shouldn't be punished as heavily, because the enemy of my enemy...).
For people who want to protect "Western values" so much, they sure seem to bitch about those values all the time and have no desire to practice them themselves. Interesting how that works.
Well, let's say that some guy gives a speech saying that all god-fearing theists should kill all atheists. He is safe. He is safe as it is personal opinion. If all real theists suddenly dropped dead today, I wouldn't mind much myself (though there might be production problems in industries and agriculture and no reduction of politicians). Now let's say that he describes some methods. Still probably safe. I can write a book about how to kill people in weird ways if I want to. If someone follows his suggestion, he is STILL probably safe. But if someone in his audience immediately goes out and does that, he might well be charged with inciting a crime.
That's why we have judges... To look at the nuances, question the lawyers on both sides about the details, know about previous decisions in similar situations, etc.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 23, 2018, 01:12:25 AM
I see the truth is something that is still very important to certain posters here, as is avoiding anything that leans to the left or right.
The people who are actually effected by this law are people who are calling for direct violence against Muslims (or any other group). One guy received prison time for saying that Muslims should be sterilized and gassed, two more for calling for Muslims to be killed. If you are calling for violence, and particularly death, against someone... shouldn't you be arrested for it?
I seem to remember certain posters here who have been extremely critical of Imans who call for violence against the West, and how they have no place in Western society... but apparently calls for violence against people they don't like is acceptable (or at least, shouldn't be punished as heavily, because the enemy of my enemy...).
For people who want to protect "Western values" so much, they sure seem to bitch about those values all the time and have no desire to practice them themselves. Interesting how that works.
Thought Police
Quote from: Shiranu on September 23, 2018, 01:12:25 AM
I see the truth is something that is still very important to certain posters here, as is avoiding anything that leans to the left or right.
The people who are actually effected by this law are people who are calling for direct violence against Muslims (or any other group). One guy received prison time for saying that Muslims should be sterilized and gassed, two more for calling for Muslims to be killed. If you are calling for violence, and particularly death, against someone... shouldn't you be arrested for it?
I seem to remember certain posters here who have been extremely critical of Imans who call for violence against the West, and how they have no place in Western society... but apparently calls for violence against people they don't like is acceptable (or at least, shouldn't be punished as heavily, because the enemy of my enemy...).
For people who want to protect "Western values" so much, they sure seem to bitch about those values all the time and have no desire to practice them themselves. Interesting how that works.
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA) is a British Act of Parliament that makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety". It also applies to electronic communications.
Quote from: Jason78 on September 23, 2018, 01:47:02 AM
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA) is a British Act of Parliament that makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety". It also applies to electronic communications.
Good.
Quote from: Jason78 on September 23, 2018, 01:47:02 AM
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA) is a British Act of Parliament that makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety". It also applies to electronic communications.
If I were to tell you that "Your Sister was an annoying neighbor and bad in bed" and that caused you distress, why would it matter that I told you in person or by email? And what if it was true? Would I have to (might I be allowed to) prove that in court?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2018, 02:55:14 AM
If I were to tell you that "Your Sister was an annoying neighbor and bad in bed" and that caused you distress, why would it matter that I told you in person or by email? And what if it was true? Would I have to (might I be allowed to) prove that in court?
One would be slander, the other would be libel.
A court might find enough distress and that a reasonable person would consider your comments offensive. In which case it wouldn't matter if it were true if you or not, you'd still be sending communications to me deliberately designed to distress me. And that's what would be needed to be proved in court.
Quote from: Jason78 on September 23, 2018, 05:45:35 AM
One would be slander, the other would be libel.
A court might find enough distress and that a reasonable person would consider your comments offensive. In which case it wouldn't matter if it were true if you or not, you'd still be sending communications to me deliberately designed to distress me. And that's what would be needed to be proved in court.
I find it a bit odd that a true statement would have any legal consequences. How could an accurate statement be illegal?
Quote from: Shiranu on September 23, 2018, 01:14:10 AM
Not particularly, he does have a track-record of outright lying to our faces, and his lapdog not once fact-checking him or holding him accountable.
Fact checking? Have you studied terrorism at all? Christians and Jews are barbaric savages ... kill them now! Or at least Cavebear has that false equivalence. Christians are Christian savages, Jews are Jewish savages and Muslims are Muslim savages ... get it right! Atheists are the barbaric savages (them and neo-non-Abrahamics).
Quote from: Jason78 on September 23, 2018, 01:47:02 AM
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA) is a British Act of Parliament that makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety". It also applies to electronic communications.
Canada is also stricter than the US, but not as strict as the UK. It is about time we surrendered our Freedom and put the Queen on our money ;-)
Quote from: Shiranu on September 23, 2018, 01:53:56 AM
Good.
I would note, I have the impression you are a pacifist. Very monk-like. No violence physically or in speech ... just totalitarianism by SJWs.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2018, 02:55:14 AM
If I were to tell you that "Your Sister was an annoying neighbor and bad in bed" and that caused you distress, why would it matter that I told you in person or by email? And what if it was true? Would I have to (might I be allowed to) prove that in court?
Put everyone in jail. Have Judge Judy figure it out. Utopia at last!
Quote from: Jason78 on September 23, 2018, 05:45:35 AM
One would be slander, the other would be libel.
A court might find enough distress and that a reasonable person would consider your comments offensive. In which case it wouldn't matter if it were true if you or not, you'd still be sending communications to me deliberately designed to distress me. And that's what would be needed to be proved in court.
And that is why you should do nothing, anytime, except on advice of your attorney. Great work for all the lawyers out there ;-)) Remember, most politicians, who write the laws, are attorneys by trade.
Nothing like a whole series of Baruch posts I won't bother to read to get the day started well!
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2018, 05:52:18 AM
I find it a bit odd that a true statement would have any legal consequences. How could an accurate statement be illegal?
At least in rabbinic law, saying anything about anyone is potentially a sin. If you say something negative, and it is true, you are damaging their reputation. If you say something positive, and it is false, then you are a liar falsely inflating a reputation. If you say something negative, and it is false, then you a liar. If you say something positive, and it is true, then you are still inflating a reputation, which has negative consequences also.
So basically damned if you do and damned if you don't. That and most things most people say aren't factual, but subject to interpretation. Who is to say if an event happened or not? A rabbinic court. Who is to interpret what an even meant? A rabbinic court.
There has been much interaction between canon court (religious) and civil court (civil).
In rabbinic Judaism, gossip (of any kind) is considered second worse to murder.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2018, 07:05:26 AM
Nothing like a whole series of Baruch posts I won't bother to read to get the day started well!
You hurt my feelings. I think I will have the EU arrest you now ;-))
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2018, 05:52:18 AM
I find it a bit odd that a true statement would have any legal consequences. How could an accurate statement be illegal?
Imagine that I ran over your child. Now imagine I'm out of court with a fine and I send you a message. I ran over your child.
Even though it's true, can you see how a jury might find that I said it just to cause you anxiety and distress?