AgentAxeman

?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. So all laws are oppressive are they? Danny B rarely tucked himself in like this. Yup. necessary tho. think about it dimwit. freedom means just that, freedom. not freedom with limits I thought we were discussing what it meant it practical terms. I didn't realise we were doing OED definitions Freedom of speech? it doesnt exsist. you're only allowed to say what the man allows you to say.

?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. So all laws are oppressive are they? Danny B rarely tucked himself in like this. Yup. necessary tho. think about it dimwit. freedom means just that, freedom. not freedom with limits

?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression.

FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. I think you may have misread my post (or I wasn't clear in what my point was), freedom of speech with no limits would not have allowed the prosecution of the perpetraitors of the Rwandan genocide. There must be limits on what can be said when the words are used to compell someone/someones to engage in acts that are contrary to the rule of law in a civil society, the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views. no, i think i've read it correctly. my point is freedom of speech within acceptable limits is not freedom of speech at all. thats like saying "you're free to go anywhere in this cell" when you've been locked up. and who decides the limits? another million dollar question indeed!

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. have you thought that through at all? "advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years." has it ever occured to you that some peoples political aim would be to do either of the things mentioned here? Tbh, i think you'd get locked up if you turned up on your soapbox and started shouting "all Muslims are terrorists" faster than you could say mad mick mcnick! all in the name of "freedom of speech (but lets not hurt anyones feelings eh)" Not saying its right btw. (the Genocide bit)

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? With the right to freedom of speech,thought and expression comes the responsibility not to use it in an imflamatory manner.....thats in some UN accord thing which I cant remember the name of but its the framework of a lot of anti-hate laws in existance. In other words, think what you like, but wind others up by expressing those thoughts in an imflamatory manner and, rightly or wrongly, you're nicked. It's deliberately vague laywer speak and creates more problems than it solves if you ask me. How can you measure the extent of "imflamatoryness" for fucks sakes? so you have freedom of speech but you have the 'responsibility' not to use it? thats just daft. may as well not have the freedom in the 1st place.

I may not agree with his views Alex (in fact, i detest him and his views) but he should be allowed to express them.

FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views what? so the people who were urging this 'cleansing of the cockroaches' weren't doing it for political aims? is that what you are saying? sure sounds like a political motive to me. this may have well been the initial intention of these laws but the side effect (conveniently some would say) is that all spoken opposition to the 'status quo' (cue the jokes) is quashed.

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas?

FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum

get real man, these laws may not restrict ones political views as you say but it sure makes it a criminal offence to express said political views. You may not agree with that and thats your option/choice but at least you have the option/choice to express that. those who have political beliefs which are, shall we say, 'undesirable' do not have that luxury.

:icon_lol: <_< :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :) :nufc: :nufc: :nufc: :nufc:

WTF - Guthrie off?? ffs!

come on Joey - lets chin the bastads!!!!

offside billy sharp

YES!!!

FFS, don't do that! It's imperative that you click on that link, did you not read what he said? Your computer is infected. bollocks! I guess i'll never learn

R.I.P.

no middle class?? you mean masters and peasants will be the norm?? who'd have thought it from our socialist masters! Edit:

nail, head!

Met him a few years ago (2002 maybe??) in NJ. Band i was in at the time was playing a festival over there and we met him backstage after his show with Rob Rock's band. Lovely guy and incredible guitarist. I've got the cd this track was taken from somewhere.

That's what I did. Done