Where did I say that I was in favour of Section 5?
Well youtube comments are usually insults which you said is why we shouldn't have free speech. So I thought that meant you were in favour of section 5 of the POA, sorry if I was wrong.
Well youtube comments are usually insults which you said is why we shouldn't have free speech. So I thought that meant you were in favour of section 5 of the POA, sorry if I was wrong.
No need to apologise. I'm absolutely fascinated by the proposals in England and very much agree with what Rowan Atkinson said. Nevertheless, discussing where absolute free speech might lead is an interesting way to pass the time. It doesn't mean I'm against free speech.
There is a current thread on the first page here about a certain brand of nutter being allowed to discriminate against people with absolutely nothing to back up their claims.
That and about a million other threads.
But please carry on with your browbeating as it's amusing.
That's not backing up your claims. You've made the assertion so I fail to see why I should go look for the proof of what you say.
I'm not baiting or browbeating you. You claim that people who want freedom of speech are nutters who are unprepared to back up their claims. I'm accustomed to posting on forums with people who support that cause and you would be trolled into the ground for not backing up what you say.
Don't take this personally because it's not meant that way.
I have been saying for a good few years that Britain, in its attempt to become the world's most tolerant country has, in fact, become very intolerant.
I almost agree 100% with RA's comments but there is a part of me that would be unhappy for the more base members of our society to read it that they can be as rude as they please - if all people were able to self-regulate, I think this could work
BIB is incorrect. The fake 'tolerance' is the control.
Comments
So all preaching of religion becomes illegal in your world, then. Hey, perhaps I could live with that come to think of it.
Well anything that can be classed as an insult is against section 5 of the POA.
Where did I say that I was in favour of Section 5?
Well youtube comments are usually insults which you said is why we shouldn't have free speech. So I thought that meant you were in favour of section 5 of the POA, sorry if I was wrong.
No need to apologise. I'm absolutely fascinated by the proposals in England and very much agree with what Rowan Atkinson said. Nevertheless, discussing where absolute free speech might lead is an interesting way to pass the time. It doesn't mean I'm against free speech.
I suppose that depends on what definition of 'liberal' you are using.
I'm not baiting or browbeating you. You claim that people who want freedom of speech are nutters who are unprepared to back up their claims. I'm accustomed to posting on forums with people who support that cause and you would be trolled into the ground for not backing up what you say.
Don't take this personally because it's not meant that way.
BIB is incorrect. The fake 'tolerance' is the control.
It is and I have.
Just because you wish to post otherwise won't change that.
I have supplied the evidence to support what I posted. Nothing more can be said if you refuse to accept it.