[mGUuZRyA]

I thought this argument was pathetic enough without bringing out the grammar police.

[secondmortgagek]

I thought this argument was pathetic enough without bringing out the grammar police.

It was my grammar to police.

[Tryphadz]

I thought this argument was pathetic enough without bringing out the grammar police.

Well I made a decent attempt with post #57... but I should have realized no one here is interested in having a decent debate.

[gardenerextraordinaire]

Well I made a decent attempt with post #57... but I should have realized no one here is interested in having a decent debate.

I appreciated your effort, but I don't know enough about it to discuss it at that level.

[StanWatts]

I've said before Spara is the worst troll on these forums. It's normally completely obvious and the bait always gets taken.

[FloareTraurne]

I've said before Spara is the worst troll on these forums. It's normally completely obvious and the bait always gets taken.

I don't agree. I think he genuinely believes he knows what he's talking about.

[Muhabsssa]

Well I made a decent attempt with post #57... but I should have realized no one here is interested in having a decent debate.

This is FM, what did you expect?

I don't agree. I think he genuinely believes he knows what he's talking about.

He does appear to be one of the more intelligent members of this forum. However he seems to have a deep hatred of the UK, and is never one to pass up an opportunity to express that hatred.

[Figelac]

He does appear to be one of the more intelligent members of this forum. However he seems to have a deep hatred of the UK, and is never one to pass up an opportunity to let us all know that.

If he's that intelligent, he wouldn't have made such completely stupid remarks in this thread. I suspect he's a bit of a billy know all and just googles any point he wants to argue about with any authority. His practical knowledge of things appears to be almost nil.

[sueplydup]

I thought this argument was pathetic enough without bringing out the grammar police.

The police were actually behind this from the beginning.

By covertly infiltrating these forums, the police have enacted a grammar war that will end in a change in legislation of grammar forever.

Retard.

[sStevenRitziI]

The police were actually behind this from the beginning.

By covertly infiltrating these forums, the police have enacted a grammar war that will end in a change in legislation of grammar forever.

Retard.

It must have just donned on him.


Retard.

[Thigmaswams]

Well I made a decent attempt with post #57... but I should have realized no one here is interested in having a decent debate.

Well, it was the most logical and rational post in the thread, if that means anything. I 100% agree, but it's almost a waste of time arguing against someone so anti-British. In my eye's some people are going from appearing to be annoyingly intelligent to being blind stupid.

--- Post Update ---

The police were actually behind this from the beginning.

By covertly infiltrating these forums, the police have enacted a grammar war that will end in a change in legislation of grammar forever.

Retard.

Are you just going to keep doing that? Quite funny, but it'll wear off.

[Stoottnoiciek]

Are you just going to keep doing that? Quite funny, but it'll wear off.

They were a really ****ing stupid set of comments, you should be teased for a bit more, but you are right.

[DrCeshing]

They were a really ****ing stupid set of comments, you should be teased for a bit more, but you are right.

I don't think they were completely stupid. I just wanted to throw it out there and see what happens because I enjoy those debates. One day you'll be thinking "God damn, Kyros was right!", mark my words. Maybe.

[HedgeYourBets]

Agreed, but the law in the UK doesn't say, 'Offensive tweets are illegal'.

This whole thing falls under Sections 4, 4A and 5 of the 'Public Order Act' which was passed in 1986. Quite a while before twitter. And THAT law replaced an even older one from the 1930's. It covers; fear or provocation of violence and intentional harassment, alarm or distress. It was primarily designed to prevent behavior leading to extortion and duress amongst other things, as well as bullying at school. The law states, specifically (to your point)

Not sure why you're fixated on twitter. We all know existing laws concerning harassment can apply to the internet and precedents have been established and upheld in subsequent court rulings.

I never disputed that excessive harassment and threats of violence should be regarded as criminal acts. DM tried to steer the discussion in that direction because no one can sensibly defend such expressions. That's completely tangential. From the beginning I maintained British law goes much further and ostensibly restricts free speech that does not include physically threatening or abusive language. As the law is written, it is overly broad.

One of the advantages of not having a written constitution, is that people who just generally make life miserable for others, can be thrown in a dungeon.

Emphasis mine. There are reasonable instances when free speech can be restricted, as you point out; however, being a general jackass isn't one of them. While America goes too far in granting liberal economic freedom for the rich, in terms of recognizing individual rights to free speech it's far ahead of Britain. English libel law is another area where Britain has a great deal of catching up to do, as we saw with the Simon Singh saga.

** edit - and I think it's fairly obvious that it's not the LAW, per se, that's interpreted, it is whether or not an action breaks that law. Tweets would fall under 'other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting'. Well, yes, interpreting the meaning of a law and applying it to a specific case are two distinct areas, but one must precede the other.

[PebydataFeents]

You all need to go out and get laid.

[Cgnebksb]

And before DM jumps in to say I'm being overly literal, your earlier post reinforces my concern:

That comment was deliberately flippant, I wasn't taking the discussion seriously, so it's a little out of context now.

While America goes too far in granting liberal economic freedom for the rich, in terms recognizing individual rights to free speech it's far ahead of Britain. English libel law is another area where Britain has a great deal of catching up to do, as we saw with the Simon Singh saga.

Here is where the debate can get interesting. In Britain, your right to free speech is protected in common law, and indeed the onus is always on the prosecution to prove that any expression of speech actually caused harm. This is harder to do that you might think, and actually happens rarely in practice. However, you cannot hide behind 'free speech' as a means of causing undue suffering, or for the purpose of causing commercial or reputational damage to an individual.

Britons are also protected by various Human Rights treaties, which Americans are not, as well as the European Convention, which means if a UK citizen is dissatisfied with the way their rights are upheld in the UK, they can turn to Europe. In terms of free speech specifically, I can't cite any cases, but in the US there is no 'higher authority' you can turn to, if you don't agree with your country's laws.

I do agree with you on libel, and it's being addressed to an extent as there is a full review of current libel laws ongoing, actually started by the prior government.

Finally, artistic expression in the UK, at least on television and radio, is a lot more lenient than in the US. Oddly, this doesn't apply to video games where it's the other way around (UK games have age restrictions), and quite frankly I think censorship is a bigger problem in both countries than the principle of allowing harmful speech or not.

[thierabess]

However, you cannot hide behind 'free speech' as a means of causing undue suffering, or for the purpose of causing commercial or reputational damage to an individual.

Whose fault is it if some people have thin skins? For instance, if merely pointing out that a certain individual is a pathetic loser for vacationing alone in Vegas, if that causes some pussy "undue suffering" then that's the least of his problems.

Finally, artistic expression in the UK, at least on television and radio, is a lot more lenient than in the US. Oddly, this doesn't apply to video games where it's the other way around (UK games have age restrictions), and quite frankly I think censorship is a bigger problem in both countries than the principle of allowing harmful speech or not.

Good point. But I think we can identify religion as the single underlying cause behind America's censorial attitude towards television and Art.

Christianity continues to warp America's attitude towards sexuality. Nudity is discouraged in public. Art that criticizes religion is deprived of funds or exhibition. Just last year, Christian conservatives managed to get the National Gallery to pull David Wojnarowicz's (fairly tame) film because it contained religious iconography. And they don't stop there. Not merely content with censoring art that might be construed as blasphemous, religious conservatives have successfully deprived any form of the Arts of public funding, so what you get in America is art that is largely commercial pop-culture for the masses, neutered corporate-sponsored installations, or more post-modernist crap auctioned off to rich private collectors.

Here we have a perfect example of how granting too much of one freedom can diminish others. The first amendment was never intended to provide religion with the sort of special status and power it enjoys today. America's greatest president (and incidentally, my namesake) Thomas Jefferson made it clear, along with Madison, that freedom from religion is the only way to ensure freedom and social harmony for every citizen. We have an obligation to reduce religious influence in public affairs.

Britons are also protected by various Human Rights treaties, which Americans are not, as well as the European Convention,

True enough, though I doubt most brits and people like DM want to hear most of their rights are protected by a European Convention.

for the purpose of having a dig at Britain. It seems you're still upset about Trafalgar.

Fixed. The Prussians saved Britain's collective asses during Waterloo.

[cefunonge]

Freeze! Grammer police! You have the right to be forcefully kissed with or without teeth in. Anything you say or do will be called cute in a funny smelling home. You have the right to be the favorite grandchild. If you're not the favorite grandchild we'll pretend you are anyway. Do you understand that you're going to visit your grandmother?

[Rememavotscam]

Just read his tweets instead of guessing.

Umm I believe I mentioned that I didnt read it all...nice of you to make it more noticeable...how about u read the thread a bit better!?

[ClaudeMarkus]

At the end of the day the swimmer still lost