Comments on: Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » International Pressure allows some free speech in not so Great Britain.

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:35:45 +0000

[...] a religion, barrister Shami Chakrabarti and Liberty, and possibly the Crown Prosecution Service. John Stephenson reports – This could definitely be a test case for Britain on whether their many libel laws will destroy [...]

By: link 736 | Molrak.com

link 736 | Molrak.com — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:27:46 +0000

[...] Pajamas Media » Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown [...]

By: Afskaf de forbandede blasfemi- og racismeparagraffer! « Econstudentlog

Afskaf de forbandede blasfemi- og racismeparagraffer! « Econstudentlog — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:44:19 +0000

[...] det kan ske. At det er vanvittigt er ikke nogen garanti for, at det ikke vil ske. Kig mod Canada. Kig mod Storbritannien. Hvor længe varer det, før vi slet ikke behøver kigge ud over vores egen grænse for at finde [...]

By: B Dubya

B Dubya — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:49:48 +0000

It is not for no reason that the unmistakably basic right to keep and bear the means to forceable reistance by every American citizen is writ into the basic fabric of the Bill of Rights. Those without the power to resist tryanny do not resist. Without firearms in the hands of the American colonials in the 1770’s, we would still be British subjects, or French, but not Americans. Without them now, the PC police would have no bridle to curb their more insane desires. Tyrants respect only force and are ruled by their own fears as much as anything. Let them continue to fear us, then.
For the record, I do not love Big Brother. Nor do I hold any degree of regard for his illigitimate offspring, the Obamasiah (may his name be soon added to the growing list of failed POTUS candidates from the Stalinist insired left).

By: » Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown

» Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:54:05 +0000

[...] rights of others. However, in the United States there is no right not to be offended. Click Here To Read The Complete Article Submitted By The [...]

By: Don Cox

Don Cox — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:08:52 +0000

It is true that there has been a big loss of freedom in Britain over the past 30 years. However, this particular case involves the Scientologists (an organisation it would be flattering to call a cult) and the City of London Police, who appear to be unduly cosy with the scientologists. I'm sure you will recall cases of links between organised crime and the police in some US cities. The Crown Prosecution Service has dismissed the case. See here.

By: Javelin

Javelin — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:26:12 +0000

Misanthropicus:
Good work, they are all heinous Stalinist. Your Got any proof? Your type of warped, excessive dishonest post should be as protected as well as mocked.

By: Steynianism 162 « Free Mark Steyn!

Steynianism 162 « Free Mark Steyn! — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:26:47 +0000

[...] FORMERLY GREAT BRITAIN’S Free Speech Breakdown, by John Stephenson. And “To ban Piglet in Britain is to many minds, an [...]

By: Misanthropicus

Misanthropicus — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:03:09 +0000

RE: Uncle Ralph: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
Anyone familiar with British jurisprudence care to take a shot at sorting this out?”

Uncle Ralph, I have to inform you that the British jurisprudence (and not the only Western one, for that matter) has lately incorporated in its discharge many philosophical elements distilled by the minds of Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin Dada, Bokassa and Mugabe. You still can question this issue – yet when retrieving your body your family will have to reimburse the government for the bullets used on you to clarify the matter.

By: Uncle Ralph

Uncle Ralph — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:36:36 +0000

In all the chat about the boy with the "cult" placard, I've yet to see any reference to the Redmond-Bate case of 1999 or any explanation of how the former squares with the statement of Lord Justice Sedley in that case that: "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." Anyone familiar with British jurisprudence care to take a shot at sorting this out?