Interesting that the transcript shows he was not asked about whether he would feed a homosexual, just whether he would do a favour. He brought up food in that section. I'm sure this is just a misremembering.

When I have some time and not an expensive data connection, I'll look at the other video. I assume that it starts some time before the woman in question begins to interact, so we can see what it was she objected to.

danivon wrote:Interesting that the transcript shows he was not asked about whether he would feed a homosexual, just whether he would do a favour. He brought up food in that section. I'm sure this is just a misremembering.

Not at all. That's what the constable ON THE SCENE asked him.

Nice try. I'm sure that is just a misremembering on your part.

When I have some time and not an expensive data connection, I'll look at the other video. I assume that it starts some time before the woman in question begins to interact, so we can see what it was she objected to.

It does.

Doctor Fate wrote:
Not at all. That's what the constable ON THE SCENE asked him.

Nice try. I'm sure that is just a misremembering on your part.

The sequence of the article you linked to and quoted at length suggested that it was part of the 'interrogation' at the police station. Mybad for taking him at face value.

When I have some time and not an expensive data connection, I'll look at the other video. I assume that it starts some time before the woman in question begins to interact, so we can see what it was she objected to.

It does.[/quote]Cool.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Not at all. That's what the constable ON THE SCENE asked him.

Nice try. I'm sure that is just a misremembering on your part.

The sequence of the article you linked to and quoted at length suggested that it was part of the 'interrogation' at the police station. Mybad for taking him at face value./quote]

Yeah, if I give you that, concede it, say that he misremembered it, it changes what, exactly?

He was still arrested for hopscotch and your law is still a wreck.

The Westboro Church intends to picket at the funerals of the 19 dead Arizona firefighters. As they have at the funerals of numerous American military.
Apparently they see these deaths as retribution from God for America's acceptance of homosexuals and other immoral behaviours...
Now, in the UK, if I'm reading this right - the Westboro Church could be arrested and carted away for inciting hate? But not in the US?

rickyp wrote:The Westboro Church intends to picket at the funerals of the 19 dead Arizona firefighters. As they have at the funerals of numerous American military.
Apparently they see these deaths as retribution from God for America's acceptance of homosexuals and other immoral behaviours...
Now, in the UK, if I'm reading this right - the Westboro Church could be arrested and carted away for inciting hate? But not in the US?

Attempted hijack.

Westboro has nothing to do with this, but thanks for the hypothetical question.

Doctor Fate wrote:
Yeah, if I give you that, concede it, say that he misremembered it, it changes what, exactly?

He was still arrested for hopscotch and your law is still a wreck.

Having seen the video, the police do not ask him that question on there either. What it goes to is credibility and reliability.

On the rest...

Well, if someone was to call the police and identify someone as haing broken a law (one that you do approve of), the general understanding is that they can be arrested without further proof. Once arrested they can be interviewed (interrogation seems a harsh description for that transcript), and maybe (or maybe not) charged.

With public order, our police would tend to either ask people to leave, or arrest them, as a means to reduce the immediate risk of any more breaches.

On the case, he does get close to what I would think of as breaching order. The challenge for someone to 'man up', and calling people cowards is provocative. He does talk of people deserving death (and I guess that's a quote from the bible), he associates homosexuality to other practices in what appears to be a clear way. He on several occasions calls people out. He appears to be talking quite loudly (although clearly has a mic for the video camera).

My main concern to be honest was the little kids running around handing out tracts next to a busy road, to be honest.

As it is very difficult to hear other people over him, it is hard to make out what they did or did not say.

I'd say it was marginal in law. Do I agree with the law? I think it goes too far at times and the police at times do misinterpret it. On the other hand, I don't agree that all of Sass' examples are overzealous (a tweet is not private, for example) and I don't believe in unfettered free speech.

For example, I think it right that those Muslims were charged, and they were found guilty. Saying people deserve to die, however backed up by a verse or sura is offensive. The right to free speech as to be balanced sgainst other rights, the right to hold religious views is not the same as a right to shove them into people's faces.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Yeah, if I give you that, concede it, say that he misremembered it, it changes what, exactly?

He was still arrested for hopscotch and your law is still a wreck.

Having seen the video, the police do not ask him that question on there either. What it goes to is credibility and reliability.

Oh yeah, major, major faux pas. Oh the shame. He mixed a minor fact up after spending several hours in jail.

On the rest...

Well, if someone was to call the police and identify someone as haing broken a law (one that you do approve of), the general understanding is that they can be arrested without further proof. Once arrested they can be interviewed (interrogation seems a harsh description for that transcript), and maybe (or maybe not) charged.

With public order, our police would tend to either ask people to leave, or arrest them, as a means to reduce the immediate risk of any more breaches.

On the case, he does get close to what I would think of as breaching order. The challenge for someone to 'man up', and calling people cowards is provocative. He does talk of people deserving death (and I guess that's a quote from the bible), he associates homosexuality to other practices in what appears to be a clear way. He on several occasions calls people out. He appears to be talking quite loudly (although clearly has a mic for the video camera).

My main concern to be honest was the little kids running around handing out tracts next to a busy road, to be honest.

As it is very difficult to hear other people over him, it is hard to make out what they did or did not say.

Maybe you're listening through inferior speakers. I had no difficulty discerning what the woman said. Then again, you seem to have watched a completely different video than I did.

I'd say it was marginal in law. Do I agree with the law? I think it goes too far at times and the police at times do misinterpret it. On the other hand, I don't agree that all of Sass' examples are overzealous (a tweet is not private, for example) and I don't believe in unfettered free speech.

For example, I think it right that those Muslims were charged, and they were found guilty. Saying people deserve to die, however backed up by a verse or sura is offensive. The right to free speech as to be balanced sgainst other rights, the right to hold religious views is not the same as a right to shove them into people's faces.

The woman walked away. Anyone could walk away. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

On the larger matter, to me, offensive speech is that which needs legal protection. No one cares if someone is out there singing "God Save the Queen." You need no law to protect that.

While I don't agree with the Muslims, I think it is deleterious to everyone's free speech to criminalize some of it simply because someone might be offended.

fate

While I don't agree with the Muslims, I think it is deleterious to everyone's free speech to criminalize some of it simply because someone might be offended

Is is appropriate to now ask my hypothetical...?
Westboro picketing the Arizona fire fighters funerals. (Its their religious belief that they are expressing, concerning punishment from God for Americas tolerance of Gays...).
Is that free speech that needs protecting?
Or is it hate speech that needs to be dealt with according to something like the UK law?

rickyp wrote:Now, in the UK, if I'm reading this right - the Westboro Church could be arrested and carted away for inciting hate?

I would hope so.

fate

While I don't agree with the Muslims, I think it is deleterious to everyone's free speech to criminalize some of it simply because someone might be offended.

Simply being offensive isn't the problem.
Freedom stops when the expression of one's freedom infringes on the freedoms of another.
If the expression of free speech means that the good people of Wimbledon are no longer free to enjoy their public spaces without the constant haranguing of religious fanatics thats an infringement on their freedom.
If citizens who are homosexual or lesbian have to endure, in public, descriptions of themselves as vile scum whose behaviours are to be condemned .... the nat what point do they begin to question their own safety?
If the speech of the ranting preachers incites violence against homosexuals ... hasn't it gone past the point of freedom to where it is encroaching upon the freedoms of others?
When Muslim preachers, in their mosques, preach hatred against the West and Christians many ask why moderate Muslims don't rise and confront the hate.. Justifiable questions ...
when the hateful preachers invade public spaces it becomes more of a problem... Without hate laws how can you confront them? A congregation can't force them out of this church, nor can the congregation abandon the Church and go elsewhere... This ranting is on the street.,..
This space is public and not private. In Fates world everyone has to walk away and abandon the public space to the hate.
Thats happened in lots of societies and there are thousands of examples of minorities that have become the focus of public hate.... Genuine freedom protects all citizens' freedoms. Including the freedom of any minority to live without fear of public hate speech intended to incite the general populace towards discrimination and perhaps violence against them.

The issue of police over reach is seperate to the discussion of speech laws. Any police force, can abuse any law. Managing and policing the police ... is a constant dynamic that requires constant vigilance by the government and citizens. But that isn't exclusive to hate speech laws...

http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/Video-shows-crowd-attacking-religious-protesters-at-Pridefest-214151861.html

It happens in the US, too.

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:Now, in the UK, if I'm reading this right - the Westboro Church could be arrested and carted away for inciting hate?

I would hope so.

I would want more liberty than you allow.

I loath what the Westboro people do (it's more a family than a church--they're mostly related). However, under our Constitution, it is their right to express their views. I don't want the government censoring speech that is not directly dangerous. People getting their feelings hurt, even if it's me or my family, should not be illegal.

rickyp wrote:fate

While I don't agree with the Muslims, I think it is deleterious to everyone's free speech to criminalize some of it simply because someone might be offended.

Simply being offensive isn't the problem.
Freedom stops when the expression of one's freedom infringes on the freedoms of another.
If the expression of free speech means that the good people of Wimbledon are no longer free to enjoy their public spaces without the constant haranguing of religious fanatics thats an infringement on their freedom.

Nice moving of the goalposts. That's not what he was arrested for. It wasn't "constant haranguing" (which is not what he was doing either).

it's pretty amazing that someone can drop the f-bomb and then have their "I was offended" claim taken seriously.

If the location was the issue, they would have arrested him for that. They didn't.

If the volume was the issue, they would have arrested him for that. They didn't.

They arrested him for repeating what the Bible says.

If citizens who are homosexual or lesbian have to endure, in public, descriptions of themselves as vile scum whose behaviours are to be condemned .... the nat what point do they begin to question their own safety?

That's not what happened. Please do try to stay somewhat within reason? Thanks.

If the speech of the ranting preachers incites violence against homosexuals ... hasn't it gone past the point of freedom to where it is encroaching upon the freedoms of others?

If there's a link, yes. Is there in this case?

when the hateful preachers invade public spaces it becomes more of a problem... Without hate laws how can you confront them?

You're making up situations and then solving them. Well done.

A congregation can't force them out of this church, nor can the congregation abandon the Church and go elsewhere... This ranting is on the street.,..

So, you watched it then? You saw calls to violence?

This space is public and not private. In Fates world everyone has to walk away and abandon the public space to the hate.

In your world, religion is hate. That's a small world--after all.

Thats happened in lots of societies and there are thousands of examples of minorities that have become the focus of public hate....

Too many fallacies and too little time.

I'll ask and wait in vain for an answer: did you watch the video??? If so, what was hateful?

If not, please cover your keyboard.

Genuine freedom protects all citizens' freedoms. Including the freedom of any minority to live without fear of public hate speech intended to incite the general populace towards discrimination and perhaps violence against them.

You are flat-out wrong. Genuine freedom is the right to say things that some might find offensive, as long as it doesn't directly lead to violence. Popular speech does not need protection.

Only an idiot would argue the government should be responsible to make sure no one is offended. Following that route, we would have an endless list of laws restricting speech. That's not freedom; it's totalitarianism.

and what would be so bad about the police simply asking this person (or the Westboro "church") to move along? ASk them to move and if the person refuses, THEN arrest is possibly warranted. Seems to me they are too eager to prosecute rather simple and tame stuff. Nobody is hurt, and those who disagree can certainly start some sort of chant against whatever is being said. Don't like what they have to say? Then speak up!