- cross-posted to:
- globalnews
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1255681
Archived version: https://archive.ph/tAw7a
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230809205032/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66457089
What country don’t deal with violent threats against their politician seriously? Are you suggesting people should act as if threats are protected speech
every country with a justice system ???
no really … its not normalto do extra judical killings …
I’m gonna throw this out there: if we’re gonna have freedom of speech, it has to include advocating for the violent overthrow of the government.
The people are supposed to be in control, not the government and if the people have the rhetorical means to take their government down taken away in such a manner, they’re not in control anymore. And we see where that kind of thinking leads us
I honestly always thought free speech was a dumb idea that in execution almost solely benefits people who wanna use hate speech and shit anyhow. When was the last time someone actually said something that needed to be said and didn’t get torn a new asshole for it?
At the very least, the American conception’s total trash and we’re still expected to act like it’s the best thing since sliced bread despite it mostly being used to stick up for people that’d get kicked off any self respecting IRC channel in minutes.
Here’s the problem: everyone is fundamentally misinterpreting free speech. It doesn’t mean what people think it does: it’s not about stopping government oppression, it’s about enforcing fundamental respect for human beings, which means hate speech is banned regardless – because bigotry and hate speech by its nature censors other human beings, because it creates an environment where people are discredited and shunned by their peers for stupid reasons, denying them their right to be respected and heard. Hate speech isn’t speech, it’s censorship, and needs to be treated as a censoring act and not as speech since it’s not speech, it’s an action done with intent.
When people adopt that definition of free speech, we can go back to having our cake and eating it too and we’ll start to get back on the right path.
this explicitly not the text of the first amendment, but that document is garbage anyway so it doesn’t matter. I agree with you, but with an additional point: money is not speech and any attempt to use it as such must be squashed if democracy is to have any meaning.
Totally fair and reasonable
careful you’re gonna get a bunch of people calling you a commie.
Mate if I made violent threats about the king or prime minister here in the UK I’d get someone politely knocking on my door and giving me a solid talking to. lmao
It is fucking wild that yanks just think this is normal behaviour. You live in a country that will kick down your door and execute you for posting something stupid on the internet and think that’s what happens everywhere else?
Did the FBI came kicking down his door or did they come to talk to him only for him to refuse and demand a warrant. How would you be treated in the UK if you acted similarly?
Are you out of your mind? They would go away and get a warrant, for a gun thing they wouldn’t even show up without one.
There have only been 80 fatal police shootings in the UK since 1990. In 32 years.
In the USA there have been 8,694 since 2015.
You live in a fascist jackbooted police state where the cops kick down people’s doors and execute them mate. Your failure to recognise this is simply a matter of seeing it as normal when it is completely fucking INSANE by the standards of literally every other country in the world.
Just like they did here. For all we know, there was a shootout that resulted in his death. We don’t have enough info to know what actually happened on during the raid.
The fact that people in the US have more guns than the UK is a major reason there are more police shootings in the US. If more criminals possess a gun, of course it is more likely that they would start a shootout that results in death.
Who’s living in a police state? Why are you assuming I’m from the US? Can you not make baseless assumptions about other people when arguing. I feel like you’re not even talking to me but to an imaginary strawman.
Your last argument is literally useless since I also think the US is insane when it comes to police killings. I just don’t assume everytime that it is simply police brutality because the US has more issues than just that. The amount of guns among the public also contribute to those stats.
“For all we know” is a cop out. You’re giving american cops the benefit of the doubt when they have explicitly demonstrated that you should never ever do that.
Yes. Until the person takes an action like bringing a rifle to within range of the president and actually attempting to assassinate said president, then it’s free speech and you should stop being a fascist.
Making threats isn’t a capital offense but it’s also jot protected speech. It never has been.
Making threats with intent to carry them out and ability to do so is not protected speech. The tricky part is proving intent to actually carry out the threat like having written plans.
I am thinking maybe some free speech here might be appreciated