Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Is the right to free speech ending in America?      Home login  
Joined: 9/15/2015
Msg: 26
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?Page 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)

Those protests didn't go down well with Trump, he called them sons of ****es. The argument has ben going on for 2 years or so but now the people who run the NFL have decided they will fine clubs who allow their players to protest in this way. They are asking instead that the players and staff remain off the field while the anthem is played. I can imagine that some people who would not otherwise have protested joining in. Surely the right to make a peaceful political statement knows no bounds?

I don't think this incident erodes free speech, after all there are always limits to free speech.

Football players are entertainers much like actors, so how they present themselves while on the field is a part of their employment, and it's legitimate for the league to set standards. For instance, "DON’T: perform a choreographed dance, " like after a touch down.

Political statements always have bounds. Freedoms are NEVER unbounded.
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 27
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 5/31/2018 8:16:28 AM

I'm thinking here of the woman who stuck 2 fingers up as trump's convoy drove past. She wasn't in work clothes or at work but she still got fired.

Well, since she was riding a bicycle, she only held up one finger at a time. Also, she is working for a Federal Contractor, which would have drawn some scrutiny with regards to her "protest."

That gesture, "Flipping the Bird," is considered obscene in this country, and she was ostensibly fired for posting a photo of it (an obscene entry) on her facebook account, which seems to have gone against company policy. Many employers have such caveats in their terms of employment now, after several companies have had disgruntled employees posting rude or nasty comments about their employers on social media.

If her shirt had read "Impeach Trump," she may have been o.k.

Anyway, she is suing her former employer. We'll see.

My image (wearing large peace symbol earrings) was televised in the '80s at a political rally, and i worked for a Federal Contractor. I did not even get reprimanded. As a matter of fact, I went to the demonstration with a co-worker.
Joined: 6/11/2013
Msg: 28
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 5/31/2018 8:35:10 AM
Kaepernick is suing the NFL for blackballing him, but it's not true. My state's team, the Seattle Seahawks, wanted to hire him, but he told them he will continue to protest. Basically suing your boss is a good way to not get hired.
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 29
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 5/31/2018 1:34:14 PM
Here is a long-winded article from Rolling Stone magazine. The last paragraph deftly sums things up:

In the end, though, private entities like the NFL and ABC are not required to act in conformity with the central principles of the First Amendment, and if they choose not to do so they can pretty much decide to discipline their employees for their political views whenever they think it serves their moral, economic, or political interests.
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 30
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/1/2018 2:34:08 AM
Thanks for a well reasoned, pleasant and informative discussion.

So the outcome is that legally the NFL and the teams are entitled to do whatever they want really as far as their employees are concerned. I can't think if we've had a similar situation in the UK and wonder how we would react. But I do know how we reacted when ****riots were imprisoned in Russia for making a protest about their government. I can't see the difference.
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 31
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/1/2018 10:09:47 AM

Tommy likes to stand outside courts and "expose rapists" and "paedophiles", but you never see him standing outside any of the courts where members of the "christian" clergy have been convicted.

No so far he only does it outside the trials that are being covered up, where the press have been ordered not to report on it.

I'm indifferent about Tommy, just I can't get over his past, but he's tried to turn it around, tried to go legit as a journalist and has changed the way he goes about things, distancing himself from the racists that used to tag along when he lead the EDL. He works closely with people from many races and religions, he's very close to the Sikh community for example. He's read the Quran, he no longer tries to spread lies and mistruths about it, he actually quotes it and tries to show people how the nutcases can misinterpret it to their own ends.

It's undeniable that if people believe their prophet wed and bed a 9 year old, there will be some out there who use this to justify grooming young girls.

What really annoys me though, is the way the establishment, the elite use our biggest weakness to keep us silent, our very British social class aspirations, they say "if you support these people, these lower class racist football hooligans, then you to are lower class too and everyone will know it".
They did the same thing with Brexit, I think the vote would have been a landslide in favour of leaving, if they hadn't done this.
Joined: 4/23/2018
Msg: 32
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/1/2018 12:33:54 PM
On 7th December 2003, near where I was living at the time, a 13 year old Australian boy named Daniel Morecombe walked to a local bus stop to catch a bus into town. He wanted to get a haircut and buy some Xmas presents.
He set off to catch the 1:35pm bus into town but arrived at the bus stop unaware that the bus had broken down.
At 2:00pm he was seen by witnesses still waiting for the bus. At 2:14pm (approx) a replacement for the broken down bus went past and that driver saw Daniel still waiting. That bus did not stop. The driver had been told to pick up passengers from the broken down bus and take them straight to the shops. He had been told another bus following a few minutes behind him would pick up anyone still waiting at the bus stops. He informed the bus company that a boy was waiting at the bus stop at Kiel Mountain Overpass.
The next bus came along under three minutes later and the driver had been told there was a boy waiting.....but in the less than three minutes it took for the second bus to arrive, Daniel had disappeared.

In the 45 minutes between 1:30pm and 2:15pm on 7th December 2003 Daniel was seen waiting at the side of the road by dozens of people. Later many would give statements saying that they saw a man, or a man and a woman, or two men standing near Daniel.
Many would also say that they felt uncomfortable with the scene and feared for the child's safety.......but no-one stopped.

A 42 year old man was arrested in August 2011 and charged with 5 offences in relation to Daniel's disappearance. Also in August 2011 police found 17 skeletal remains, two shoes and some scraps of clothing all belonging to Daniel.

I was living back here in the UK by 2011 but I saw on FB that an arrest had been made.....and I Googled Daniel's name and saw a clip of the police press conference and the police spokesman was talking to the press about the area in Beerwah Forest where they would be searching for Daniel's remains. One journalist asked "How big is this search area?". The Police spokesman said "It's about the size of a tennis court".

That's when I knew the bloke they had in custody was guilty. He had to be.....or how else would they have been able to suddenly narrow down a search area to the size of a tennis court after 8 years of nothing.

BUT......this is the problem with the Press, the Internet and Social Media. Within hours of an arrest everyone is suddenly an expert. And therein lies the everyone, press included, need to know when to keep their mouths shut.
A defendant has to be assumed to be innocent until the evidence proves them guilty and juries need to be able to judge a case on that evidence......NOT on the opinions of John Smith's aunt's neighbour's cousin's hairdresser....and not on MY opinion either.

The bloke is now in jail and hopefully will never be allowed out again. But there were a few close calls when the jury had to be told to ignore things that they shouldn't have seen or heard. It could so easily have been thrown out of court and the piece of slime walk free.

If anyone is interested this is the actual footage of the undercover police who pretended to be Crims and (after months of work) eventually tricked the piece of slime into admitting to Daniel's murder. It's not easy listening though, so be warned.

The name Daniel Morecombe has meant a lot of things to a lot of people. To his family he was a cherished son, grandson, brother etc. To his school friends (all adults now) he will have represented a loss of innocence....a stark, sudden reminder that there is true evil in the world. To the police and detectives investigating the case, he was a reason never to give up.

To me....who drove past the Crime Stoppers poster near our house several times a week for years, seeing Daniel's picture on the poster had me each time without fail, instinctively glancing in the rear view mirror check to on my own son.
Daniel was a constant reminder to me to hold my own son that little bit watch him that little bit be sure I held on to his hand or the back of his shirt in check the doors and windows at cherish every single minute with him that little bit more.

The idea that Daniel Morecombe's killer could have walked free because someone couldn't back off and shut the fcuk up......and let the justice system to their job absolutely gut wrenching.

R.I.P. Daniel
Joined: 6/11/2013
Msg: 33
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/1/2018 2:19:02 PM
Chap, the issue with protesting for one reason is that it's not about anything that's going on at their job. They're protesting at work, during work hours. There's no inequality there.

Another issue is that Kaepernick was wearing socks to football practice with pigs on them that are dressed as cops. Pig is a derogatory word for cops here. All police are not bad, so it was wrong for him to portray them that way. They equally work to protect and defend black folks. When police leave their homes for work, there is no guarantee they will not be killed. They do get killed every year in large numbers. 135 were killed in 2016, 129 in 2017 and so far for 2018, its 42. Of course there are big problems in the police dept, but you can't damn all of them. We lost so many brave police officers that were first responders for 9/11. Those that weren't killed immediately have suffered and died from breathing in toxic material while responding. Kaepernack was adopted and raised by white parents. Perhaps he's out of touch with how much officers do in dangerous black communities.

I should add in that the problem with the police is not solely a problem for black folks. Some cops are abusive and kill other races also.
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 34
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/1/2018 3:11:44 PM

So the outcome is that legally the NFL and the teams are entitled to do whatever they want really as far as their employees are concerned.

Wellll ... this is where the issue becomes complicated.

Though you will see many references to the players having their First Amendment rights impinged upon, that is quite unlikely to hold up in court, for the reasons delineated earlier.

Whether or not the protest is job-related also has nothing to do with it, except in the minds of some viewers who are likely confused about the issue and not aware of the complexities. Those that side with Kaepernick grasp at the First Amendment, those that are not sympathetic drag in observations about Kaepernick's clothing, etc. Neither of these points of view have any real bearing on the issue or its resolution except to create a myopic lens that favors their personal perspective without regard for the actual legalities. I will say that although, technically, while these are not legal considerations, it is worthwhile to note the rather basic mindset of people who wish to see these issues at a simplistic level, so the owners need to keep public perception in mind, even if it is fallacious in "reasoning" (or lack thereof).

From a legal standpoint, where it becomes more intricate is the fact that the National Football League Players Association, or NFLPA, is the labor organization representing the professional American football players in the National Football League (NFL), their "Union."
However, during the 2011 Collective bargaining agreement (CBA), they declared they were NOT a Union, allowing individual players to bring actions on their own behalf.

The team owners can not act outside the terms of the CBA. For example, the 2014 agreement stated that all players must be on the field by the start of the National Anthem (NA). Now, the owners are considering a requirement that all players who are on the field during the NA MUST stand, or stay behind in the locker room until AFTER the NA is over. There is also talk of keeping all of the teams off the field until the Anthem concludes. But, are either of those options in consonance with the CBA? Any real solution must pass muster with the NFL Players Association.

And, to take things even deeper, there are a number of states (including California, where Kaepernick's old team, the SF 49ers are located) that have their own employment laws to protect employers and employees, which are always governed by the US Constitution, but add yet another layer of complexity to a possible resolution, especially since the N in NFL stands for "National," meaning that the NFL's presence in multiple states requires compliance with employment legislation at the state level, as well.
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 35
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/2/2018 3:18:57 AM
Phew - what a can of worms.

Most of what you are all saying is much the same as here. The hand gestures, one or two fingered, have the same meaning here and would cause the same offence. I doubt someone would get sacked for it though if protesting at our PM for example. Quite different if you told your boss to go swivel though.

Calling police officers pigs or wearing clothes saying that, is offensive, worse in my opinion than hand gestures.

I know full well that not all cops are either heros or racist idiots. But you can't excuse violence by a few by saying that many rushed in and died at 9/11. It doesn't work that way.

You are all more on top of this than me. The protests are reported in the news here but is now very low key except when Trump opens his mouth. Unless and until someone starts to address the unlawful killings, I see no way out of this situation.

We are really a plane ride away but worlds apart. We are never going to understand your apparent love of guns and violence. Police on duty here have a greater risk of violence against them than we the public. But the numbers killed are relatively small compared to the US (which is a bigger more populous country). Yesterday for example, 2 police officers were stabbed in Scotland. Luckily both are doing OK in hospital and the attacker arrested and charged with attempted murder. It is still front page news here - you can read the details here and the statistics are very different - this from the Guardian 2015

" More than 250 officers have been fatally shot since 1945, according to the National Police Memorial Day website. Since 2010, 11 officers of the Metropolitan police have lost their lives in the line of duty."
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/5/2018 6:20:41 PM
Richard Madeley is not someone i know a lot about to be fair but he makes a cracking point below. When politicos are being interviewed they rabbit on about the faults of whoever is in government but seldom say what THEIR party will do.

I think the three strikes idea should be used a lot more. I would also like to see would be mp's having their microphones shut off if they will not state what THEIR party will do. I don't want to hear about the oppositions faults...........

"Cutting short Gavin Williamson was the most popular thing I’ve ever done

I’m tired of obfuscation and evasion. Now I’ve got a new rule for interviewing politicians: three strikes and you’re out

I freely admit that I was one of those who thought Gavin Williamson’s “Shut up and go away” instruction to the Kremlin after the Salisbury nerve-agent attack was risible. Defence secretary as petulant pre-adolescent. Not a good image.

That was two months ago and to my knowledge Williamson has yet to properly respond to the scorn his remark drew. So when he made a live appearance on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Tuesday (I’m covering for Piers Morgan on the show) it seemed as good a time as any to ask him about it.

He joined us via satellite from a Midlands safari park to announce that British soldiers were off to Malawi to help protect wild elephants from poachers. Once my co-host Charlotte Hawkins and I had dealt with that, we played the embarrassing “shut up” clip and I politely asked him if, with the benefit of hindsight, he now regretted his choice of words back in March.

“I’d like to pay tribute to the health personnel who did an amazing job and … ” Oh, Christ. That old trick. Don’t like the question? Just give an answer to one you weren’t actually asked.

I interrupted him. “No, no, no. I asked you a straight question … do you regret using that kind of casual language? That’s the question. Could you answer it, please?” He nodded solemnly. “Well, what we saw is, we saw an atrocious attack on British soil. You saw a British citizen and his daughter targeted. And, actually, how we responded to that … ” Blah, blah, blah, and so on. I sighed, cutting in again. Would he please just answer this simple question?

Another sober nod of apparent comprehension; a third utterly shameless, droning obfuscation. I closed my eyes and spoke to him the way you might to a recalcitrant schoolchild, very slowly and distinctly. “Minister. The question is – I’ll try it one more time – DO YOU. REGRET. USING. CASUAL. TRUMP-ESQUE LANGUAGE. LIKE ‘Shut up and go away’?”

More unabashed talking around the topic. The shamelessness was breathtaking. Enough of this crap, I decided. “You’re not going to answer, are you? OK. All right. Interview terminated.”

Judging by his expression, this was not the outcome our defence secretary was expecting. But it wasn’t the one I was, either. I’ve been hosting live network news and discussion programmes for 30 years and I’ve never pulled the plug on anyone before. And I think that tells you something. It tells you how bad things have got; how well drilled today’s politicians have become at evasion, obfuscation and manipulation during interviews.

I’ve had an overwhelmingly positive response to my snap decision to unceremoniously boot the defence secretary off air; in the news media, social media and on the street. I think it’s the most popular thing I’ve ever done on TV.

So I’ve got a new rule when conducting interviews with politicians who won’t answer the question. Three strikes, and you’re out. If all of us interviewers adopt that principle, the quality of political debate on television will immediately and dramatically improve. And viewers will love us for it.

• Richard Madeley is a television presenter
Joined: 6/11/2013
Msg: 37
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/5/2018 6:54:35 PM
Chap, I know there are plenty of bad cops, and it's not solely about killing blacks, but from other things they also do that are unlawful. I still can't damn them all. They face death every day to protect us. There are protests about police brutality, but people seem pretty content to then sue the police dept and get millions of dollars.

There were a few recent stories where the cops delivered babies, two in April:

"Officer Stephen Koustoubardis said he responded the 911 call of a woman in labor around 8 a.m. Sunday.

At that time, we were flagged down by the husband that was already with her at the driver's side of the vehicle and pretty much delivering the baby in labor at that moment, and I stepped in and assisted the husband," Koustoubardis said."

Then another one:

Port Authority Police Officers Krystal Armenti, Dana Fuller and Catherine Conant delivered the baby in a car service vehicle on the New Jersey side of the Lincoln Tunnel, about 100 feet in front of the toll booths.

“We pulled over and she was screaming,” Karthik Lakshmanan said, about his wife and mother of their child. “I heard her water break.”

Mother Sathyapriya Senthil said she was stressed out when she got in the car.

“When the baby came out, now I'm OK.”

She cited the police officers as being the reason that she and her six pound, three ounce baby are OK now.

****One cop even delivered a fawn after the mother deer was hit and killed by a car:
Joined: 8/1/2017
Msg: 38
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/7/2018 2:36:28 PM
I was watching a few clips on it. Interesting, I see both sides. If you're paid to do work (play football or whatever) then arguably the boss paying you can say don't make me and my team look bad by disrespecting the flag.
But if your beliefs are that it's not about disrespecting the flag, but that your protest is against racist policing and a racist president, then why shouldn't you be able to protest.
So perhaps the right thing is to adopt the middle ground. The players simply stay in the dressing room until after the anthem had played.
Freedom is tricky. Should you be free to say things offensive to others.
Who remembers the satanic verses? Freedom of artistic expression. But it sure did feck off a load of hot heads who chose to express freely their wish that the author was dismboweled beheaded and given a severe ticking off.
My tenpenneth is that you can say things that upset others, but draw the line at making urgefull inciting statements to commit bad tings.
How is delivering a baby a get out of jail card? It's not putting your own life on the line. Millions of babies born each year without such fuss.
Secondly, it's the job description, "fight crime" Will soldiers complain next about being shot at. I'm not saying it's right to shoot at the police. But it's predicatable that if you are going up against bad people with guns who want to do bad things but evade justice,then there is a reasonable possibility that their bad doings will extend to arguing the toss with the police.
I believe several thousands of civilians get shot each year (8000ish deaths annually), and they're not even wearing a badge.
(128 police deaths in 2017, 44 due to gunshot, 47 in auto crashes, reported as the second lowest year in 50 years) out of approximately 900,000 law enforcement officers
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 39
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/7/2018 5:07:37 PM

As for football players, their silent protest is during our anthem with military present on the field, and they are sometimes singing the anthem. It's a slap in the face to our military and the country. Who can protest at their job about something unrelated to their job? No one. The new NFL, national football league, rule is players must stand or the team gets fined, and possibly the player.

This silent and respectful protest has nothing to do with the military - you know it and we all know it. So quit lying a making this into something it is NOT. No one is protesting at their job, their job is on the football field and this does NOT interfere with their job at hand. It is not about the military, it has SFA to do with the military and disrespecting the military.
Joined: 5/16/2018
Msg: 40
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/13/2018 5:34:37 PM
Just another Chump says: We are an island you dumbass. Where would you suggest we build the wall?
Well right where your ass starts bloke. That would keep the gays out and save your pert little sphincter tight and not leaky. Or is it too late for you?

Well try any border that lets in immigrants that are overpowering your nation. Duh!
Don't you have cruise missles like we do to thwart communist countries like N. Korea.

hell We don't even have to use them now because Trump has sealed the deal with little rocket man and he will afford them all the kimchee they can eat.
Nuff said.
Joined: 10/12/2017
Msg: 41
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/21/2018 8:06:50 AM
I'm an American who occasionally ventures into the UK forum. On the rare occasions I attend a baseball game, I go out to the drinking fountain during the national anthem and "God Bless America". There is no god, and I don't want to stand for the anthem because that would imply support for the USA's bipartisan genocidal attacks on Islamic nations. If Kaepernick were anti-war and he kneeled to show he doesn't approve of war, I would support his actions.

One verse of the Star Spangled Banner mentions slaves, implying slavery is OK, another reason not to like the song.

I should add in that the problem with the police is not solely a problem for black folks. Some cops are abusive and kill other races also.

That part is true. Last I heard, black men made up about 23% of the people killed by police in the USA. Black men make up about 6% of the US population.

Women make up way less than 1% of the people killed by police in the USA. Black women make up 7 or 8% of the US population, and women make up over 50% of the US population. Black female privilege!

White men (including white Hispanics) make up over 70% of the people killed by police in the USA, and make up less than 40% of the US population. Clearly there is no white male privilege outside the richest 1%.

Clearly police target men.

In the USA, the number of police killed by civilians is insignificant compared to the number of civilians killed by police. And for those who claim there are good cops, how do they explain the "Blue wall of silence". If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, and deserved to be damned.

Because the NYPD shot Amadou Diallo and other innocent African men with hundreds of bullets prior to 9/11 (and nobody in the NYPD spoke out against the executions), I don't care about any who were in the WTC when they collapsed, and am proud to say I would never give to Backstabbers, and immediately swipe no on any profile that claims blue lives matter, and I vote no on any tax increases for cops (try spending the money on body cams instead of extra pensions).

The NYPD is also bad in violating the 2nd and 4th amendment rights of innocent black civilians with their "stop and frisk" sexual assaults. The 1st amendment still lives in the USA, but not the 2nd or 4th. It's easy for a criminal to move a gun on the streets of NY: just give it to a woman to hide in her bra or purse because the cops don't stop and frisk women.

Another way there's no 2nd amendment in the USA is the so-called "Violence against women" act which takes guns away from all men falsely accused of domestic violence.
Joined: 11/15/2012
Msg: 42
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/21/2018 9:13:47 AM
I do not believe that the coppers in the states target people/men. I think that they are simply scared shiteless and frankly, I am not sure I can blame them given that every Tom, D1ck and Harry goes around carrying weapons over there. Get rid of your outdated constitution and introduce decent gun control laws and you'll also solve your police problem - not to mention the crazy college shootings of which we hear way too often on the news imo.

This idea that guns in every idiot's hands serve any purpose other than escalating violence is bollocks.
Joined: 4/23/2018
Msg: 43
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 6/22/2018 8:19:44 AM
At the time The Holocaust was legal. (When Hitler came into power....step by step....under the guise of safeguarding the state, they imposed new laws that encouraged rearmament, military expansion, and racial purification).

At the time Slavery was legal

At the time Segregation was legal.

Now in the USA it is (as 10ky just stated) legal for every Tom D1ck and Harry to carry a gun.

But Legality should not be a basis for Morality. Morality instead should be the basis for Legality. And that is too often forgotten.
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 44
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/7/2019 6:01:04 AM
Since this thread was last active, the US courts upheld the firing of the woman riding her bike next to the presidential motorcade, who flipped off Trump. She was fired, not because she flipped him off, but because she outed herself and posted the image on her own social media, which ran afoul of company policy, as I explained earlier.

Colin Kaepernick's lawsuit is moving forward and seems to be evolving from "collusion" to accusations of "retaliation."
Joined: 8/28/2017
Msg: 45
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/9/2019 3:42:49 PM
Never forget
IF one controls the language people can use, then one controls how people think, as well as what they think about.

Where once, people who did not think as they should, were burned or lynched in public, now its the modern version, job losses and public vilification.
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 46
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/9/2019 5:27:13 PM
^^^ What???

Why are you posting that dire warning in a thread about Free Speech in America?

You live in the UK, where there is a government ban on certain types of speech.
NOT so in USA, where we still have actual freedom of speech.

Once again, shouldn't you sweep your own side of the street, if you are concerned about the ramifications of how the government "controls the language people can use"?
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 47
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/10/2019 1:34:31 AM
You misunderstand what we in Europe are trying to do. We are addressing racism head on and have made it unacceptable. Most people in Europe agree with this stance. Compare and contrast with America - it might be fine to insult people based on their race their but it is not the way we want to live.

Similarly for sexism and religious intolerance. Why should a woman not be able to walk the street without being whistled at and suffer cat calls?

The article you refer to suggests that the police are routinely involved in nvestigating such crimes. That's not the case at all, it is exceptionally rare.

I feel our society has become more tolerant since my youth and is a better place to live than previously because of these actions by our government.
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 48
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/10/2019 5:57:40 AM
Chap -

Like prostitution and abortion, for example, outlawing certain things does not make them stop, it just drives them underground.

I don't see that this article "suggests that the police are routinely involved in investigating such crimes," but it does show specific examples of "crimes" that we, in America, find very different. It certainly illustrates a difference in the concept of Free Speech between the two countries.

I agree that things are much better tolerance-wise, than even a couple of decades ago - witness the election of a mixed-race President in the US, as one example. We have a very different history than in the UK, with large-scale agricultural operations raising indigo and other crops, primarily for the purpose of supporting the demands of England and Europe, requiring a "large scale import of labor" (i.e. slavery). As you well know, the Americas are not the only colony which "the-sun-never-sets-on-the-empire-of-Britain" exploited, but Britain was insulated from the consequences. Look at this paper from 1946 (WWII era) detailing some of the problems brought on by the British-instituted plantation system.

So, the colonial plantation system, as instituted by the British, in our country and many others, gave the British the products they craved, while leaving the country of Britain at a long, insulated distance from the consequences of these mass movements of people, and as the paper quaintly states, "the general social consequences of their activities." Yes, America kept this entrenched system going for nearly 100 years after the Revolution, but we did abolish slavery as a result of the Civil War.

Now, I bring this up not to blame, but to illustrate that the history of our country with respect to the "consequences" of social and political upheaval stemming from the rightful changes to a way of life that was originally instituted for the purpose of supplying the Europeans, who enjoyed the spoils at a distance, is something that was not experienced by the British. While Britain certainly exploited slavery, Britain never had the sheer numbers of "imported labor" in their own country, making the transition to a free society a very different experience for your own country.

As slavery was abolished, we were faced with building an entirely new society on a scale the likes of which Britain never experienced on its own shores.

I believe prejudice (racism/sexism/ageism, etc.) will always exist. The best we can do is to give people equal rights (the Equal Rights Amendment for women was never ratified in the USA, by the way - women still don't have equal rights in the Constitution). We have chosen not to infringe on the freedom of Speech in our country, because we believe that it is an important right, and that the consequence is that it will just drive the speakers underground. The attitude here is that we would rather have these people speak out and know what they are thinking, and who and where they are, versus operating in the shadows, even if it means we are subjected to their very abhorrent opinions.
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 49
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/10/2019 8:53:42 AM
To illustrate my contention that racism can be pushed underground, but not really prevented by legislation, here is the experience of a comedian who offers her perspective between the racism she experienced in the UK vs US:

Yashere told CBC's q show that the bluntness of Americans toward race is often jarring, but that she has come to appreciate it.

"I prefer good ol' fashioned American racism. 'Cause it's in your face. You know where you stand with American racism." Yashere told q host Shad.

"In England, the racism is very much more underground, more subtle. It's more insidious. You don't even know you're being discriminated against. It's, 'Hello. So nice to meet you.' Smile. Smile. Smile. And then you leave the room, and they say, 'We are never going to employ that woman.'"

A former engineer in London, Yashere said she would find bananas and pictures of monkeys at her job site.

Also, I wanted to clarify my comment about the sanctity of our First Amendment. Of course, it was originally created to protect the populace from any restrictions against speaking out against the government. Probably the biggest concern we Americans have about altering Free Speech to bar Hate Speech, is WHO gets to make the decision as to what is Hate Speech? Is it simply good enough to contend one's feelings are hurt? What entity gets to define this type of speech and are we just on a slippery slope that says we are now in danger of legal repercussions for offending groups of people and getting criminally sanctioned for calling fat people fat, for example?

We do have laws that have serious penalties for Hate Crimes:
Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are the highest priority of the FBI’s Civil Rights program, not only because of the devastating impact they have on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country. The Bureau investigates hundreds of these cases every year and works to detect and deter further incidents through law enforcement training, public outreach, and partnerships with a myriad of community groups.

Traditionally, FBI investigations of hate crimes were limited to crimes in which the perpetrators acted based on a bias against the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, investigations were restricted to those wherein the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity. With the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, the Bureau became authorized to investigate these crimes without this prohibition. This landmark legislation also expanded the role of the FBI to allow for the investigation of hate crimes committed against those based on biases of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender.
Thus far, offensive speech is NOT a crime. In our country, saying anything (with a few exceptions) is not a crime in itself, but it is self-policed, in the sense that boycotts are often the result, and action is taken if the person who stupidly utters some vile nonsense is affiliated with a larger for-profit entity. Witness the broadcasting network, ABC, and the firing of Roseanne Barr along with the cancellation of her show.

These conglomerates do NOT want the fallout from certain acts to adversely affect them. So, that brings us right back to the topic of the NFL protests. The owners are walking a fine line between respecting the differing attitudes of their patron base - those who are sympathetic to the protests and those who just want to be entertained as an escape from the real world and its ever-present conflicts (including racism).
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 50
view profile
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/10/2019 9:14:35 AM
Here are some examples of "speech" NOT protected by the First Amendment:

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.

It's the "Incitement to imminent lawless action" such as rallying one's followers with a proclamation that "we need to kill all ____ (insert descriptor: gay, black, Jewish, etc.) people" that will get the attention of the FBI. However, you can go round saying that "I think all ____ people are stupid" all day long, without suffering legal ramifications, as long as you are not threatening to harm them.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Is the right to free speech ending in America?