If we vote for Brexit what happens

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Condemns the press for using



Probably wants this legislating against or for the police to take immediate action.

Then succeeds in epic irony:



In the world in which I would like to live, both you and the press should have the freedom to say/print/broadcast whatever they/you wish. The moment it turns to violent is when the law should get involved, not before.

You don't see the difference between the 2 statements?

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeeed I am defending the right to free speech: the loonies left has always oppose such liberties even if the most hate filled vitriol comes from momentum and your frequent hate towards tories, older people etc.

It is amusing to see you defend those white, tory, boomers

You missed the bit about Toblerones, Clapton. Don't hold back now. We need to know your views on that too.

You must be gutted about the chunks. Maybe you can orchestrate a hate campaign against Mondelez's directors labelling them ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE too. Seems to be about you lots style. That's what free speech is after all isn't it, saying whatever you like about people even if you know it to be bare faced lies.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

Calling judges the enemy of the people isn't hate speech: the judges have often been wrong - one thinks of Birmingham 6, Tottenham 3 and numerous other corrrupt judgements supported by them.

Showing 4 mugshots of individual people, with a full page that reads "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE", when those people were just interpreting the law in an impartial way, resulting in a tirade of death threats, is hate speech. You only see that sort of sensationalism with terrorists, and these are most definitely not.

The cognitive dissonance going on in Brexitland is incredible.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

You don't see the difference between the 2 statements?

Of course, in your opinion should they be less free to say/print that than ruggedtoast is on this public forum?

I may not agree that what the paper did was good, I may not agree with their point of view, but I'm not going to say they should be penalised in any way. That is a degradation of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in my view.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Of course, in your opinion should they be less free to say/print that than ruggedtoast is on this public forum?

As professionals, the bar should be higher, plus the content is completely different. If it was 4 mugshots with the caption "Remoaners" people would be offended but move on. If ruggedtoast had direct access to Daily Mail readership and called "Brexiteers enemies of the people" then you might have a point.

One is a vaguely offensive commend, made in an offhand way, on an internet forum. One is a serious accusation made in the press, at a time where tension is incredibly high, and the fanbase is known for being rabid nutters.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

Showing 4 mugshots of individual people, with a full page that reads "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE", when those people were just interpreting the law in an impartial way, resulting in a tirade of death threats, is hate speech. You only see that sort of sensationalism with terrorists, and these are most definitely not.

The cognitive dissonance going on in Brexitland is incredible.

I have always supported liberty and freedom of speech and accepted that sometimes such expressions are deeply offensive.

Whether the judges are 'impartial' is irrelevant as to whether they can or can't be criticised.

If people respond by making death threat then those people should be prosecuted.
Joe Cox was killed by a deranged nut case and not by the people supporting brexit, just as the miners in the car were killed by the people hurling concrete onto their car and not by the other people supporting the striking miners.

System

Palming off hate speech as free speech is the same stunt Britain First and the BNP try and pull off. Low.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

Joe Cox was killed by a deranged nut case and not by the people supporting brexit,.

Many people on here seem happy to blame entire religions when a few deranged extremist nutcases kill someone...

But seem a bit less keen on the concept of 'collective responsibility' when the tables are turned.

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Of course, in your opinion should they be less free to say/print that than ruggedtoast is on this public forum?

I may not agree that what the paper did was good, I may not agree with their point of view, but I'm not going to say they should be penalised in any way. That is a degradation of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in my view.

Yes because ruggedtoast is debating on a minority interest forum that is moderated and read by 15 people, whereas the Daily Mail is read by millions of people around the world every day.

Every one of the people named and shamed suffered a torrent of abuse. Gina Miller has been threatened with violence, rape and murder, if you really can't see why inciting this is wrong, or think that the Mail didn't know this would happen, you are either almost unbelievably naive or you need to think about life.

Conrad

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Palming off hate speech as free speech is the same stunt Britain First and the BNP try and pull off. Low.

You mean like this sort of hate speech, standard slurring by arrogant lefties, people have endured for 3 decades;



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/07/bond-traders-trots-mumsnet-left-centre-farages-mob


”. Nigel Farage will mobilise 100,000 racists and xenophobes to intimidate the court"






Almost ALL the comments, by self proclaimed lefties are hostile to this arrogant journalist.


Most comments reflect this one;


Polly123456
18h ago


315316
Slinging insult to 17 million people is what causes Farages popularity. He is the result of the arrogant left. It looks like the left are too dumb to engage people and think crying racist at everyone will bully and shame them tow the line for their agenda. It won't. The childish name calling is not making Farage look bad