Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a court deems that an act is an incitement to hatred for example, the court can serve an injunction preventing that person from committing that act.
The courts verdict would be predicated on a number of factors such as whether the act would incite people to react in a certain way.
So if 10 people riot in the streets, the freedom of speech of everyone should be restricted to prevent these people from being offended ? Sounds to me the rioters are the criminals.
Your version of freedom to speak does not sound like a true freedom. You can say it if the govt approves. What kind of freedom is that ?
Good point oz. It's as if the British government would be making excuses for the violent acts.
"Well can you blame them for blowing up the bus resulting in 30 deaths? I mean someone did burn a qu'uran"
Given your country's record for resorting to gun crime, if there was a public burning of the Bible in america I have no doubt that violence would erupt.
Given your country's record for resorting to gun crime, if there was a public burning of the Bible in america I have no doubt that violence would erupt.
You are opening a can of worms to debate where you will loose because if you start this debate you will loose because proof will be posted of plenty of violence from common criminals to political riots in England. Some of which includes gun crime in the UK.
Actually it appears you and others hold Muslims to a LOWER standard.
That is more than a little condescending don't you think?
There was nothing condescending in my comments about Muslims being human, being vulnerable to their emotions. They are, in fact, just like you. I'm sure you're capable of common sense, and of rationally thinking about issues. But sometimes it's clear your emotions, your hatred and bigotry, take over. And instead of calmly considering that not all Muslims are extremists, you take the position that they are, and that justifies burning their holy book. If you didn't take the hateful and bigoted position, then you could not justify such an aggressive and hate-filled act. Well, you're human. It's a human weakness. Some Muslims suffer from the same weakness. They don't calmly consider that it's just some American nuts who are burning their holy book. They take the position that all Americans are hate-filled bigots.
This aggression will just escalate, until common sense and rationality prevail.
So if 10 people riot in the streets, the freedom of speech of everyone should be restricted to prevent these people from being offended ? Sounds to me the rioters are the criminals.
Your version of freedom to speak does not sound like a true freedom. You can say it if the govt approves. What kind of freedom is that ?
Why isn't the president defending this church's right to freely exercise their religion?
Every politician I have seen on morning news shows (I only watch tv in the morning) over the last several days has said that the man has the right do do this. But while admitting his freedom of religion and freedom of expression, they have also used their own to say that what he wants to do is stupid and wrong. And I've heard this from both Republicans and Democrats, both conservatives and liberals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
