Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't believe that there are any restrictions on lawful free speech. There are just those who feel that whatever they say ought not to be subject to any restrictions.

Restricting certain sections of society, whatever their political views might be, from making trouble, is a duty placed by us on those with the authority to do so.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But I would argue that all religious preaching should be restricted on that basis because it surely leads to more unrest than anything.

I believe that a strong case can be made which restricts all proselytisation to private places, like Churches, Mosques or homes, where you can be invited to hear what is being said and decide for yourself whether to accept, or not.

When you censor Churchill. you are giving power to the irrational and the violent. Is that what you advocate?

Of course I don't advocate censoring Churchill. All I have said is that any quote, from any source, when taken out of context and/or selectively quoted can be misused. We all know that you can find a Biblical quote to support every prejudice known to man. That doesn't mean that the Bible should be censored! It just means nothing stands alone.

Did you sympathise with the attack on Charlie Hebdo?
They offended a particular group of people and were murderously attacked.
Is it right that free speech should pay the price or should it be those that use words and pictures as an excuse for law breaking who should be brought to book?

Of course I didn't support the attack on Charlie Hebdo. From all I saw about what was published it was a perfectly fair opinion being expressed in a legal way. If anyone felt offended then they need not buy, or read, the magazine.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

No a strong case cannot be made for this.

This is a similar state of affairs for Christian churches in several Islamic countries. They are only allowed to practice their religion within their own building and if they are foolish enough to try and convert people they are punished for it.

Once you say religions cannot enter the public space then the next step is political opinions you don't like or that some people find offensive.

That's bs! It is not at all like the repression of Christianity in Islamist countries because I am arguing for the restriction of ALL proselytisation in public spaces. That includes ALL religions and not just one and would also include anti-religion rallies and the like. Taken to an extreme it could include any attempt in public to convert others to your own opinion so would need some careful drafting.

You have advocated for the laws that enabled this arrest to happen.

You are the one being disingenuous once again. I have not advocated anything of the sort. All I have argued is that just because certain pieces of text appear in books doesn't mean you can quote them at will and expect to be able to justify using them just because of the author. It's the words and the context which need to be considered. You would not defend an Imam quoting aggressive passages from the Quran whilst waving his hands, calling for jihad and being able to successfully claim he was only quoting from a book.

Before 'New Labour' arrived none of these laws existed to allow this.....you know...back in 'traditional Tory' times.

This has nothing to do with "New Labour" or any other political party. It is just both the law, made by Parliament as a whole and common sense

As for your 'context' argument. This is more waffle. Context is subjective. Saying 'nothing stands alone' amounts to nothing.

More bs! Context is not subjective. It exists. It is real. It can be seen by everyone, except the willfully blind.

If the 'perception' of offence doesn't exist as a charge then no one can be arrested for quoting Churchill or anything else.

You support the laws that enable that and we don't.

You seek to introduce "perception" as an argument only because you don't agree with the law. There is nothing whatsoever new in this. Every law which requires a "reasonable" thing to have happened requires perception, otherwise known as a judgement. As those whose responsibility it is to make those judgements are professional, highly skilled and educated Judges, then it isn't our opinion of the law which matters. It is for the Judge to make a judgement.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2019 1.16am)

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I believe that a strong case can be made which restricts all proselytisation to private places, like Churches, Mosques or homes, where you can be invited to hear what is being said and decide for yourself whether to accept, or not.

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As many, if not most, won't have read him then no they cannot. Words on their own convey their own meaning, often interpreted by the reader to the listener with a particular emphasis.

It is that interpretation being judged and not the original author.

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am not suggesting that Churchill, the Bible or the Quran be made unavailable, censored, let alone be burned.

All I am suggesting is that quoting from any of them, taken out of context and used in a particular way, can be enough to justify the users intent being considered unlawful. Not on their own, but taken as part of something else.

If someone decided to do a public reading of the whole Churchill book, Bible or Quran, without offering any interjections or interpretations of the meaning, then who could object? Selecting specific passages that support a particular narrative and then putting their own spin on them could well be considered unlawful if delivered in a way, or in a place, that might cause a breach of the peace.

It all depends on context and intent and has nothing at all to do with seeking to censor the original author.

You simply cannot justify hate speech by finding a passage in a book whose words, by chance, happen to support your hate.