Brickbat: Careful What You Tweet

Anthony Stevens, a British Conservative Party member of the Wellingborough council, is facing charges of distributing material to stir up hatred for several tweets he posted. Stevens retweeted a video critical of police for arresting street preacher Oluwole Ilisanmi, who was accused of being Islamophobic. Ilisanmi was later awarded £2,500 ($3,143) for wrongful arrest. Stevens was also questioned by police for tweeting his support of King Lawal, a fellow conservative council member who was suspended by the party after he responded to images of Pride parades by tweeting, "When did pride become a thing to celebrate. Because of pride, Satan fell as an archangel. Pride is not a virtue but a sin. Those who have pride should repent of their sins and return to Jesus Christ. He can save you."

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder if this law is enforced in an even-handed manner.

[Jerryskids]

of course it is, they'll punish Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, anybody that criticizes Islam equally. And don't even think about criticizing the Pedophiles.

[Olivahunter]

I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com

[Medulla Oblongata]

Of course, the Islamic pedophiles are double-plus good.

[SarahRicketson]

I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website… http://Www.Smartwork1.com

[Adans smith]

The British stiff upper lip has turned into a pout.

[Fist of Etiquette]

...charges of distributing material to stir up hatred for several tweets he posted.

Here in America our Bill of Rights protects us from this kind of thing. The only thing our government is permitted to do is strong arm Twitter to censor us on its behalf.

[SQRLSY One]

“When did pride become a thing to celebrate. Because of pride, Satan fell as an archangel. Pride is not a virtue but a sin. Those who have pride should repent of their sins and return to Jesus Christ. He can save you.”

This is Christian Pride at work here!

(Why not, instead, "Return to SQRLSY One", who has NO Pride, only shame!)

[docduracoat]

I enjoy how hurting peoples feelings by posting on the net is a crime in England.
How has the mighty British Empire has fallen so low?

[Brandybuck]

I've tried to udnerstand the British system for a long time. The key is that it is a bottom up system. Local politics and local politicians trickle up to parliament and the prime minister. The problem is that the local politics have all been inundated with Karens. They have a vision of the proper way the world should work and they will not hesitate to call the manager (or implement a local ordinance) to enforce that vision.

We actually have the same thing here. Ever been to a small town city council meeting? Same thing, same Karens, but maybe not quite so extreme. But in our system those Karens don't trickle up as readily as they do in England. Heck, there's not even a lot of movement from state legislatures to congress. We've have a more stratified political system than does class-based England. Go figure.

In the end, the key is filtering. Our system filters out the directness of democracy better than theirs. Doesn't mean ours is perfect, we would like more good local people in the higher levels of government, but still we tend to filter out the bad local Karens as a side effect.

In short, England suffers from Karenocracy.

[mtrueman]

"Our system filters out the directness of democracy better than theirs. "

Campaigning for a seat in parliament will cost the citizen about 10,000 pounds, and there is also guaranteed free access to the airwaves. This leads to members of the public like Screaming Lord Sutch of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party taking advantage of the lack of filters. A seat in the US house will cost over a million $, filtered through corporate donors, and it's much higher for aspiring senators and higher still for presidents.

[Don't look at me!]

Words and ideas are dangerous.

[mad.casual]

"When did pride become a thing to celebrate.

Even from a non-religious perspective. OK, it's an innate physical trait like being left handed or autistic or predisposed to certain kinds of addiction... we don't celebrate any of those things. We even can and do frequently regard them as tragic.

[mtrueman]

"we don’t celebrate any of those things"

We celebrate all sorts of innate physical traits like athletic ability or beauty.

[Minadin]

Tell me you were never an athlete without saying you weren't.

[Brandybuck]

Pride is a physical traits? Whoa!

[mad.casual]

Yeah, the fact that "pride" automatically translates to "gay pride" is also absurd.

[Longtobefree]

How does the song go?

When the truth is found to be lies - - - - - -

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Don't you want some dissident to screw

[Unicorn Abattoir]

King Lawal, a fellow conservative council member who was suspended by the party after he responded to images of Pride parades

So the king is not a fan of the queens?

[NOYB2]

Yes, Europe doesn't have free speech. What's your point? Who cares?

[mtrueman]

In some respects Europe and the UK, and even Canada enjoy more free speech than the US. Corporate TV in the US still prohibits foul language and nudity, something acceptable elsewhere for decades. They lack the puritanical roots of American culture that holds sway.

[Minadin]

No they fucking do not. Liar. Gaslight elsewhere.

[mtrueman]

OK have it your way. Bashing the Europeans is right up there with bashing Muslims, Leftists, and perverts.

[Minadin]

You can bash whoever you want as long as you don't swear that you're giving them a massage while you do it.

People are getting arrested and imprisoned for wrongthink and unpopular opinion, and you're over here suggesting that they have MORE free speech protections and that turd sandwiches taste like filet mignon, and we're fucking tired of the bullshit.

[mtrueman]

"People are getting arrested and imprisoned for wrongthink and unpopular opinion"

That's hardly new. There are countries in Europe that have criminalized Nazi regalia for decades. Roger Waters in Berlin was not the first to fall victim to these infringements. At the same time, Europe has enjoyed more freedom and greater latitude of political expression than the US. And it's more than nudity on TV, look at the range of political parties on offer to the European voter. Compare to the uniparty across the water.

[NOYB2]

At the same time, Europe has enjoyed more freedom and greater latitude of political expression than the US.

Really? Where? That ought to be fascinating!

And it’s more than nudity on TV

Yes, because European governments want it that way. The fact that government controlled broadcast station broadcast nudity in conformance with government wishes does not amount to "free speech".

look at the range of political parties on offer to the European voter

Yes: they sure have a lot of socialist, communist, and fascist parties, a consequence of their rotten parliamentary systems.

Compare to the uniparty across the water.

We have a “uniparty” because under the US system, both parties are motivated to move towards the median voter, the center. That makes the US system far superior to the European system.

Speaking as a former European.

[mtrueman]

"We have a “uniparty” because under the US system, both parties are motivated to move towards the median voter, the center. That makes the US system far superior to the European system."

I don't think a one party system is better than a multiparty system. A multiparty system allows politicians to more accurately represent their constituencies, and allows voters to freedom to choose leaders they prefer.

"The fact that government controlled broadcast station broadcast nudity in conformance with government wishes does not amount to “free speech”.

I disagree. The US practice of censoring TV content to conform to puritanical standards is less free speech friendly than allowing the content to be aired, uncut, nudity, obscene language, intact, as intended.

[NOYB2]

I don’t think a one party system is better than a multiparty system.

We don't have a "one party system". We have a two party system that encourages both parties to move close to the median voter.

A multiparty system allows politicians to more accurately represent their constituencies, and allows voters to freedom to choose leaders they prefer.

In the end, lawmakers still have to arrive at specific policies. In the US, those policies represent the median voter and are determined at the ballot box. In many-party parliamentary systems, those decisions are made behind closed doors based on criteria that have little to do with voters.

I disagree. The US practice of censoring TV content to conform to puritanical standards is less free speech friendly than allowing the content to be aired, uncut, nudity, obscene language, intact, as intended.

Nothing is "allowed to be aired uncut" in Europe. European radio and TV is highly censored and manipulated by government; it just happens to be the case that European governments want nudity on TV.

[mtrueman]

"We don’t have a “one party system”.

But you admit to a uniparty system. Orwell would be proud. Prouder still when you tell him that US broadcast TV is not censored.

[NOYB2]

But you admit to a uniparty system.

No, I don't. We have a two-party system. But our two parties are motivated to get close to the median voter. That's a good thing.

Orwell would be proud.

Orwell understood the difference between a uniparty system and a two party system. Unlike you.

Prouder still when you tell him that US broadcast TV is not censored.

The issue of restrictions of broadcast TV has no bearing on whether a nation has free speech or not. Again, I’m sorry you don’t understand the legal and philosophical meaning of free speech.

[mtrueman]

"Again, I’m sorry you don’t understand the legal and philosophical meaning of free speech."

I disagree. You don't need to be a philosopher or lawyer to understand, appreciate or exercise free speech. A simple desire to see TV content as it was meant to be seen will suffice.

[NOYB2]

Pointing out that Europeans do not have free speech is not "bashing them", it's just a fact.

Pointing out that Europeans don't have free speech because the vast majority of them is a bunch of government-indoctrinated, America-hating collectivists could be considered "bashing them", but they deserve that.

Speaking as a former European.

[mtrueman]

What have you got against bashing Europe? Aren't they just as deserving as any of the other usual suspects?

[NOYB2]

What have you got against bashing Europe?

I have nothing against bashing Europe. To the contrary, I think Europe deserves to be bashed.

[mtrueman]

"I have nothing against bashing Europe. "

You seemed to take issue with my comment. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[NOYB2]

Broadcast TV in Europe is government controlled, subsidized, and/or run. The fact that European governments choose to irradiate their citizens with government-sponsored foul language on broadcast media doesn't mean that they have "more free speech".

You'll see how much "free speech" you have when you try to use that same foul language to insult politicians or police officers in Europe.

Yes, please do us a favor and do try it!

[mtrueman]

"you have when you try to use that same foul language to insult politicians or police officers in Europe."

I am capable of insulting politicians, police officers and others the world over without resorting to foul language. You might try it.

"The fact that European governments choose to irradiate their citizens with government-sponsored foul language on broadcast media doesn’t mean that they have “more free speech”."

I disagree. TV viewers in Europe can see productions as they were meant to be seen without America's puritanical censor's interference.

[NOYB2]

I am capable of insulting politicians, police officers and others the world over without resorting to foul language. You might try it.

And you'd be thrown in jail for that too. It's not the foul language that's illegal in Europe, it's insulting authority (among other things).

I disagree. TV viewers in Europe can see productions as they were meant to be seen without America’s puritanical censor’s interference.

You can see productions as they were meant to be seen in the US, just not on broadcast TV. That's because broadcast TV is easily accessible to minors. Such limited place and time restrictions are not censorship.

And the fact that European governments favor nudity and pornography on broadcast media doesn't mean that there is more free speech either.

European nations outlaw entire classes of speech, such as the ability to insult authority, symbols of the state, governments, and religions, anywhere, at any time, in any medium. Those are free speech restrictions. The US doesn't have such restrictions.

[mtrueman]

"Such limited place and time restrictions are not censorship."

I disagree. I understand those who cut and delete nudity and profanity in broadcast TV are not called 'censors,' so you are understandably confused by the Orwellian 'standards and practices,' a much more acceptable notion to Americans and puritanical views.

"It’s not the foul language that’s illegal in Europe,"

I'm glad you've come around to see my point. Very broad minded of you.

[NOYB2]

I disagree. I understand those who cut and delete nudity and profanity in broadcast TV are not called ‘censors,’ so you are understandably confused by the Orwellian ‘standards and practices,’ a much more acceptable notion to Americans and puritanical views.

Look, we are talking about which nations have free speech. Restrictions on lewd or obscene content in broadcast TV are not infringements on free speech. Free speech doesn't mean that you can say anything you want anywhere at any time without consequences.

When you have read up on the meaning of "free speech" and the extensive philosophical and legal analysis behind it, we can continue this discussion.

[mtrueman]

" we can continue this discussion."

I'll take a rain check.

[TangoDelta]

They don’t have a Second Amendment either yet they’re trying to force their backward ways on us with the “Small Arms Treaty” and creepy Joe is doing everything in his power to create a national registry by saying anyone who sells a gun is a gun dealer and needs to get a license. He’s also weaponized the ATF to act as confiscator when they pull that license for “irregularities” even if it’s just penmanship or getting the model and serial numbers switched up.https://www.saf.org/atf-swat-team-raids-parttime-gun-dealers-oklahoma-home/

Guess what the ATF is going to do to you when you sell that one gun.

Also, it’s only a matter of time before the UN starts pushing this shit on the rest of the Constitution. I can’t say they can “fuck right off” quite strenuously enough.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Why are we even talking about this low IQ culture war stuff?

[ace_m82]

Because the State is violating rights? Or is that not good enough for you because they're violating the rights of the "undesirables"?

[NOYB2]

It's Britain. Who the f*ck cares. Are we going to get articles about infringements on free speech in Saudi Arabia and North Korea next?

[ace_m82]

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but our system of laws and rights are based on the English model. So, it's more interesting if the English lose theirs than if people in a country whose rights were never recognized "lose" theirs.

[NOYB2]

Yes, centuries ago. Today, however, the two systems are very different. Foremost, the Brits don't have a Constitution and don't have guaranteed free speech rights. Therefore, it's not surprising that... they don't have free speech rights.

What do you want Americans to learn from this?

[ace_m82]

It was about 100 years ago that the Brits gave their rights to the government ...right around the time the Americans did.
That all State violate rights, by definition.
If you'll note, my contention was that this wasn't a "culture war" issue, but a rights issue. I'm assuming the first post was made by a "left" libertarian who believes that any "culture war" issues are icky and should never be commented on by "true" libertarians ...or some such claptrap.
I don't really care if it's a socialist who got fined for free speech or a Bible-belt Christian. No-one should be fined for what they say. Words aren't violence.
(You can make an argument that actionable threats should be stopped. I disagree, but I don't really care if someone draws the line there. In this case, that's not what's going on.)

[NOYB2]

I'm just saying that the UK is a lost cause. It's pointless getting upset about them or even analyzing what's happening there. Like the rest of Europe, they are an authoritarian, collectivist society. We should treat them like Saudi Arabia or any of the other authoritarian societies we do business with but otherwise don't care about.

[mtrueman]

"Why are we even talking about this low IQ culture war stuff?"

Evidently it's what Reason and the rest of the corporate media want us to talk about. Divide and conquer. Take a random Muslim from the streets of London and another random non Muslim. They have a lot more in common than differences. This is a threat to the state, the people who run the show.

[NOYB2]

You have a lot more in common with a monkey than differences from a monkey. What's your point?

[mtrueman]

The question was put to me:
“Why are we even talking about this low IQ culture war stuff?”

My answer:
Divide and conquer.

"You have a lot more in common with a monkey than differences from a monkey."
Monkeys have tails. Apes do not. The chimpanzee, our closest relative among the primates, is an ape, not a monkey.

[NOYB2]

As I was saying: "You have a lot more in common with a monkey than differences from a monkey." I could also have used "cow" or "lizard", it's still true.

[mtrueman]

" I could also have used “cow” or “lizard”, it’s still true."

I disagree. Muslims and non Muslim humans share more with each other than they do with apes, monkeys, cows or lizards. Hence the divide and conquer. No state manipulates cows and lizards to divide them and distract them from working together.

[NOYB2]

You weren’t making a three way comparison, you were simply comparing the number of commonalities and differences:

Take a random Muslim from the streets of London and another random non Muslim. They have a lot more in common than differences.

Well, that’s also true for you and a cow.

The point is: your original statement was bullshit. If you want to compare Muslims and non-Muslims you have to compare them relative to a third entity.

[mtrueman]

" If you want to compare Muslims and non-Muslims you have to compare them relative to a third entity."

I don't want to compare Muslims, non Muslims and third entities.

The question was put to me:
“Why are we even talking about this low IQ culture war stuff?”

My answer:
Divide and conquer.

[Dillinger]

Douglass Mackey?

[Rossami]

1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstitious, obsolete, right-wing bigots have rights, too!

[Don't look at me!]

You mean Muslims?