Three years ago, we discussed the conviction of a British man for “toxic ideologies,” under the draconian laws criminalizing inciteful or dangerous speech. The erosion of free speech appears to have only accelerated in the UK. As is often the case, the attacks on free speech increase during periods of unrest, anger or fear. With the recent anti-immigration riots, British authorities have used their laws to round up a large number of citizens expressing anti-immigrant views and some have already been convicted. Those cases include Wayne O’Rourke, 35, who has been sentenced to three years in prison for “stirring up racial hatred.”
As I have previously written, the riots were triggered by false reports spread online about the person responsible for an attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded. Despite false claims about his being an asylum seeker, the alleged culprit was an 18-year-old British citizen born to Rwandan parents.
The government and news outlets were quick to challenge these accounts, but violent riots have raged across the country, including such despicable acts as burning immigrant housing.
There is no question that the government should crack down on such violence and arrest those engaging in criminal conduct. However, the government immediately pursued those who were expressing hateful or inciteful views.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the collapse of free speech protections in Europe and the United Kingdom specifically. That discussion includes the case of Nicholas Brock, 52, who was convicted for his collection of racist and extreme right material in his home. Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE) acknowledged that others might collect such items for historical or academic purposes but Brock crossed the line because he agreed with the underlying views:
“From the overwhelming evidence shown to the jury, it is clear Brock had material which demonstrates he went far beyond the legitimate actions of a military collector…Brock showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
That “commitment” is evident in a slew of arrests after the recent riots.
The United Kingdom is an example of what I describe as a pattern of “rage rhetoric” becoming “state rage” in these periods of unrest.
Once again, many of these postings are worthy of condemnation as racist and inflammatory. Many of us have done so. Defending free speech is not a defense of the underlying viewpoints but rather the right to express opposing viewpoints. Good speech can then rebut the bad speech.
The United Kingdom is now committed to silencing opposing views through censorship and criminal charges. As discussed in the book, such laws have never succeeded in history. Not once. They have never killed “toxic ideologies” or deterred any movement. What they do is suppress the free speech of everyone in an ill-conceived effort to legislatively ban hate in society.
An example is found in Germany, which has long had some of the most harsh censorship and criminalization laws.
According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.
They have silenced the wrong people, but there is now a massive censorship bureaucracy in Europe and the desire to silence opposing voices has become insatiable.
Recently, I wrote about the chilling message of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that not only will British authorities arrest citizens for anti-immigration postings but may pursue others in countries like the United States for stirring up trouble.
Now, they are imprisoning “keyboard warriors,” who express inciteful thoughts.
According to the local Lincolnshire Free Press, O’Rourke encouraged his 90,000 followers to join the protests and told them how to remain anonymous during protests. That is similar to many posts on the left by groups like Antifa.
O’Rourke wrote such postings as “People of Southport where the f**k are you, get out on the street,” “give them hell lads,” and “Sunderland, go on lads.”
Notably, his counsel Lucia Harrington assured the court that her client wants to “re-educate” himself on these issues.
His self-imposed “reeducation” was not enough for Judge Catarina Sjolin Knight, who denounced O’Rourke and “[t]he flames fanned by keyboard warriors like you.”
Lincolnshire Chief Superintendent Kate Anderson promised more such cases for those espousing disfavored views: “This charge demonstrates that we will take fast and decisive action against anyone suspected of sharing harmful content online. We retain a commitment to proactively police and keep people safe across the county.”
Many others have been similarly charged. That includes first offender William Nelson Morgan, 69, who was seen holding a stick and refusing to disperse at a protest at a library in West Yorkshire. He was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison even though he did not take part in rioting. While there can be legitimate charges and penalties for a failure to disperse, the roughly three-year sentence seems fueled on the content of his viewpoints rather than his specific actions.
Likewise, Billy Thompson, 31, received 12 weeks in jail for posting emojis depicting minorities and a gun with inflammatory language. He did not participate in the rioting.
There are many more such cases being reported daily.
As in Germany, years of prosecuting free speech has achieved nothing beyond chilling the speech of all citizens. For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.
A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
There is an alternative to criminalizing speech. You can punish criminal conduct including proportionate sentencing for the failure to disperse. You can then allow free speech to combat false or hateful viewpoints. British politicians have acknowledged that a large number of citizens hold anti-immigration views. Cracking down on such viewpoints will change few minds and likely only reaffirm the anger directed against the government.
Opposition to these laws has fallen to a dwindling number of free speech advocates in the UK, including author J.K. Rowling. Rowling has opposed a Scottish law, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, that criminalizes speech viewed as “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”
For those in the United States who have remained silent in the face of our own anti-free speech movement, Europe offers a glimpse into our future if we do not fight to preserve this indispensable right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
Anyone with even a modest college education acquired prior to 1972 will understand, completely, where this is all heading on a global scale. Unfortunately for us, there aren’t enough truly well educated people remaining and we are aging out quickly.
Pro-Emigration Reform
Emigrate to where?
When ‘Dennis’ sees the headline “Keyboard Warrior”
will he think his Jonathan finally responded to him?
LMAO
Worth posting right above the troll.
Nothing, you say is worth posting, much less prominently.
Oliver Reeder is the lawn boy, Elvis bug
Worth posting this more prominently. The good Professor has often quoted as evidence of beastly British oppression the case of a woman arrested for praying outside an abortion clinic, despite the fact that this, as a lawyer such as he should appreciate and differentiate, was simply arrest, not conviction.
Only yesterday, the dear lady received £13000 damages from the police, along with an apology, for two wrongful arrests and false imprisonments; assault and battery in relation to an intrusive search of her person; and for a breach of her human rights both in respect to the arrests, and to the onerous bail conditions imposed on her.
As I say, Turley is too often relying on incidents of overreach by police, not actual convictions. One shows that British police, just as in the USA, can be idiots. T’other demonstrates that the legal system actually protects against such overreach.
It will be interesting to see if the Professor continues to trot out this incident as “evidence” in future… I suppose an acknowledgement by the Professor that such overreach has been slapped down on this occasion would be too much to ask?
James: “Oliver” seems to rely heavily on an overuse of ostensibly-British colloquialisms, verbal quirks, and an acute awareness of ethnolinguistics, to convince us that he has more time to critique American life and law, than to humbly offer/proffer his brilliance to his own Auntie Beeb and fellow homies.
He also seems to be quite familiar (as though following this blog site for quite some time) with the fact that “the good professor has often quoted” the incident of the praying woman.
Methinks we are witnessing the chameleonic reincarnation of yet another troll.
Good morning Lin!
Well said!
Bingo
Last week he was French, and before that he was a Reagan Republican, and before that a conservative never Trumper. He was also the “puppet watch” and the clever little boy replying to himself with 18 one liners in a row.
He imagines himself some sort of “writer” for “TV and film” so he likes to try out his material here. You know him as the lawn boy, Elvis Bug
Claims the heroic Mr Anonymous…
“Claims the heroic Mr Anonymous…”
By implication, it must follow that you consider yourself “heroic” for posting a handle here.
Is that how it works on your side of the pond, ol’ chap?
No wonder you need the help of the insurrectionists to avoid being obliterated in WW2.
Waters, Capt, USN, Ret
* shiver me timbers!
And your constructive response to the specific case I have presented above would be…?
The BBC rarely allows comments by the way, as it does not like having its worldview challenged.
Nice play on an actors name and a Jack Reacher character, old chap!😂 just use dumfuk
The critique is self evident. The woman was wrongly ARRESTED. You seem to think it is fine to wrongly arrest someone; force them to deplete their resources and devote their time to defending themselves against a wrongful arrest.
To make matters worse, the conduct for which she was arrested was silently praying for the souls of preborn children gruesomely killed. Not for conduct that actually harmed anybody’s liberty or damaged property. But for standing silently on a public street in front of an abortion clinic whose mission is to kill preborn children.
The only reason she received a bit of compensation is because decent people – which presumably excludes you – were so outraged by the oppressive authoritarianism that the authoritarians responded. It took almost TWO YEARS for the authorities to cough up a bit of taxpayer cash. Were the police who executed the wrongful arrest held accountable? Was anybody in government held accountable? Or were the taxpayers who pay the authoritarians to oppress them the only ones punished and held accountable?
Has anyone ever seen Oliver and Elvis Bug in the same room?
Notice how he is ALWAYS and ONLY absent from the blog when these puppets show up….
Tomorrow he will be back to claim it wasn’t him.
That makes zero sense to me. Anyone could post comments using an unlimited number of screen names in quick succession, if desired. What incentive would this cretin have to make himself absent while posting using the other names?
Res ipsa loquitur
But it doesn’t.
Res Ipsa loquitur
Lin, perhaps because he IS British. You don’t think Turley’s blog is read by British readers? One chose to post because Turley being critical of British law and compared it wrongly to with the 1st amendment just to plug his book.
Too many posters have been dealing with trolls and those constantly changing their handles. Oliver does seem genuine and clearly knows what he’s talking about. Why would it be odd that he knows certain things about Turley’s blog? He’s made very good arguments critical of Turley’s column and clearly he can defend his position better than most.
He’s made very good arguments critical of Turley’s column and clearly he can defend his position better than me
most.Fixed
To your point, when Lawn Boy hasn’t been drinking, he can argue quite well. Doesn’t happen often, but when he does, he is worthy. You, on the other hand, are pathetic LOL.
* jawboning!
Lin, perhaps because he IS British. You don’t think Turley’s blog is read by British readers?
George, while attempting to prop up Oliver Reeder forgets that Oliver started one of his posts by saying “Nobody over here cares what Prof. Turley thinks”.
Now George is attempting prop him up by saying, yes indeed, Brits do read Turley’s blog.
And there George/Oliver are: hoist on a petard of their own words. Yet again.
“Methinks we are witnessing . . .”
Yep.
The giveaway is that “Oliver” is trying too hard. And that its motivation is obvious: to smear Turley. This time with the overly affected, typically British passive-aggressive. (“I suppose an acknowledgement . . .”)
It’s like watching a high schooler audition for an A-list role: cringeworthy.
“As I say, Turley is too often relying on incidents of overreach by police, not actual convictions.”
Oliver, Turley’s comment about the praying woman was contemporaneous with the event, so Turley had no chance of knowing what would happen later. He was right to mention the incident when he did. For all you know, it was the pressure from others, including Turley, that led to the settlement. That is how freedom of speech functions, though we don’t know in any one case what caused the result.
You wrongfully dwell on this case, so why not consider Turley’s criticism correct, as later found by the British legal system, instead of being critical of him? Why not provide your corrections of Turley’s statements of fact rather than dancing around them?
“It will be interesting to see if the Professor continues to trot out this incident as “evidence” in future…”
I hope he does because one doesn’t wait until a despotic government is in place to criticize it. Is that what you want him to do?
“You wrongfully dwell on this case, so why not consider Turley’s criticism correct, as later found by the British legal system, instead of being critical of him? Why not provide your corrections of Turley’s statements of fact rather than dancing around them?”
Because he has offered it as evidence of an erosion of rights when said erosion is not something those of who live here perceive. It was imply massive overreach by idiotic plod. The British legal system did not need the wisdom of Professor Turley (your suggestion that he might have influenced the case, by the way, is laughable as his opinions would have no standing here) to set right the situation. By your logic, does every case of overreach by US police or other authorities represent an erosion of liberties when corrected? Yes, if uncorrected, maybe, but when they are corrected. At least our judges and prosecutors are appointed solely on the basis of legal competence, not political partisanship.
Simply, not “imply”, obviously!
Because he has offered it as evidence of an erosion of rights when said erosion is not something those of who live here perceive.
Oliver, really? No one in your country perceives an erosion of free speech rights? Logically that is absurd.
By your logic, does every case of overreach by US police or other authorities represent an erosion of liberties when corrected?
Absolutely yes, even if corrected. The erosion is reflected in the overreach. It’s reflected in the self-censorship to avoid being subjected to a costly judicial process that may or may not be corrected by the court. Erosion is reflected in the process, not just the outcome. You may not feel the erosion, but I guarantee that everyone caught up in the overreach of the police or other authorities feels it, even if they are saved by the judicial process.
“Because he has offered it as evidence of an erosion of rights “
Are you telling us this type of police action in Britain was typical years ago?
“The British legal system did not need the wisdom of Professor Turley “
My British and Canadian friends think Turley’s wisdom is beneficial.
“your suggestion that he might have influenced the case, by the way, is laughable as his opinions would have no standing here”
My suggestion was that others, including Turley, may have influenced British actions. World opinion does affect nations. Do you believe you represent the center of the universe and that no other thoughts need exist?
“does every case of overreach by US police or other authorities represent an erosion of liberties when corrected? “
Sometimes, corrections are too little and too late. Should any government overreach and put people in jail only to release them later? Does that release absolve the government from misbehavior?
” At least our judges and prosecutors are appointed solely on the basis of legal competence, not political partisanship.”
Are you inferring you have studied the differences sufficiently to make such an argument? My guess is very few can do so. Appointments need not be based on competence. You take a lot of things for granted
“does every case of overreach by US police or other authorities represent an erosion of liberties when corrected? “
Sometimes, corrections are too little and too late.
SM, I would say every time. Every infringement of rights, from minor to major, are equally unconstitutional. A correction by the court might restore some confidence in the judicial process. It might even restore some confidence in law enforcement, if the abuser of those rights was punished. But the overall confidence in the system will have been nudged or shoved in a negative direction. In our DoI, Jefferson wrote That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,… The point being that the security of our rights is always eroding.
You are correct, Olly, but sometimes an honest mistake differs from an overreaction triggered by repressive laws.
You are well-versed in the Constitution. I’ll bet that you have a copy of Hillsdale’s book, The US Constitution, a reader that includes the US Constitution, the surrounding founding documents and documents involved in its preservation. You are always on target.
“Are you inferring you have studied the differences sufficiently to make such an argument? My guess is very few can do so. Appointments need not be based on competence.”
Should not judicial appointments absolutely be made on the basis of competence? My point was that we in the UK do not elect judges, we do not elect prosecutors, we do not elect “sheriffs” (Chief Constables). One need only look at the whole slew of recent high profile US court cases, several involving a former President, to see that the political route by which prosecutors and judges in your fair land have reached office is sometimes highly contentious. Prof Turley has himself questioned, rightly or wrongly, the competence, judgement and political imperatives of some of these legal officers.
I am certainly not claiming that the UK legal system is perfect. No legal system is infallible. But it is exceedingly rare for judges here to be accused of naked political motivation, and a huge issue if such perceptions do arise.
Notice ol’ Proximo here refers to Turley columns of long ago, as though he has just been lurking here. Funny this name only recently appeared.
Why would he lurk here? “No one “over here” cares what Turley says”.
You are falling all to pieces here bruh. Best just stop denying like Svelaz.
“Should not judicial appointments absolutely be made on the basis of competence?”
Oliver, it’s essential to maintain a balanced perspective. Neither the appointment nor the elected system is a foolproof guarantee of competence; each has its own merits and drawbacks.
The US uses both systems and has failures in both. Turley criticized appointed and elected judges, so the proof does not support your theory.
“But it is exceedingly rare for judges here to be accused of naked political motivation,”
Among other things, Americans are more vociferous in their use of freedom of speech than Brits. That leaves you with a hollow statement.
I imagine this will be similar to other things the British have pushed over the years. Go all in on something, and then in a few years do a complete about-face, and look down their noses in contempt at those who don’t turnabout with them. Rather like the Atlantic slave trade, which they were very much in favor of before they were against it. British politics are a seesaw. For a very long time their irresolute, flip-flopping fancies had the potential to embroil the world, in India, Egypt, Africa, America, etc. No longer. They were hanging on by their fingernails after the first World War, and went ahead and let go after the second. They are a spent force. There is no reason to pay attention to the silly antics over there, with pretensions of a superiority that is long gone, if it ever existed. The curtain is going down again, and they are lowering it themselves. There will be no encore.
British politics are a seesaw.
None of that British seesaw here in American politics! America today under Obama’s Third Term – intending for a Fourth Term – is no different than American politics in the time of Reagan and Thatcher.
We aren’t much different than the Brits on The Long March To Socialist Hell… sometimes one at the front with the other following, other times the reverse. And the Canadians to our north are pretty much on the same journey, traveling the same road to the same destination.
Almost like neo-Communism isn’t contained by any country’s borders.
All but we have to do is step back, and watch as the despotic UK government continues to step on their citizens rights and watch what happens.
Take notes.
Upstate, I sense a possible civil war in Britain. This doesn’t look good.
No, they did the smart thing and took away the guns first
Bob,
Civil war?
Not so sure.
I could see a continued increase in protests as the people whom have felt the oppression of the leftists in the government, to the point where the leftists will do something even dumber than they have before and double down on the oppression of the people. The situation escalates, more protests, turning violent as the leftists use more and more oppression then things go really badly. Then it will become clearly apparent the kind of tyrannical government the leftists truly are.
The question is, will the Biden/Harris regime denounce it or cheer it on?
“First they came for the citizens of the UK,
but I just stepped back, watched, and took notes.”
But our enumerated right to free speech will be protected here.
The second amendment was written to protect the first amendment
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but it is worth remembering that rights are not enumerated. The first amendment does not enumerate a right. The right already exists. The first amendment prohibits the government from infringing or abridging that right. Powers given to the government by the people are enumerated.
The difference being, rights are not limited to those that are spelled out, but powers are. A right doesn’t have to be spelled out (enumerated).
* Don’t forget the penumbra.
“The first amendment does not enumerate a right. The right already exists.”
Ditto for the Second, and it may be more primal than what government is prohibited from restricting in the First, in the sense that a natural right to self defense can be argued to extend to all creatures, not only to those gifted with speech.
We are learning more every day about how other animals communicate.
Of course self defense is a natural right to anything living.
The second also exists to protect the other rights, if need be.
The way these amendments are worded clearly defines them as already existing (naturally).
Back in 2020 Harris didn’t pick up one delegate in the dim primaries. Now she walks on water. Oh, who needs those pesky primaries anyway.
I would have bet money that “inciteful” is not a real word and I would have been wrong. However it became a word, as far as I can tell, on the wrong side of the verbal blanket, because somebody made it up in the 70s and nobody had the energy to say “Hey bub that’s not a real word.” Insightful is a word. “Inciteful speech,” in my opinion, should be simply expressed as “incitement,” which is a real word even without the kumbayah rules of modern grammar where everybody is allowed to just make it up as they go along.
“inciteful”
So, your definition of a “real word” is one for which that you can find a definition claim on some web page somewhere? If I can find a web page describing in detail how pigs are able to take flight, or how Democrats are capable of exercising good moral judgement, does that make the claim authentic?
A word like that made it into the 9th Circuit Appeals court yesterday. It bamboozled the judges effectively.
* It was Dr. Seuss. Look what he did to music—> rap.
it is always “right wing” “far right wing”. Never any referral to the lunatics on the left as far left.
Those that oppose their ridiculous tyranny are all obviously Adolph Hitler. This is how we know those in power are innocent and correct, you nazi.
All the demoncrats worldwide approve this as their only message.
That language is inciteful. Himshe better be careful. They’ll disappear you.
1956, with the left they are mostly peaceful protest.
“1956, with the left they are mostly peaceful protest.”
Is that intended to refer in some way to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution that was brutally crushed by the Soviets?
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/
It’s astonishing to watch Western Europe careen toward fascism again; Britain is certainly giving everyone a run for their money, though, with our own modern left close behind. The double standard couldn’t be more apparent, and it’s getting pretty reprehensible. If ever there was a time to exercise your right to speak up and support others doing the same, it’s now.
James,
What is disturbing to me is there are those here in the states who want the same, if not more fascism.
@Upstate
No doubt. I’d like to think that many are simply misinformed through insularity and the number of true radicals is minimal. It is definitely largely restricted to younger, ignorant cohorts, but it is alarming nonetheless. I always had a feeling that this might be a possibility when generationally we’d lost most of our population that experienced these things first hand in the past, in the West, anyway.
Typo in my email address, av is wrong. But it’s my reply. I actually see the wisdom in the Professor’s logic regarding comments: having the trolls post creates an environment where sense and fact overwhelmingly become apparent in contrast, and there is less danger of an echo chamber.
James: I, too, goofed and addressed a comment to you that instead shows up as a response to “Oliver.” Ooops.
Posted at 9:44.
“What is disturbing to me is there are those here in the states who want the same, if not more fascism”
Just yesterday Dennis was cheerleading that Kamala, if elected, would “more than likely” sign a similar bill. Like the true fascist pig that he is, he didn’t bother to explain how that bill would pass CLOTURE in the Senate. Just more “reconciliation”, I suppose.
The part he is too dumb to imagine is all the people standing in line to be the first to get cuffed and take it to SCOTUS.
I’ve never seen better weather.
Impossible. The planet is burning.
Europe is the source of many bad political ideas. Maybe most. Why should we be surprised at this latest development?
Alas for our British cousins. They appear to be just a few steps away from the horror they fought in the 30’s and 40’s. Suppression never works for long.
Hoping I’m wrong
Who is crushing them for decades over a past war ? Germany was mistreated badly for multiple decades.
I suppose you could twist an answer from internals.
The world needs a good dust off, as long as it’s not a nuclear war!
The western governments need a good kicking, not some new nation vs nation conflagration they run while they haul in the newly created fiat from their fat lazy recliners.
It’s a revolution needed (many), not a civil war, not any other war.
“You can then allow free speech to combat false or hateful viewpoints.”
Of course that is one way to do it. Social media sites who are private can also moderate speech and even censor it if it is fueling ongoing violence and inciting it. The UK site the Telegram did just that. But X provided another venue for those being shut down in Telegram and Elon egged them on which is why the EU has been critical of Elon and threatened to fine his platform.
Being critical is one thing (and not unuseful…it’s free speech); fining is something completely different.
All the big social media sites are public private government partnerships, X much less so now domestically.
Google and facebook were started by the us government. Meta is it’s appendage demoncratically.
Cut the total BS.
Our own screams tiktok is the chinese governments playbook, look in the mirror idiot.
“All the big social media sites are public private government partnerships.”
No, they are not. They are private companies. Google and Facebook were not started by the government. Zuckerberg created Facebook, Google was created by Larry Page and Sergei Brin.
As you said….Cut the BS.
Turley seems to not be able to distinguish inciting language and mere rhetoric.
“O’Rourke wrote such postings as “People of Southport where the f**k are you, get out on the street,” “give them hell lads,” and “Sunderland, go on lads ”
That is clearly inciting others to violence. That is NOT protected speech, yet Turley defends the call to ‘get out on the street and given them hell’ as a mere point of view. Even here that wouldn’t be considered protected speech under the first amendment.
What are you babbling about this time ? Your own insanity again it appears.
Calling for a redress of grievances is not inciting violence.
That’s not a redress of grievances. It’s a call to violence. Calling for others to take to the streets and “given them hell” when there is active violence Is inciting others to go and join in the violence. It is certainly not protected speech here or there.
There is no mention of a specific violent act? Give them hell lads?
You’re a moron. They have been invaded by every third world shithole Nation in the world. They have repeatedly voted against immigration levels and yet they are still coming. They have every right to kick these invaders to the curb, however they choose.
The global cabal sees it as their punishment for bringing a higher level of civilization across the world as an empire. Sonny want a lollipop?
Quite insightful!
“There is no mention of a specific violent act? Give them hell lads?”
Reading comprehension is a serious problem on this blog. Try using the whole statement for a change.
“People of Southport where the f**k are you, get out on the street,” “give them hell lads,”
Calling for others to “get out on the street” when there is active rioting on the streets and to “give them Hell” IS telling others to act and break the law. Rioting and burning buildings is also a crime in England. Let me reiterate, “get out on the street” and in same post to “give them hell” is telling them to act with an intent to harm. Even the dumbest people there knew what he was saying, the ones who listened went on to commit acts of violence. That’s incitement and it’s certainly not protected speech.
“Calling for others to “get out on the street” when there is active rioting on the streets”
Kamala called for people to get out on the streets and to continue, WHILE THERE WERE RIOTS GOING ON.
Pathetic. Twist and twirl.
So what you’re saying then is that right here in America California Representative Maxine Waters incited mass violence against CONSERVATIVES?! There were on-going riots by BLM and Antifa as she went on National television and called for her fellow communists to get in their faces, interrupt their activities, disrupt their lives. Is dropping pallets of bricks off in the City before planned demonstrations inciting a riot? Is refusing National Guard troops before looting and arson inciting violence?
Better call 911 or the FBI and alert them.
It’s protected here. WE have it all the time from the lefties and the demoncrats. Where have you been ? Hiding in the dirty greenzone basement ?
We literally had “PUNCH A NAZI” going on for YEARS publicly.
So, you should SHUT IT, you’re spreading misinformation and may get reported to your government for abusing a greater ally. I have Nina Jankowitz on speeddial, and yes, she has friends in Embassy.
“Get out on the street” is clearly a call to assemble in the public square, not to pillage and plunder.
That is ridiculous.
This from a turd brain who is good to go with “When we fight, we win”.
Who is “we” and who are they fighting?
“Get out on the street” is clearly a call to assemble in the public square, not to pillage and plunder.
It is when there is active rioting and there’s calls to burn buildings down. You know, things you say ANTIFA does.
Clearly you are struggling to make an argument. A bad one.
I dont discuus antifa. They dont exist. its just an idea.
Bwahahahahaha
George “because I say so” Svelaz
You know when its clear one doesnt have an argument?
When instead of answering a question, they respond with some nonsense about reading comprehension.
Bwahahahahahahahaha
“and there’s calls to burn buildings down”
He didn’t call to burn down buildings or even imply that anyone should. Specious and spurious.
Unless Kamala was when she said keep it up as people were burning buildings down.
“The government and news outlets were quick to challenge these accounts, but violent riots have raged across the country, including such despicable acts as burning immigrant housing.
There is no question that the government should crack down on such violence and arrest those engaging in criminal conduct. However, the government immediately pursued those who were expressing hateful or inciteful views.”
Yes they were quick to challenge accounts spreading the false rumors. Those rumors were being spread by online sites like the Telegram and X. What Turley still leaves out is those sites were spreading peoples calls to incite violence and call to burn buildings and immigrant housing. Inciting violence is NOT protected speech. Informing others how to make weapons and how to use them on people or structures is NOT protected speech. This is exactly why the EU called out Elon Musk after the Telegram was trying to shut down violence inciting posts and Elon allowed X to be a conduit for those who were shut down by Telegram.
So of course the government was pursuing those who were expressing calls for violence and inciting violence online, both which are NOT protected speech even in this country. Turley continues to ignore this fundamental distinction. Europe is correct for going after those who are exercising speech that is NOT protected by the first amendment here.
“I have previously written, the riots were triggered by false reports spread online about the person responsible for an attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded. Despite false claims about his being an asylum seeker, the culprit was an 18-year-old British citizen born to Rwandan parents.”
False reports that led to rioting and continued to be fanned by Elon and others online to push the violence further. That is not protected speech.
The old world’s political masters threaten to come after their critics in the new world. Europe still shows the same penchant for tyranny that caused so many millions to flee it. What gives their elites the right to overrule the people they have abused so that they can continue to assert the “right” to abuse them for their own profit? The “divine right” of these new Woke monarchs who are openly fascist to dictate?
Absolute tosh. No one has threatened to come after anyone in the New World. Turley misunderstood a comment by the rather dim Met Commissioner regarding British idiots inciting trouble online from overseas hotels with the nonsensical idea that the Met wanted to extradite Musk. If the EU did anything, it would be against the commercial operation of X or other platforms in the EU (and remember, the UK is no longer part of the EU) not their billionaire owners. Just as the US reserves the right, correctly, to limit TikTok and other Chinese entities in your country.
The “mostly correct about 95% reports” that were more than mostly peaceful didn’t incite anything.
Suddenly the entire recent history and dozens of active cases fitting the billings EXACTLY are forgotten by you clueless weasels.
What incited the proper responses was a decade of abuse and criminality ongoing by the government and their co conspirators on the invasion of the native’s lands.
You’re such a lying idiot it’s unbelievable anyone is that stupid, really.
Mostly peaceful? Like the Jan 6 excuse. Pathetic. If it was Mostly peaceful why were so many heading the calls to riot and engage in violence against immigrants from online incitement. The riots grew because the majority of those calling for it were doing so online. They were fanning the violence and encouraging it.
Looks to me that your demoncrat government lying arrogance and ignoring their fellow native citizenry and favoring their new illegal pets and your multicultural failures and your crackdowns for decades are the only thing causing any unrest.
You keep punching the entire native populace in the nose over and over again it’s not some kid who whines why you letting the bully beat you to death that did anything wrong.
Stop beating the native citizens to death you stupid colonizer.
Kamaml called on rioters to continue on TV
Why iasn’t she in jail?
George’s Memory Hole at work: Mostly peaceful? Like the Jan 6 excuse. Pathetic.
George hopes normal Americans believe American history only began the day of the three hour riot January 6, 2021. There is no American history from 2020 and that election season.
George hopes normal Americans forget his fellow Soviet Democrat street thugs that launched an assault on the White House a few months prior to J6 – so dangerous that the president and his family were evacuated to a nuclear bunker, while over 50 Secret Service and Capitol Police were sent to hospital with wounds suffered repelling the Mostly Peaceful Assault On The White House.
George hopes normal Americans don’t remember that prior to J6, America suffered MONTHS of Election Season Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging, Looting, Arson And Murder at the hands of his fellow Soviet Democrat street thugs in Antifa and Black Liars & Marxists. Not three hours – MONTHS. HUNDREDS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE RIOTS. “Mostly peaceful”, of course – because they were Soviet Democrats.
George hopes Americans don’t remember the Mostly Peaceful Soviet Democrat Violence ended up totaling over 540 separate riots across the country, dozens of Americans murdered including law enforcement officers, federal buildings and court houses assaulted, burned, and occupied. More damage in total than Hurricane Katrina.
The only violence that Memory Hole George can remember and mention is a three hour long riot on J6.
George’s demands that normal Americans Memory Hole the months of election season Soviet Democrat Mostly Peaceful Political Violence and only remember J6.
This is why George is a Cheap Fake American and a Soviet Democrat Apparatchik.
Did you know 75% of jobs created in their economy are taken by non-citizens? Their economy is struggling too.
Send them packing lads!
Fish and Chips to Humus and Pita
They don’t have enough people to fill all the jobs they need to sustain their economy. Brexit was justified by using immigrants as scapegoats for their poor economy. When Brexit was finally in force the UK ran into an immediate and hilarious problem. They didn’t have enough qualified truck drivers to deliver goods and services. Upon realizing this oversight they begged for truck drivers from the EU. You know what EU Truck drivers did? They gave the UK a stiff middle finger. Ever since Brexit their economy has shrunk and stagnated it is still a disaster and the EU continues to do well without UK. Now the UK is having serious second thoughts about leaving the EU single market.
Whatever they did, it was what the people wanted. So why is that hilarious? Do you dislike GB citizens, or just the conservative ones who don’t share your opinion.
You think its hilarious that liberal folks suffer right along with the majority?
That would explain a lot.
They were misled into it. Today the majority of brexiteers express remorse or have had the feeling they were misled.
It was animosity towards immigrants and scapegoating them for internal problems that preceded Brexit. Racists and right-wing bigots in parliament pushed thru the idea. It turned out into an abject failure. That’s one reason why there’s such animosity towards immigrants because they are once again being blamed for the failures of Brexit instead of blaming people like Nigel Farage, and prime minister-Trump-look-alike-Johnston. The far-right made a mess of England.
You never answered why you think thats funny
“There is no question that the government…”
A typical low IQ tactic. Begin the sentence this way, and no one will question whatever you say following that.
False reports that led to rioting and continued to be fanned by Elon and others online to push the violence further.
Where was Intellectual George when Soviet Democrats were fanning The Election Season Of Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging, Looting, Burning And Murder to push the violence further?
Seven years ago with the clockwork repetition by Soviet Democrat politicians lying that Michael Brown was murdered by a police office while on his knees with his hands up saying “Please don’t shoot”. And they still do it…
The fanning of the Mostly Peaceful Violence with the endless parade of Soviet Democrat politicians telling Americans that America is systemically racist; take to the streets in protest and riot?
The fanning of the Mostly Peaceful Election Season Violence by then Senator Harris telling Americans about her Mostly Peaceful Violent Street Thugs burning America “They will not stop, NOR SHOULD THEY STOP!” – while helping to encourage the Mostly Peaceful Violence with personal efforts to get as many who were arrested bailed out as fast as possible in order to get back to more Mostly Peaceful Violence.
That is not protected speech.
George never said that when it wasn’t Elon Musk (who he loathes for depriving him of Twitter as one of his party’s political propaganda arms), but instead Soviet Democrats like Harris, Biden, etc who were fanning the flames and legitimizing the violence of The Election Season Of Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging, Looting, Burning And Murder.
The obvious and clear unwillingness to equally apply a standard or law to all, regardless of your political biases is one of the primary identifying marks of Soviet Democrats and their Marxist Useful Apparatchiks.
George is a Cheap Fake American… and a Cheap Fake Human at the same time.
Because that is British law, where free speech is necessarily tempered by the upholding of social order and basic law. Stick to US law, Professor, and leave alone other, much older legal institutions. No one here gives a damn about your imagined indispensable right, nor your Constitution; relevant to the USA, irrelevant absolutely everywhere else. You are sadly not competent to comment upon foreign laws and societies, and just make a fool of yourself when you venture to do so. Once again you cite instances when individuals were arrested by over zealous police, but did not result in convictions, precisely because the judicial system worked to protect them.
I deeply respect your views on US law and the Constitution – play to your strengths, avoid your weaknesses 🙂
Yeah, freedom is irrelevant everywhere but America. Not. I pray it never becomes irrelevant here. Don’t tell us what we can think and say. I’d say it to your face, the same as Elon did.
Moronic comment, failing to understand the difference between freedom, which I certainly enjoy, and in the pursuit of which I have served my country, versus absolute freedom of speech, which is an absolute that sane individuals reject…
I’m sure you served no one but the devil in the pursuit, and certain you know it as well.
The devil does not hand out medals. Her late Majesty did, so she was obviously happy with the manner of my pursuit.
Now Oliver has a medal LOL
More than one dear boy, but one does not like to boast.
I assume yours are engraved “Anonymous”?
And yours are engraved with a play on a British actors name?
Bwaahahahahahahaha
Oliver Reeder tried this More than one dear boy, but one does not like to boast.
Except for the fact that is exactly what you just attempted to do as part of your Appeal To Authority – boasting that you served in the military and were decorated while doing so.
Soooo…. you won the VC? Military Cross?
Or was it the more likely collection of I Was Also There decorations?
Queen Elizabeth Jubilee medals, perhaps? Or an air force wog that collected a medal every time their Herc flew over or into some place where the troops were on the ground below? One of the Royal Navy’s undisciplined civilians who was decorated for sleeping in a cot and eating in a galley every day while in support of the troops somewhere out there in the dirt beyond?
Posers like you attempting to claim special status because they wore the uniform are nothing new, either in the UK or here in the USA.
Meanwhile, that other fine Brit soldier Lord Kitchener was decorated in war for killing about 26,000 Boer elderly, women, and children with inexpensive concentration camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps#/media/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
You were awarded yours for similar yeoman service as Kitchener did for his valiant service in the Boer War, Oliver?
She obviously knew nothing about it.
Another lying gasbag murderous sheep idiot.
The devil does not hand out medals. Her late Majesty did, so she was obviously happy with the manner of my pursuit.
As somebody with 30 years in a military uniform and almost ten in a police uniform, I hold a special contempt for culls from any country that attempt the Appeal To Authority by mentioning the fact they served. Compounded by putting special effort into mentioning they got medals.
MY! AREN’T YOU UNIQUE AND SPECIAL!
Now if you were actually awarded a medal for bravery by Queen Elizabeth herself, then feel free to tell us about it. You won the VC, perhaps? Military Cross? You know: bravery in combat stuff?
Or maybe it was just one or two of the medals celebrating being in service on a particular anniversary of Queen Elizabeth’s reign? The ones handed out wholesale For Being There, no matter if you just got into uniform or were a few weeks from retirement?
Because the vast majority of medals handed out by the Monarch throughout the Commonwealth are not presented by the Monarch; they aren’t even aware you were given the decoration that has their name appended to it. Perhaps importantly, most are decorations, whether for being one of the mob who served on a deployment or operation, recognition of time served, etc.
Not medals won in combat – which is what the culls talking about getting medals hope to insinuate.
To put a finer point on it, it is hard to serve any amount of time in any Commonwealth/NATO military without collecting a few medals along the way simply for showing up for work in a regular basis.
The idea that evil is not awarded with medals, whether authorized by the devil or the Monarch of the day is to display ignorance of (more likely hide) your own history.
Lord Kitchener’s subjugation of the Boers in the Boer War by throwing Boer civilians – old, women, and children – into concentration camps was richly rewarded with medals from the Monarch. About 26,000 in total; a significant number of the total population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps#/media/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
When you get decorated by the Monarch for killing tens of thousands of Boer elderly, women and children using concentration camps to do it… it seems like Queen Victoria who decorated him was also the devil you claim doesn’t hand out medals.
You really should be more careful of who you attempt that Appeal To Authority with, hoping to pander off your claimed military service and medals.
Ditto your assumption that nobody outside of the UK would know anything about UK history or their military.
You attempting to pump and fluff yourself up by associating yourself with Queen Elizabeth, to trade on her life of service, marks you as nothing but one more disgusting shyte stain on the UK.
The only thing I would caution, Airborne, is that not all acts of heroism and bravery are performed in “combat”.
“Because the vast majority of medals handed out by the Monarch throughout the Commonwealth are not presented by the Monarch.”
One of mine was actually graciously pinned on my lapel by Her Majesty. A very special moment which I will take to my grave.
I mam not appealing to authority, just reacting to someone who disparaged my service by making reference to the devil. (The devil, of course, is a concept borrowed by early Christianity from Zoroastrianism, namely the demonic “Great Lie”, Ahriman. Those cheeky Iranians. But hey ho.)
And are your medals engraved with a play on the name of the actor Oliver Reed?
Because here, we don’t “engrave” your name on the medal, dum dum. If it’s an individual award, you get a citation with it, that has your name and the reason(s) for the decoration. If you’d spent much time with American soldiers, you’d likely know that.
Keep digging that hole, bruh.
Waters, Capt, USN, Ret.
I mam not appealing to authority, just reacting to someone who disparaged my service by making reference to the devil.
When you decide everybody has to know that you did time in the military in some undefined capacity as a mess steward or something similar – with careful mention of awards and decorations included that is precisely what an Appeal To Authority is.
And here you are, flexing and posing as being all about common logic. Somehow or other, making your living by entering the military to get out of living on the dole is supposed to suggest you are an expert on rights, whether natural rights exist, and whether the current police state fascism of the UK government is constitutional.
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/appeal-to-authority/
In fact, loverboy, tell you what.
I will open a vimeo account. I will give you the password. You can post a picture of your medal, front and back, showing the name “Oliver Reeder” engraved on it. Do that, and I will send $1000.00 to the charity of your choice.
Deadline 8:00 tomorrow, British time.
” (The devil, of course, is a concept borrowed by early Christianity from Zoroastrianism, namely the demonic “Great Lie”,
Since much of Christianity comes from the Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim don’t you think the idea of the “devil” may have come from Judaism?
Moronic comment, failing to understand the difference between freedom, which I certainly enjoy, and in the pursuit of which I have served my country
Moronic and despicable attempt at a fraudulent Appeal To Authority, puffing out the pigeon chest to tell everyone they served (as a mess steward or something similar) – and then the Greta Thunberg “How DARE you disagree with me!”.
Never met a Brit who also also left the FOBs to go outside the wire who would ever agree with this Marxist police state fascism used against their fellow Brits for daring to disagree with what that government is doing.
@Oliver
You are a troll, and the same one that was pretending to be French awhile back. 🙄🙄
Absolute tosh. I have never pretended to be a Frenchman, and no Englishman would ever pretend to be a Frenchman. I presume you are confused by the fact that I happen to know plenty of French history (hardly surprising given they are our neighbours and frequent opponents, occasional allies, in conflicts over the past millenium). Indeed sir, your very comment suggests you would be happiest under a bridge as your abode, rather than I.
@Oliver
Perhaps, but since you are about as much an Englishman as me, meh. More likely you work for Act Blue or similar, are supporting the globalist’s/DNC’s efforts to destroy our first amendment, and Bob’s yer uncle. 🙄
Cheerio!
Dream on sunshine. Anyone who calls out your nonsense has to be an American sockpuppet? Pathetic. Hey ho, imagine what you will, does not make you right. Nor does it make the Professor right when he makes a fool of himself over matters in Britain.
Toodles
Oliver, freedom of speech is a natural right. Other nations can have laws restricting such freedom when governments have power over the people. Despotic governments restrict this freedom the most, but we can see democratic nations increasing the restrictions for political reasons, doing so. Still, they also move in a despotic direction by moving in that direction.
The Professor is correct. Don’t be so sensitive about people who do not wish to lose their freedoms. Speech is a way to release pressure rather than let it build up like a pressure cooker. I suggest political leaders not tell people like Musk that they will penalize or jail him for permitting free speech on his platform.
There is no such thing as a natural right; that is merely a concept dreamt up by political philosophers.
I have no problem whatsoever with the Professor and his acolytes wishing to defend your Constitution and your First Amendment. That is absolutely your indisputable political right. I very much do have a problem when someone like the Professor tries to project that American political right onto the rest of us, even more so when UK law, society and politics get misrepresented in the process. It is that simple.
“There is no such thing as a natural right;”
Oliver, when you were young and went to the sandbox to play, suddenly, a bully came by and ordered you around. Why would anyone tell the bully to leave you alone? Didn’t you have a right to play? If you say the bully has no right to boss the child around, where did that bully get his right to do so?
“Professor tries to project that American political right onto the rest of us, even more so when UK law, society and politics get misrepresented in the process.”
Winston Churchill severely criticized Stalin’s abuse of the Russian people. Wasn’t he British? Did he not have that right? Was he wrong?
Ope ! Crickets…
Olivia ran away to cry.
Meyer
Indeed.
We see people in the British government “inciting violence” against russia and Putin every day.
“We see people in the British government “inciting violence” against russia and Putin every day.”
Ah, a Russian sockpuppet perchance? Perhaps Vlad ought not to go around invading his neighbours. The Russians never complained when WSC and FDR “incited violence” against Nazi Germany, or offered the Soviets massive material support in an existential war. In a couple of days time, it is the 83rd anniversary of the first British convoy to Murmansk, which took three squadrons of RAF fighters to help protect the northern ports of the Soviet Union. The Soviet army relied on US trucks for almost all its logistic needs, not that Stalin cared to acknowledge it. The Soviets sneered publicly at the M4 Sherman, but issued it to their best Mechanised Corps which led the deep exploitation advances of 44-45, because of its wonderful mechanical reliability.
“Ah, a Russian sockpuppet perchance? Perhaps Vlad ought not to go around invading his neighbours.”
Oliver, though I have no love for Putin or Russia, didn’t the British colonialize much of the world?
The British didn’t believe in the natural rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which leads me to repeat the questions.
1) When you were in the sandbox playing, why didn’t that bully have a right to push you around?
2) you wrote: “Professor tries to project that American political right onto the rest of us, even more so when UK law, society and politics get misrepresented in the process.”
I responded: Winston Churchill severely criticized Stalin’s abuse of the Russian people. Wasn’t he British? Did he not have that right? Was he wrong?
“Ah, a Russian sockpuppet perchance?”
Spoken like a true American troll. Well done, suh!
“There is certainly no such thing as a natural right.”—because I say so George
From Wikipedia
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one’s actions, such as by violating someone else’s rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
Does that word inalienable look familiar, Comrade Svelaz?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment doesnt bestow a right. It specifically does NOT bestow a right. It is written the way it is for a reason. It does not grant the right of “free speech”. It SPECIFICALLY asserts that the freedom of speech exists, NATURALLY, and that the government shall not abridge it.
Go educate yourself on how the Bill of Rights came to be, and the discussions surrounding why we even needed it and HOW IT SHOULD BE WORDED. Or don’t and keep outing yourself as a useful idiot. Pro tip: it might take more than 5 minutes on google.
Now back to that unalienable (natural) thing
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Because you disagree with something or don’t like it, does not make it untrue.
Read for comprehension.
Naturally, Oliver the imposter doesnt like natural (unalienable) rights.
Its the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence.
Which was a political statement, not the Divine Word of God, based on a mishmash of ideas from British and European philosophers. Furthermore a statement by a group of insurgents against the British Crown two hundred and fifty years, so whilst of relevance to a discussion of US politics, of zero relevance to a discussion in the 21st Century about political rights in the UK.
“statement by a group of insurgents against the British Crown”
I’m not much interested in UK political rights. You may give up your natural rights however you see fit. Doesnt mean they don’t exist.
But thanks for admitting what I asserted, and even doubling down with more angst and pent up frustration.
The British Crown…The TRUE Divine Word of God
Bwahahahahaha
Dum dum thinbks that a life and death struggle wrt freedom is “politics”.
Like Svelaz, he reserves the RIGHT to his own definitions.
Its odd that Oliver thinks there are no natural rights, but he thinks everyone has the right to a democracy. He finds the alternative “abhorrent”
There is no such thing as a natural right; that is merely a concept dreamt up by political philosophers.
Telling that Oliver ‘I Served!” Reeder claims natural rights are merely a concept of political philosophers.
Meanwhile, a Brit named John Locke had many of those very same natural rights enshrined in The English Bill of Rights – the primary constitutional document of the UK. In fact, pretty much written in to it by Brits very familiar with Locke’s work.
You would think a real Brit claiming constitutional knowledge of his country would think that philosopher John Locke having many of his concepts of natural rights enshrined in the EBR is what most would call a pretty good legacy and accomplishment.
Rather than “merely a concept dreamt up”.
Oliver, old sod, getting a little suspicious of your CV.
S. Meyer, if freedom of speech was a natural right why isn’t it in the Bible? Why has that not been a consistent theme in the Bible or any other religious text? There is certainly no such thing as a natural right.
WTF has the Bible to do with it, particularly to Meyer?
Get educated George, you look like a true idiot.
Oh look goergina is sucking the backside of ollies crapped pants. That was quick sheeping, boy.
George, I don’t want to pretend to be an expert on religious matters, but part of the Torah’s 613 commandments (rules) tells Jews what not to say, which would not be necessary if the idea of freedom of speech didn’t exist.
Or it is just another rendition of the stupid jerk (or jerks) who loves to come here and make one stupid, unsupportable contention after another. I really do sometimes wonder if someone hasn’t at least partially automated some of the repetitive comments here using ChatGPT or the like, and further wonder if the supposed moderator of this section isn’t complicit in the effort. Those kinds of comments seem too predictable and frequent to be spontaneous, and too frequent to be worth the posters’ while. I have seen speculation about paid trolls, but I have never seen real documentation of such a thing, and the prospective payout seems as if it would be very low. Also, since it seems to be a nearly unanimous contention that Turley never reads the comments section, how would he know if one of his designated authorities here was up to (or complicit in) some nefarious activity?
“. . . where free speech is necessarily tempered by the upholding of social order . . .”
Said every tyrant from Beijing to Tehran to Moscow. Collectivists always usurp rights with squishy sounding words like “temper.” After all, we temper chocolate and anger. Why can’t we temper rights?
“You are sadly not competent to comment upon foreign laws and societies . . .”
Said the jingoist who routinely comments on American laws, history, and society.
I comment on US history, because I am reasonably competent so to do. I do not routinely comment on your laws or society, as my knowledge of the latter is confined to lengthy exposure to Americana in such delightful spots as the Green Zone and the Palace HQ of MNF-I. I do comment on the US legal system, only to make the observation that is obvious to many people, that you have allowed it to be corrupted by politics in a manner that few other democracies permit.
There is no god-given right to free speech. It is a political right granted, and yes tempered, by political systems. As others have commented, is not even your First Amendment tempered by non-protected considerations such as incitement to criminal acts? Genuine question. If an American citizen said to a murderer or a rioter, “Go on mate, do it!” would he or she be protected under the First Amendment from prosecution, or charged as an accessory or similar? That is what Turley is misrepresenting here; active incitement earning prison sentences, not generic political commentary.
It’s not active incitement to violence. It’s also a convenient excuse for the powers that be, applied with deceit.
“Hey it’s nothing we’ve done lads ! LOOK ! LOOOK !!!!! your fellow plebe has done the wrong that made you mad ! ”
You’re as transparent as onoin skin rottentooth.
.
We all know this from nearly every bar brawl ever posted. The big sinners aren’t the weasels whining on either side influencing the players pro or con, which obviously works never, except of course in the case of the government using it’s monopoly powers.
Oliver believes he can “comment on US history, because [he is] reasonably competent so to do.”
Likewise, many of us should be free to point out Oliver’s tunnel-visioned and supercilious falseness, because we are competent to do so.
Oliver, if your belief is that Freedom is Speech is NOT a God-given Right, then you know far less about the United States Constitution than you believe. Rights handed down by the Creator – of which Freedom of Speech is number 1 – are the actual basis of our form of government. It makes us very hard to control. It also makes us the most vibrant country on the planet, one which, if we did not exist, would have resulted in your writing your drivel in German or Russian.
Oliver Reeder-You say that there is no god given right to free speech. That is the UK point. Our point is that there is a god given right to free speech or natural law. The government gets it’s power from the people and not the other way around. That was the whole point of the revolution. The people existed before the king or parliament and developed the government or a strong man with an army conquered the land and imposed his kingship or will (the European version of government developement)
Most of the colonies were not crown colonies and set up there own councils and then colonial governments and governors. The crown colonies still had their popular assemblies but the governor was appointed by the king.
The UK had a population of 8 million and the colonies 2.5 million in 1775 (about 31 % of the UK) but had no voice in parliament or in law making or raising taxes. And colonials fought in every war the Uk fought in from 1607 till 1775 yet still got no voice in their taxes.
Smuggling in the colonies was adjudicated in London and treason was thrown around with almost every charge.
Much of what you see in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflects on our interaction with UK. Read it. There are original copies on files in London.
Our founders used the best aspects of Greek democracy, Roman Republic, Dutch democracy and UK constitutional monarchy to form the US Constitution. Probably with the death of Elizabeth 2 we will see New Zealand, Australia and maybe Canada become republics.
Remember we were the ones that left under the force of arms, as a Beefeater reminded me when I was asking questions once at the Tower Of London.
There are certain aspects of British Government we do not like. I’m sure you can say the same. We can criticize and so can you. We will use our god given right to say that and you can ask permission of your government to say your piece.
Are you pissed Ollie?
At 3pm? I should hope not. I am English, not Irish.
I comment on US history, because I am reasonably competent so to do.
I call BS on your competence, Oliver, given your “There is no such thing as a natural right; that is merely a concept dreamt up by political philosophers.
The English Bill Of Rights was heavily drawn from John Locke’s writings on natural rights. And yet, an alleged Brit and heavily decorated for bravery war veteran (or so you insinuate), you show a complete ignorance of how John Locke’s writings on natural rights is much of the basis of the English Bill Of Rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Surely you need a tiny bit of knowledge of your country’s constitutional documents before the Brit military will accept you for voluntary service as a way to give you an alternative to a life living off the dole?
When you’re so incompetent you don’t know your own history, spare us you claims of being competent to rationally comment on US history.
Oliver, I am beginning to think you’re a Cheap Fake Brit War Veteran awarded medals for bravery.
“I comment on US history, because I am reasonably competent so to do.
Straight outta Harry Potter
Bwahahahahahahahaha
“I comment on US history, because I am reasonably competent so to do.”
Really? Remind me, again, what lit the War of 1812? This time, start with chapter 1 (not 5, like you did).
“It is a political right granted . . .”
How many times are you going to get that wrong? Rights are not Royal permissions. They are recognized and protected by government.
“If an American citizen said . . .”
And how many times are you going to attempt to define “stomach” by staring at a diseased one?
” No one here gives a damn about your imagined indispensable right, nor your Constitution”
Then why are you here, self-described Limey (and probable imposter)? Regarding your above contention, that is just fine with me. You and your “fellow countrymen” are more than welcome to continue your self-imposed slide into the sordid existence of citizens of a third-world country. Or, as “your” journalist Peter Jukes, editor of the West England Byline Times described it at the time of Brexit (it has become even more pathetic since), “a banana republic with no bananas”.
Gosh, you do realise that this is a blog post which is spouting false information about events in Britain? That is why I am here, to explain that Prof Turley is wrong, and that if you choose to believe his erroneous post, then you are making a bad judgement. No one in the UK takes Mr Jukes seriously as a correspondent by the way, neither should you.
Oh, and I am really just ChatGPT or whatever? Sweet. I am not, but then better to be accused of Artificial Intelligence than the Natural Stupidity some here display. Ragnar is an excellent Scandinavian name, by the way, perfect for trolls. Or is it your D&D name? 🙂
“That is why I am here, to explain that Prof Turley is wrong, “
The above-disputed opinion is noted, but since one can argue about close issues, Oliver should start with the issue Turley brought up a while back. A woman quietly prayed across the street from a closed abortion clinic. She was stopped from doing so. Is this a restriction of free speech you find desirable?
Funny you should mention that. Only yesterday, the dear lady received £13000 damages from the police, along with an apology, for two wrongful arrests and false imprisonments; assault and battery in relation to an intrusive search of her person; and for a breach of her human rights both in respect to the arrests, and to the onerous bail conditions imposed on her.
As I say, Turley is relying on incidents of overreach by police, not actual convictions. One shows that British police, just as in the USA, can be idiots. T’other demonstrates that the legal system actually protects against such overreach.
You see, that is why a British commentator actually might be right on occasion. But no, I am just some damned imposter according to the mouth-breathers who live in their own little bubble.
It will be interesting to see if the Professor continues to trot out this incident as “evidence” in future…
“As I say, Turley is relying on incidents of overreach by police,”
Oliver, when police overreach, there is a reason. The climate of the nation has a lot to do with it, and presently, the climate of denial of rights in Britain is climbing. That is what the Professor is pointing out. The trajectory is such that one might believe that in the future, this lady would not be granted the ability to know she was right and the police wrong.
“As I say, Turley is relying on incidents of overreach by police”
Then, as a British citizen, I would correct the Professor for errors of fact but not for his stand for freedom of speech. The Professor is correct in his fears, and I note similar actions abridging proper freedom of speech throughout Western Europe and the US. That should be concerning to all people, including you.
I do not need the Professor to defend my freedoms here. I fully support him defending US freedoms, and by golly they do seem to need defending. My point is that there is an awful lot that seems broken in the USA right now, from your Presidential elections down, which worry me as someone who has served alongside US personnel and who regards the USA as our most important ally. However, I do not presume to prescribe medication for your problems, as I am not qualified to do so (and indeed, the problems that I perceive in the US may be mistaken or misinterpreted), and equally am irritated when people prescribe medication for what they perceive to be our problems. Freedom of speech is not viewed here as being under threat, compared to some more basic societal norms.
Oliver
Where did you serve? Maybe we’ve chewed the same dirt. I’ve been all over.
Iraq, twice, best part of two decades ago. Had many US comrades, none called Anonymous as I recall, however.
Just because you choose to use a play on a British actors name as your login handle does not impress me. I was in Iraq as well.
What unit were you in and where were you stationed in Iraq?
I’m waiting, Oliver. Loved you in The Gladiator, btw.
I see you are back. Still waiting, Oliver
Still waiting
“I do not need the Professor to defend my freedoms here.”
Oliver, why are you speaking for others? Plenty of people in the world lack freedom. He didn’t specify Oliver Reeder’s freedom. He was talking about freedom everywhere, though mainly in the West.
“Freedom of speech is not viewed here as being under threat, compared to some more basic societal norms.”
Did you do a survey to prove your contention? I don’t think so. Freedom in the US is under threat, and we adhere better than the UK to at least most of those freedoms written in the Bill of Rights.
Oliver Reed
Is freedom from slavery a right granted by the crown?
Where does the right to not be a slave come from?
Or is it a priviledge?
No such thing as human rights, is that it?
” tempered by the upholding of social order ”
Tell that to Rotterdam ladies you twit.
How has your stupidity worked out so far, in the twisted denialism of it’s application, moron ?
Oliver, you say, “No one here [where?] gives a damn about your imagined indispensable right…”. Maybe that’s true, although I doubt it. What I mean is that I think it is unlikely that most people in the UK (I presume that’s your home country?) don’t give a damn about free speech in the way Turley defines it. But, we may have to agree to disagree about that.
More fundamentally than the UK legal system, Turley is talking about human behavior in general; behavioral needs that people have in the UK that are hardly different from those that people have in the US and that, if trammeled by government, almost always (Turley I believe wants to claim “always”) lead to anger at government that results in unstable social systems.
There is no question, and Turley would agree, that speech is not “unlimited.” Indeed, one must first define what one means by “speech” in a legal sense. If a person in a private conversation describes in detail how to build a bomb to another that he has reason to believe (or should have reason to believe) intends to use that bomb in criminal act, is that the “speech” we are talking about? Or, is it only speech that can be heard by others unknown to the speaker that is relevant? Should the first kind of speech not be considered “speech” in a legal sense but rather be considered “conspiracy” or some other criminal act? And at what point does the way one defines speech include, in effect, how a person thinks that is not related to how that person behaves? We certainly can (but should not always) condemn, in a civic sense, how a person speaks or how that person thinks if such speech or thinking is contrary to our perceived norms. But, should we ask government — which is an institution created for the purpose, among others, of exercising legitimate force on citizens — to use that force to fine or imprison people for any speech or thought we do not like?
Turley is attempting to explore that question in the broadest sense, meaning he is trying to determine how and when government use of force to restrain various types of speech is counterproductive to a civic and stable society, which he argues that most citizens have a positive view of the government’s use of force. I am sure Prof Turley would acknowledge that culture (and the history that creates it) is relevant to what would be appropriate for a government to constrain and not constrain. However, despite the differing histories of the US and UK and, although even less similar, the histories of the US and Europe, it strikes me those cultures are not so different as to make Prof Turley’s analysis worth dismissing out of hand as you have done.
My point is that the issue of “free speech” is an exceedingly complex topic, which is why legal systems in regard to it are complex and differ among countries, which Turley points out. Despite those differences, Prof Turley is attempting to determine what limits government should place on speech and on itself regarding the restriction of speech taking into account their histories and cultures, and from an understanding of human nature to the extent it is similar across the countries to which he refers (US and Europe).
I suggest you provide an analysis that refutes the points Prof Turley makes rather than dismissing his points out-of-hand by claiming that because he is an American lawyer he does not understand British law. The only relevant point you make, as far as I can tell, is the assertion that Turley refers to people who were arrested but who were not convicted of criminal speech, thus claiming the UK legal system is effective in protecting speech. It would be helpful, if true, to cite which of the individual situations Turley cites that support your assertion. However, even if your assertion is true in the main, arresting people for speech Turley thinks should not be subject to police or court action is by itself chilling, unless everyone involved knows it’s all a charade that no one should take seriously, which I doubt is the case.
I think thoughtful debate of these issues is important. I encourage you to work towards that standard.
I am happy, and indeed strive, to debate in a thoughtful manner. I have commented above on the very fact that yesterday, one of Prof Turley’s favourite examples, of a woman arrested for praying outside an abortion clinic, ended with an humiliating settlement by the police of their abuse of legal process.
I simply point out that there are stresses and strains experienced in every democratic society. The Professor has a particular obsession (interest, if obsession seems too pejorative) with freedom of speech. My problem is that his approach is wholly rooted in the First Amendment. Such an approach is utterly apposite for discussion of freedom of speech in an American context, but wholly irrelevant for discussion in any other political context. In the same way, I get very annoyed with British commentators who criticise your Second Amendment; that is not a matter on which Brits, or any other country’s population, should comment, as it is not our Constitution, our society, our laws. Ditto your maintenance of capital punishment in some states.
It is insulting for some above to suggest that we should not criticise authoritarian regimes, such as Communism or dictatorships, by this logic. The point there is that the entire system, and the absence of democracy in any recognisable form, is abhorrent.
“The Professor has a particular obsession (interest,”
Who has the obsession, Oliver?
You continuously point out the praying lady, leaving out the other comments. Why? The praying lady was resolved after Turley’s initial comment. Turley cannot read the future, but you read the past and project it into the future to criticize the Professor. Why don’t you provide other data? Are you unable to debate facts? I am sure other situations might be similarly resolved because of pressure or in a natural way. I am sure the Professor might make an error, but for the most part, he is correct, and your criticism of him is wrong.
“freedom of speech in an American context, but wholly irrelevant for discussion in any other political context.”
Why not inform us of what context you would prefer? Turley looks at freedom of speech as a right that can be abridged. What is your opinion?
“American context, but wholly irrelevant.”
What is your context? Does the government decide all freedoms? Do you prefer fascism or freedoms that are sometimes misused but correctable?
“The point there is that the entire system, and the absence of democracy in any recognisable form, is abhorrent.”
LOL you said that and don’t even know why you said it.
Is the “presence of democracy” a legal concept? Does someone have a “right” to democracy? Given to them by whom??
If the specific legal laws wihin those countries are not what you are criticising, why, it must be the natural laws being violated that you abhor.
“
freedom of speechdemocracy in an American context, but wholly irrelevant for discussion in any other political context.”–Someone living in RussiaLook how easy that was.
No one here gives a damn about your imagined indispensable right, nor your Constitution; relevant to the USA, irrelevant absolutely everywhere else.
Oliver, old sod… with your own standard in mind: why would you expect that anyone here gives the slightest damn about what a feckless Brit from the nation of none existent dental care thinks about what Turley wrote? You want to tell us that the Brit news media don’t rake in the filthy lucre writing column after column about American government and politicians – you want to convince us that nobody over there gives a damn about America to read those stories. Just as you claim they also wouldn’t give a damn about what Turley wrote?
Who elected you spokesman for the UK, George? Can we believe what you claimed about no Brit being interested in this issue? Particularly with the obvious outrage throughout the UK at what the government is doing with censorship and “hate speech” laws – unequally applied?
Can we giggle and point with amusement as you claim that the way these “hate speech” laws are being enforced is a necessity to uphold the social order and basic law?
George, you and the country you claim you have been appointed to speak for have fallen down a dark, dark hole, far from the tree that bore the fruit of Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.
Your weakness, Oliver old sod… is that you did one hell of a good job of hoisting yourself on your own petard. Your inner fascist is showing. Good show!
“Once again you cite instances when individuals were arrested by over zealous police, but did not result in convictions, precisely because the judicial system worked to protect them.”
LMAO this is perfect.
George just loves that his judicial system protects citizens from the government AFTER the fact.
A proper Constitution can do that too, George.
You get the government you deserve.
Everybody gets the government that the majority allows. You can fool enough of the people, enough of the time.
The government gets the rebellion it deserves.
“The government gets the rebellion it deserves.”
Not yet, but we shall see about the future, particularly if Harris is declared the winner in November. Several states have introduced legislation for secession into their dockets over the past two years. None have gone anywhere yet, but the prospect (or reality) of a fourth Obama term could change the dynamic fairly quickly.
Hear hear!
UK/London controlled by the Globalist/Woke/Davos crowd. It use to be a nice place to Visit but now? They have ruined it.
I was going to leave a comment but now I’m afraid to.
Oi, ye may thus keep yer posting license. That was close though, insinuating your betters in power are corrupt. Watch it, next time won’t be so pleasant.