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).
The World Wide Progressive Left, aka (WWPL) is dancing with Lucifer to the tune of whatever ISM’ that’s fitting. They desire to control most if not all Natural Rights through dictates not granted their authority. Society must be very cautious surrendering their Natural Rights to any authority or person attempting to squash their natural independence.
Let me be BLUNT: These Morons know not where from they came, or where they are going, just that it’s over there somewhere in a Cloud filled with Pixie Dust where all their desires can be fulfilled.
On the English and the EU authority, are you indocile: defined by American Heritage Dictionary, “not teachable; indisposed to be taught, trained, disciplined and intractable”. Your own history is full of examples of authorities dictating how to act and who is allowed and draconian measures for acting contrary. The public of the world must awaken to the fact that the progressive left in particular and the silent moderate left in general are paving a highway to Perdition where Judas is awaiting with open arms. Are democracies seeing their end, where everything is beyond salvation? God, I hope not!
I disagree George. Some know where they have come from, quite many come from refugee camps in Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Nigeria and the Congo Republic. I watched a documentary several years back when GW and Tony and Barry were waging war with ISIS and they were showing how indoctrinated the people in these refugee camps were. Islamic zealots that hate Europeans and Westerners. They know where and what they came from and exactly what they want, they want it all. Just look to France for a quick understanding.
Anti-migrant?
Anti-illegal alien invader!
Well, you can take the UK off the list of tourist destinations. Don’t want to land in the pokey for writing a 1-star review that “incites” people to not eat there.
I throughly enjoyed reading all the comments, other than those by the Nony Mice — which I never read —, today. The reason was the complete dominance of an ‘Olivier Reeder’.
🙂
The reason was the complete dominance of an ‘Oliver Reeder”
Ah! The Cheap Fake UK Patriot – the qualified expert on US constitutional issues who doesn’t know that his very own English Bill of Rights encapsulates the writings of John Locke on natural rights – which he just calls a flight of fantasy!
Given that Oliver (who claims he speaks on behalf of all the UK citizenry when stating none of them care what Turley writes) shares your fondness for government police state fascism, Oliver and David B. Benson are fellow Brothers Of Different Commie Mothers.
Olly repeatedly hoists himself on his own petard here – but you of course see that as ‘complete dominance’.
Oh, well done Davie!
@Old Airborne Dog
Yup. Total fake, total troll, total fraud, and likely paid for election interference on the part of the modern left. Possibly one of our regulars under a different name. The affectations are a dead giveaway, paired with the lack of knowledge there is no other conclusion to draw. But so long as the DNC continues to insist on paying them (they invited 100 ‘influencers’ to the convention, you better believe those that accepted are receiving marching orders), what do we do but remain vigilant and aware?
James,
As with most of the anonys, the slow and stupids, just scroll past their comments.
@Upstate
This one struck a chord, I guess, because it goes beyond anonymous posting – they are presuming a persona that is frankly, patently absurd and false. They aren’t just misrepresenting us, they are misrepresenting other cultures too. Which party is it again that screams at the top of their lungs about cultural appropriation? I happen to be a very global person, and that just ain’t gonna fly for me. They are misrepresenting on the part of foreign governments, too, and that is very much a part of the globalist nonsense we are currently dealing with. To each their own, I respect you very much, but the modern left, globally, is a regime, and they need to be debunked at every opportunity with real life and real people, regardless of class or culture. The hypocrisy and idiocy are off the charts, and it is largely perpetrated by *very* rich white folks, pretty much in toto.
People forget about things like indentured servitude and how white people enslaved other white people for being of the ‘wrong’ blood right along with the Africans. This is what aristocracy does – preserve their own delusions of grandeur at the expense of everyone else, and today’s DNC are very much globalist aristocrats- Nancy Pelosi is very likely one of the most vile examples currently walking the earth. There has been enough generational wealth and maneuvering over time for them to be a threat again. Robespierre is likely a better analogy than WWII at this point, at least IMO. I pray we do not need to resort to the guillotine again.
That’s my lane and my motivation, but I thoroughly appreciate your presence and respect where you stand and land.
James,
I got ya.
There have been a few times in the past where I have not taken my own advice and engaged.
However, in my defense, IIRC it was on the topic of leftist mutilating children, chemical castration, pornography in elementary schools, groomers and pedos. That kind of evil has to be fought against at all turns.
OT, talked to my sister, the registered Democrat, at length the other day. I asked her about her thoughts on the coup of Biden. She said, “About time!” Although she says she is still unsure on Harris, needs to read more about her before formulating a decision if she would vote for her or not. For someone who is so highly educated, she is kinda naive. Of course, she gets most of her information on MSM.
But she still is not on board with the leftists.
@Upstate
Part of it, and forgive me if it is common knowledge to you – the likes of Google, particularly with modern AI, scrape all of this. If there are no dissenting opinions, in 2024, it would be very easy for algorithms to ‘decide’ there ARE no dissenting opinions. I do not expect anyone to expend effort they do not believe in, but for me, in my mind, the digital realm is where it is happening – good luck finding a ‘libtard’ (not a fan of that expression, but it’s apropos. I prefer ‘liberal regressive’, because that is what they are, without exception. One would have to be congenitally stupid or so cloistered *nothing* matters to continue supporting any of this) that does not rely on algorithmically generated information that informs their opinions or even their encapsulation of what the rest of us call ‘reality’. This is very much a thing, it is stupid, but it is what it is. Everyone that has worked in Silicon Valley since Steve Jobs died should probably apologize to the rest of us for the remainder of their pathetic lives. Just a facet, but one that matters more and more as people spend the majority of their time on Tik-Tok or just (particularly the under-20, and yes, this is thing) interacting with algorithms the way we used to scroll Facebook.
Modern kids really do think robots are their friends, and they should follow their robot advice. What this says about modern parents is another matter, but one we WILL have to address at some point. We are not ever getting away from that – what happens at home determines pretty much the rest of all of this. We have done a phenomenally sh*tty job for decades, thanks in no small part to Obama and all of his bull****.
When was the last time that you let your animals gobble on your corn?
Anonymous no! Pseudonym yes!
Well Said!
Buckwheat says Otay Professor numb nutz
@Oliver
Didn’t take long to push you over the edge. I can sure as heck guarantee you Brits do not use the expression ‘numb nutz’ (as I have actually traveled, experienced other cultures, and ventured outside of my own personal comfort zone/neighborhood, and indeed, currently have friends that span the globe, ethnicities, and cultures). So who are you? Anonymi? Gigi? George? All of the above? Probably yet another white, privileged, urban, laptop ‘liberal’ with a trust fund that can’t be bothered to learn to cook a meal or grow a plant that doesn’t get you high. Regardless, go blow. You convince no one of anything. Pfft. 🙄 Thankfully your actual power in this world is commensurate to your flimsy ethics. Guessing you are under 40 as well; enjoy the shock you are due for later in life when none of this cuts it anymore and you have built or created absolutely nothing. Yawn. Hope you enjoy whatever bullsheet you bought with the money.
James, that “Oliver” was just the regular Anonymous who likes to use “spastic” in his responses. He’s adept at changing his handle to imitate others. I’m not surprised you did not notice that.
See that James, interpretation is all about delivery. My response is not to your comment, it’s to Professor David B Benson numb nutz. Trust me that I earned all my own wealth, am a long juice American, a MAGA Conservative and wish I were under 40. I hope that eases your wound.
“Didn’t take long to push you over the edge. I can sure as heck guarantee you Brits do not use the expression ‘numb nutz’.”
Oh dear, now you are confusing me with some moron posting as “Oliver Twisted”? Bit odd, given that there are only two components to my name, and one of those confuses you.
As for under 40? Brilliant Holmes, brilliant.
But very, very wrong.
Oh, and I am anything but liberal, my views are highly conservative. A true Tory. Who is actually quite a good cook as it happens.
I just object to misinformation about the UK, and marvel at the stupidity demonstrated by some here.
But you are right, no right thinking Briton, unless hopelessly corrupted by American television imports, would use the expression “numbnutz”. Keep up the insightful analysis, dear boy, but try to read names first. Tends to help with getting the attribution correct and not looking like an absolute tit.
I agree that no right thinking Briton would ever use the expression numbnutz: Not very eloquent, as seen as substitution below
“Come and get one in the Numbnutz, if you have any numbnutz, you eunuch jelly thou!”
Sir Anthony Burgess would roll over in his grave.
I agree, he was the only one with skin in the game and correctly pointed out the absurdity of Turley’s column. It’s refreshing to read mature and coherent posts.
^^^^incoherent
So glad that your cholinesterase inhibitors worked today, Dave-o
Why I say #### The EU, The UK, The UN, and NATO, Americans Run America. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-eu-the-uk-the-un-and-nato-americans
Who would have thought the Brits, who fought the Nazi’s and Fascists would become the same.
What belonging to the Nazis did we fight? Or are you under the misapprehension that an apostrophe somehow has a role in the pluralisation of an acronymn?
Several members of my family did indeed fight the Nazis and the Fascists, and I am very proud of their record. Ditto for some of my teachers at school more than four, close on five, decades ago; one of them swam out of Dunkirk with his rifle and kit, then went back in four years later and fought into Germany. To compare the modern UK, for all its faults, with those regimes is just ludicrous.
Nazi is not an acronym, any more than Bob would be an acronym for Robert.
Jeez, learn some English, will ya?
Bwahahahahaha, poor Oliver. People in glass houses….
“Nazi is not an acronym”
Actually is something of National Socialist German Workers Party or NSDAP.
To compare the modern UK, for all its faults, with those regimes is just ludicrous.
To claim that the UK of today is the same UK that Reeder says his family deserted Europe to the Nazis at Dunkirk to flee back to England, only to return with America’s help is the same UK of today is what is just ridiculous.
The UK of today that Oliver attempts to defend and make excuses for would be busily locking up those WWII veterans if they said today what they said back then, if they attempted to use the rights of free speech to criticize today as they did before, during, and after the war.
Oliver Reeder really works hard at attempting stolen valor from claimed relatives, just as Biden and now Tampon Tim similarly attempt stolen valor. And of course the Appeal To Authority – he actually served in the military, which makes him so special.
Except to others who also served in the military… particularly when they probably served longer and did more deployments than Oliver Reeder insinuates he did. For those veterans, culls attempting this appeal to authority by pushing their military service in other peoples’ faces to justify the police state fascism of the present day UK are just as disgusting as when Joe Biden and Tampon Tim Walz do it.
“To compare the modern UK, for all its faults, with those regimes is just ludicrous.”
Or it’s that you cannot think.
Both the Nazis and the Fascists controlled private industry, redistributed wealth, and censored speech for the “good” of the collective (aka to maintain “social order”).
To anyone with two eyes, those dictatorial ideas should sound familiar.
The Svelaz -George Lie Of The Day
“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).
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. How could Congress possibly abridge it, if it does not already exist?
Svelaz, 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,
A right need not be enumerated in order to exist. It is only because of pinheads who would usurp rights, that we sometimes need to name them explicitly (1A is not that). It is only because of pinheads who would usurp rights, that we sometimes need to constrain the government (1A is that).
Powers must be enumerated (10A). They do not exist without the consent of the governed. Restrictions on rights, where allowed, must be enumerated, with the consent of the governed.
Because you disagree with something or don’t like it, does not make it untrue.
Read for comprehension.
*LORETTA
Shut the door!
Davey, ask any philosopher: So-called natural rights are merely a human construct.
David B. Benson did his best Oliver Reeder version of ignorance and incompetence:
Davey, ask any philosopher: So-called natural rights are merely a human construct.
Okay… Davey, let’s just ask John Locke about that!
That would be the John Locke whose writings on natural rights were incorporated into both the Constitution and following Bill of Rights.
https://www.usconstitution.net/lockes-influence-on-american-politics/
Want a few more names to question after Locke? Or do you prefer political philosophers like Karl Marx to pose your question to?
To no real American’s surprise, Soviet Democrats uniformly have complete ignorance and/or indifference to constitutional documents and where those concepts were drawn from.
You and Oliver Reeder are the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of today’s Turley column. Identical twins, other than where you happen to live.
Locke was human. Therefore his theories are human constructs. Unless you claim that he received his insights direct from the Almighty.
Look, you are entitled to believe and trust in your Constitution. Good for you. But surely you understand basic logic? That the concept of natural rights is simply a political and philosophical construct.
That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying F = ma and E = mc^2 are human constructs because Newton and Einstein were human.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle me to call you a dumb-ass.
Mere assertion. Nothing more.
Therefore his theories are human constructs.
Human/natural/inalienable rights are not theories. They are facts. They exist, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. You can no sooner claim they don’t exist, simply becasue they were named by a human, any more than you can claim that the atmosphere doesn’t exist.
He can’t deny the existence of a human construct like a brick wall, so now its “political” or “philosophical” construct.
A natural right cannot be a human construct by definition. Logic much?
Naming it a natural right is a human construct.
Someone correctly asserted that evolution is not a human construct. Correct. It was there all along, whether someone chose to recognize it or not.
So you believe that all rights are granted by the crown. Good on ya.
But you still seem to have this democracy thing stuck in your craw. Is that a right? Who granted it? Is freedom from slavery a right? Who granted it?
Locke was human. Therefore his theories are human constructs.
The claim that there are no natural rights is just another Marxist human construct when faced with things they despise – like human rights as one example. I would be open to anyone with the opinion that when a person rises in defense of cultural and political Marxism and police state fascism from the government, they may well have left the human race.
That said, your claims now are quite a change from when you said natural rights they were just fanciful thoughts from philosophers and nothing more. Meanwhile, Lock’s “human constructs” on natural rights were embraced by real Englishman back in the 1600’s when they incorporated many of those constructs into the English Bill of Rights.
Meanwhile, another human construct is ill bred Marxist police state fascists who on the one hand claim they’re particularly special because they once served their nation in uniform, in some capacity or other (possibly SAS, but more likely navy mess steward) – but now make excuses for the government using two standards of justice to wage a war on the right to freedom of speech to disagree with and criticize that government.
BTW, with all the time I trained and served beside Brit troops, I never once met a Brit who would attempt to defend these nauseating police state fascist attacks on Brits because they dare to disagree with the government. Paras, Green Jackets, SBS… they had a uniform disgust at cultural and political Marxism as well as police state fascism.
So good for you, you old sod, we might steer you back to actual basic logic. Let’s try this: you feel wet when your Mama puts you in the bath – is that sensation real… or just a human construct?
Sure does seem a bit sus that you invariably get two upvotes every time you post: not one, not three… just two.
It’s himself and George. Note that George is now getting 2 as well. Every time.
Airborne
I too haven’t met a single solitary Brit soldier or sailor who both claimed to be “conservative” and concurred with anything this muppet is piping.
This whole “Age of Enlightenment” thing is lost on Benson.
Humanly constructed into our constitution brilliant one
A brick wall is a human construct, too, dum dum
@David,
“So-called natural rights are merely a human construct.”
I have thought something similar and said as much on this site.
However, through evolution we have domesticated many species and, unknowingly, domesticated ourselves at the same time.
Part of that domestication likely included genetically driven behaviors that allowed us to live together in denser populations than typically found in hunter/gatherer groups.
Some of those likely include ‘instinctive’ restraints on ourselves and on our expectations from the group. Those evolved expectations on the limits of group behavior toward us, often our sense of fairness, could fairly easily be seen as the precursor of natural rights.
In that sense they truly are natural and likely are essential to civilized societies.
Thank Darwin rather than God.
Who made Darwin?
Mr and Mrs Darwin
Circular argument with alot of in and outs😂
Darwin and Wallace discovered evolution. They didn’t invent it.
Anon: ” Darwin and Wallace discovered evolution. They didn’t invent it.”
Of course…partly. Darwin and Wallace created a human concept, evolution, by which we comprehend, in part, a natural process. So they are both discoverers and inventors.
Plants and animals were doing a perfectly fine job of evolving out there in the natural world long before Chuck and Rusty came along. They didn’t invent the process of evolution. They didn’t invent squat.
Our theories and great ideas are not substitutes for reality, they are maps for finding our way in reality and sometimes they are wrong or need updates, but they are invented by us. So far Darwin’s evolution has held up very well. Purely by the numbers it makes very good sense.
Anon– “They didn’t invent the process of evolution. They didn’t invent squat.”
Try discussing that process without using their terminology and ideas or even the word ‘evolution’.
They invented quite a lot.
Young, we can thank whoever we wish as long as we recognize natural rights. By the way, Darwin never denied G-d. He was agnostic.
And Darwin’s agnosticism didn’t really derive from his theory of evolution. It had more to do with the death of his daughter, Annie, from tuberculosis.
You can talk and talk, but Darwin, who created the theory under discussion, never denied G-d despite his theory.
@Seth Meyer–
Actually my “Thank Darwin…” was not what I intended. I often miss my typos. I meant to say “Think Darwin…” I think what I intended to say conveys much less absolute certainty.
Either way, there likely are natural rights that our inner compass points to when positions are uncertain.
Should we ask a Philosopher of Engineering? Yes folks, apparently thats a thing.
Why would I ask a philosopher rather than the founders?
CALLING IT “natural rights” is a human construct, dum dum. You can’t humanly construct something that exists naturally. Duh.
Calling it “the atmosphere” is a human construct. That doesn’t make the atmosphere a human construct. Did you finish your brocolli?
“Davey, ask any philosopher: ”
Should I ask them before or after they have had their cholinesterase inhibitors for the day?
Does John Locke count as a philosopher?
“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.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– American Founders
The emphasis should be placed on the word fear. If you speak your thoughts you should be coerced with the use of fear. If you tell your neighbor about your position you should live in fear that your neighbor will snitch on you. If you want to have a say on how your child is educated you must fear the consequences. They will tell you that it is joyful to live in fear. Fear is the thing that makes dictator strong. A dictator knows that his greatest weapon keeping him in power is the well planned use of the fear of the government by the people. It has been thus throughout the course of history. The road to Rome was lined with the crosses of the crucified as a warning to those who might decide to speak against the realm. The road lined with crosses was very effective. In all despotic regimes the first thing imposed is the fear to speak freely. You should not be fooled by a pretty petty tyrant dancing across the stage in pastel colored pantsuits. That is unless your choice of life style is fear.
Fear the “dictatorship of the proletariat” that preserves its “democracy” by nullifying the vote of the people and arbitrarily ensconcing its malleable ersatz and presentable figurehead.
“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.”
************************
No, what they do is make martyrs. Martyrs make movements. Movements make demands. Demands make politicians angry. Anger makes repression. Repression makes revolutions. Revolutions make blood — most of the time.
The world is easy once you know how to connect the dots.
Oh and great movements become religions, too.
Oh and great movements become religions, too.
The Rock Fairy Religion of Atheism has certainly become embedded as an article of faith in Marxist/Communist theology.
It’s a movement whose results remind normal people of the results of a bowel movement.
Very true. That was me above, too.
Great Britain’s speech laws, like its gun laws, derive from its history of class consciousness, whereby the better sort of people felt obligated to limit the energies and capabilities of the wrong sort of people. This history is now being assimilated to Islam, which assumes that a very broad range of thought and behavior are regarded as blasphemy. As in the U. S., this has resulted in a two-tier system of de facto law, whereby one group has very limited avenues of self-expression, whereas the other group gets a pass. For evidence, consider the hate speech against whites emanating from the Scottish Parliament. Our Constitution was aware of the class consciousness that only privileged one group, and it asserts equal rights of expression for all group.
Utter tosh. The current, highly restrictive, gun laws were brought in as a knee jerk response to a mass shooting of children in the Scottish town of Dunblane. The point that was completely missed was that if the Scots police had actually enforced the existing laws, the nutter would never have been allowed to possess a firearm in the first place. “Class” had absolutely nothing to do with it. Indeed, it was the upper and middle classes that were most affected by the ban on handguns as they were more likely to be shooting enthusiasts than the working classes.
@Oliver
😂
No actual Brit uses the word ‘tosh’ IRL, certainly not repeatedly (if you had said ‘tits up’ at any point, that would have been more believable). You write exactly like the fan-fic Harry Potter authors of old on the web that learned all of their anglicisms from those movies. You are a dem troll, and that is all there is to it. Spare us. And adjust your jumper because under modern Labour people in England are about to be very, very cold in the winter.
You must know the wrong sort of Brits. I admit I would more normally favour “bollocks”, but I suspect the system would throw a fit and one tries to be polite. It is hilarious that you are so absolutely certain that I am not British, based on zero evidence, just your supposed insightful analytical skills. Actually, less hilarious, rather sad. You are just so determined to dismiss me as a troll rather than let your brain consider, just for one second, that maybe I am British and know of what I speak. Oh well, whatever makes you feel safe at night. If you want to study the physiognomy of a troll, there is always the option of a mirror… 🙂
Lawn boy is a lot like Gigenius, in that he likes to throw in a 4 syllable word at the end for good measure. Naw, he ain’t no troll.
I suppose you are at risk, Prof. Turley, for criticizing the UK government and the unelected EU bureaucrats. We know that this subjective censorship can spread far beyond its claimed target speech. George Orwell was only off by 40 years.
Justin Trudeau is trying to pass a similar law here in Canada. Dark times ahead.
Apparently the UK government is trying to start a civil war. They surely are earning one.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1825558840336920868
They are not concerned. They followed the playbook and took the guns first.
“They are not concerned. They followed the playbook and took the guns first.”
+++
True, but many governments that have gone too far discovered that guns are not enough when they are vastly outnumbered by an enraged, nothing-to-lose, populace.
I have noticed they haven’t suggested calling out the military yet. Are they not sure of their compliance? Perhaps the soldiers are more loyal to England than to the current fascist government. There were moments like that in the French Revolution. Come to think of it the English should remember their own Civil War.
Meanwhile, the UK is contending for the rape capital of Europe and it isn’t the “far tight thugs” commiting the rapes. Everyone knows who is doing it even though the press is reluctant to reveal race, religion, or immigration status
As the jails fill with English I wonder if they will build concentration camps in Scotland where the weather is nice?
I am waiting for the first time they try to deport an American citizen to the UK for something he said in America about the UK. It will not end well and we don’t need to put our police in harms way for enforcing a foreign law that violates our own constitution. Mark my words, there will be bloodshed because there are a lot of Americans who will not simply comply. .
And it will not happen. As I have said repeatedly, the comment by the rather dim Met Commissioner was with regard to British citizens inciting violence through social media whilst on holiday overseas. If you were British you would know the supposed case in question. A stupid journalist asked a stupid question about Mr Musk, and a stupid Met Commissioner gave a stupid answer that was really about someone else altogether. But because people like Prof Turley and members of the US media did not know the detail of the context surrounding all this, this silly idea that we are going to seek the extradition of Americans for online posts has grown and festered. Thankfully, any question of seeking extradition has to pass through competent British lawyers and diplomats before the idea can even reach the US, and none of those competent individuals is going to allow any real suggestion along those lines to be entertained.
So I am glad to say, you will have a very long wait indeed.
“competent British lawyers and diplomats”
Bwahahahahahahaha
It is like debating with Socrates, truly it is.
^^^Gaslighting is a very effective technique in the UK apparently
* I’ve heard Starmer has resigned this morning.
You’re not too bright either are you, Oliver Reed? Loved you in The Gladiator, btw.
The point was NOT that there are no competent British lawyers and diplomats. Its your assumptions about them that is scary.
One would assume the POTUS is competent, eh? He can’t mash his own bananas.
Socrates.
* oooo, my favorite movie! Perfect cast.
” He can’t mash his own bananas.”
Do those come from the Anglican Republic?
Confused between Oliver Reed, deceased alcoholic thespian, and Oliver Reeder? If you are dyslexic, then my heartfelt sympathy as it is a wicked and challenging condition. Less sympathy if your condition is mere wilfulness and stupidity, Mr Anonymous.
Your malady is simply one of assuming that we here are as dense as the people you are used to gaslighting.
Loved you in Gladiator, bro.
Oliver – all your reassurances don’t reassure me. I’d very much like to think you’re right, but at this stage in western history I am not at all confident that you are right.
Simple really. Any attempt at extradition would require clear evidence of an offence committed against English or Scots law, by a clearly identifiable individual. The lawyers here would need to be satisfied that said alleged offence met the threshold for prosecution. It would then have to demonstrated that it was of sufficient gravity to merit seeking extradition, on which both lawyers and diplomats here would have strong opinions, with very high thresholds. It would then have to be sufficient for the US government to agree that an arrest in the US against that warrant was justified. Hmmm, First Amendment issue you say? There is a problem, a big problem. It would then require said evidence to be submitted to a US judge to grant extradition, who would weigh, hopefully very carefully, the First Amendment issues. It would then need the US AG, I presume, to accede to extradition. All the time, a very controversial and high profile story which neither the US or UK governments would relish.
No one is going to do all that for even the most idiotic American spouting nonsense on the internet, unless there is very, very real evidence of direct incitement to a really heinous crime such as murder; and the issue would then be whether they could be judged as a significant and active accessory to the crime, as opposed to just posting idiotic comments.
It is not going to happen. Period, as you like to say.
“No one is going to do all that for even the most idiotic American spouting nonsense on the internet”
Translated
“They save their tyranny for the idiotic British people spouting nonsense on the internet”
* the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If this “new” candidate Kumala Harris is elected, US citizens will be facing the same threat here. It’s amazing to see how “new” Kumala Harris is campaigning against incumbent Kumala Harris (with all her radical baggage) and former President Donald Trump.
It’s like watching a real life Zelig.
As Kamala brought the subject of her multi-dimensional origins of which she is all proud, a bit of research yesterday got me to realize that in the current campaign, on both sides of the aisle, there is a flurry of participants in the presidential contest who happen to be Brahmins.
Brahmins are Hindus who happen to be at the top of the hierarchical social Caste system which stratify Hindus based on blood lineage and where vertical mobility from one class to the other is impossible. You remain in the class you are, with privilege distributed at the top and indentured servitude at the bottom (The Dalits). while officially India has made caste system .illegal. the reality is that the system is still quite alive. A few years ago it was a subject of interest in the US where they were lawsuits by lower class Hindus against their employer for structuring Caste system within the firm. Brahmins are authoritative by tradition and support a fascist structure of government.
So, in the current campaign, who are we talking about? Kamala’s mother was Brahmin and she is Jewish on her fathers side. Jews, and Israel, share a great complicity with Brahmins as they are believed to be one of the 10 lost tribes of Israel. and they have genetic markers identified as “Jewish genes” as controversial in science as this debate is. Ashkenazim Jews are traced back to Persia which includes modern Eastern Iran, part of Pakistan and north west India.
Hindus were barely 600,000 in the USA in 1980, and they are now 2,900,000. This can be credited in great par to the technological boom, the internet, science in general… many Hindus were brought in with special specialization H-1B visas. Bramhains are only a fraction of this Hindu demographic, yet they are the wealthiest, and the biggest technology enterprise owners of Indian origin.
Outside of Kamala, who else has Brahmin heritage in the current presidential race: Usha Vance, wife of JD, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley is officially Punjab but apparently also has some Brahmin ancestry. JD Vance senatorial campaign was funded ($7,5 million) by Peter Thiel, founder of paypal, who apparently has a fascination for Hinduism… JD Vance is Proud to have rich and influential Brahmin friends in Canada…
So all this debate about censor, giving special unique protection to Jewish Americans, is in line with project 2025 who aims at destroying the Bill of Rights and distributing privileges in a “new” stratified meritocracy… hum, making a connection anyone…. Can we expect a Judeo-Brahmin-Chritian-Feminist Constitution turned into a theocracy in 2025… sure sounds like it… and any discussion around the Bill of Rights will probably become “Passé” and an antic…
Interestingly, Bitcoin with its endogenous structured inflation is the perfect tool for this Coup d’État… Trump should back away from its support for the cancerous digital token and throw JD out the window as he is the Senate’s Bitcoin facilitator and has big “plans” for Bitcoin…. Hindus are addicts to Cryptos and the stock Market bubble casino culture…
*jawboning
I wouldn’t touch your comment with a…. Well, it’s simply Untouchable.
Tosh.
Even
Balderdash.
As brilliant a comment as we have seen from Benson in a minute.
He must have finished his brocolli at lunch, and his cholinesterase inhibitors are working well today.
A wanker by any other name
Other good options would be:
tripe;
codswallop;
utter, utter bollocks.
Of course, use any of these and you get accused of being a troll who learnt English from the works of J K Rowling. (A Scots lass rather than an Englishwoman as it happens, but a very sensible and erudite bunny nevertheless.)
^^^^troll
Or the use of “so to do” instead of “to do so”. Lame.
Oliver got his list off the Internet’s listing of British synonyms
Meanwhile, on the topic of freedom of speech, Trump said in Wilkes-Barre PA that it should be illegal to criticize his SCOTUS appointees. What has Kamala Harris ever said that in any manner implied she supported any kind of limit on free speech, which is what you are accusing her of doing? What is her alleged “radical baggage”–or did you just get this from MAGA media?
Did you see Joe last night? He said there were fine people on both sides, from Antifa and BLM. Truly, he said that and he meant it!
Look at the hypocrite Gigenius back for more.
You screeched that Turley should be sanctioned for his free speech comments about jurists he disagreed with.
And your boy Biden also the pre-eminent hypocrite.
“It’s reckless. It’s dangerous. It’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. The justice system should be respected and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.”
Bwahahahahahaahahahaha
Of course, that was 2 months before hypocrite Biden said that a SCOTUS ruling was “dangerous” and was “undermining the rule of law”.
Biden and Gigenius, peas in a pod.
Tom: you need to work on your reading comprehension. Margot Ballhere said: “If this “new” candidate Kumala (sic–intentional misspelling) Harris is elected, US citizens will be facing the same threat here.” The “threat” was censorship of free speech, so I asked what Kamala Harris ever said that indicated she intended to curb free speech, and I also pointed out that Trump just said at Wilkes-Barre PA that it should be illegal to criticize his SCOTUS appointees–which WOULD be a violation of freedom of speech. In that post I did not say Turley should be sanctioned for criticizing a judge, but in the past I did write that Turley accusing Judge Merchan of dishonesty violated the Rules of Professional Conduct because they constituted baseless accusations against a sitting jurist. I pointed out that an attorney cannot publicly accuse a judge of dishonesty–the remedy is a referral to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The 2020 election was not rigged, there has never been any proof that it was rigged, and Trump won’t stop lying about it. Based on this lie, his followers attacked the Capitol, hunted for Pence and Pelosi, intent on killing them, assaulted police officers and did millions of property damage to our Capitol. Trump continues to claim he did nothing wrong.
Look at the hypocrite Gigenius back for more.
You screeched that Turley should be sanctioned for his free speech comments about jurists he disagreed with.
And your boy Biden also the pre-eminent hypocrite.
“It’s reckless. It’s dangerous. It’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. The justice system should be respected and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.”
Bwahahahahahaahahahaha
Of course, that was 2 months before hypocrite Biden said that a SCOTUS ruling was “dangerous” and was “undermining the rule of law”.
Look at that! I can just repeat the same nonsense again, without disputing anything Tom said—Gigenius
Gigenius said:
“I pointed out that an attorney cannot publicly accuse a judge of dishonesty–the remedy is a referral to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications.”
And you were wrong about that as well.
Then you claimed to be an attorney and promptly accused Kavanaugh and Barrett of dishonesty.
More hypocrisy. You’re the poster child for hypocricy. Like hypocritical hippo.
Of course we know you are not nor ever have been an attorney, but we are used to your pathological lies.
Tom: if you pay attention to recent writings about the SCOTUS, Americans are up in arms over the fact that there is no enforceable mechanism to address ethical complaints against SCOTUS judges. The Court recently adopted the general code of conduct for federal judges, but there is NO enforcement mechanism, so there is no Commission on Judicial Qualifications where you can go to report violations. Clarence Thomas has accepted expensive vacations from Harlan Crow, who has had cases before the SCOTUS — and failed to report them. Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito and Gorsuch all said, during their hearings after being nominated, that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and that stare decisis applied. The first chance they got, they ignored stare decisis, which means that they lied about their position on abortion rights during their confirmation hearings. Alito claimed that his wife, Martha-Ann, flew the US flag upside down and also flew the pine tree flag (both of which are signs of solidarity with the J6 insurrectionists) due to a dispute with a neighbor who had put up an anti-Trump flag. That was not the truth–the dispute with the neighbor didn’t happen until later on, according to local police reports. It is an ethical violation for a federal judge to be involved with partisan political displays. The only mechanism to address judicial misconduct of a SCOTUS judge is impeachment–Republicans wouldn’t impeach any of these 4 even if they committed premeditated murder.
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 (a) prohibits a lawyer from making “a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.” Turley accused Judge Merchan of dishonesty–that is a violation of this Rule.
“a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.”
More hypocrisy from Gigienius, who engaged in the EXACT same conduct as Turley.
More reading comprehension issues from Gigenius, as she demonstrates she has no idea what defamation is.
And thats NOT what it says, ya pathological LIAR.
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.
Pathological.
Gigenius the “attorney”, did you violate this rule when you accused Barrett and Kavanaugh of dishonesty?
Also, if Gigi were a REAL lawyer, she would know that stare decisis does not mean permanent. In fact, there are over 100 times where later SCOTUS cases overturned stare decisis precedent, the latest involving Chevron. It becomes increasingly obvious that Gigi gets all her legal info from Wikipedia and online sources, then presents them as authoritative. Her obnoxious comment about Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito and Gorsuch should subject her to either discipline or a hearing about her own competence as a lawyer. What a clown.
Notice, I have called her out a dozen times since she made that claim. Silence. She knows we know.
The day Gigenius is a lawyer is the day I’m a goddam astronaut–Lt Dan
She has mischaracterized what Kav and ACB said wrt stare decisis until she is blue in the face. Its silly, so I just ignore her on that. Its fun to watch her rant.
“A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech,” warns Jonathan Turley at The Hill. “For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of speech,” and “as vice president, Harris has long supported these anti-free speech policies.” Her VP pick, Tim Walz, “has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech values but an equally shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment,” including when Walz said: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” Adds Turley: “With the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries. Both candidates are committed to using disinformation, misinformation and malinformation as justifications for speech controls.”
Legal or not, constitutional or not – government authorities have and will continue to target the “listeners” of free speech.
For example: anyone merely a fan or supporter of any political view, not embraced by the a particular bureaucrat at a particular time in history – legal or not.
What that means in real practice: covert government blacklisting by your local “Fusion Center”. For example: a truck driver that also supports Trump could receive lifetime surveillance and most harmful Employment Tampering. The truck driver would have his employment destroyed or severely restricted (covertly) by his local Fusion Center (funded by DOJ and DHS) funded by our tax dollars.
Democrats aren’t safe either, Fusion Centers also blacklist non-violent environmental rights activists and animal rights groups.
Since this 20+ year system is unconstitutional, Merrick Garland has an oath sworn duty to end taxpayer-funding of all unconstitutional authorities of Fusion Centers. Let the FCs keep the money for legal constitutional activities.
“government authorities have and will continue to target the “listeners” of free speech.”
That may be part of the reason Fedgov strongly supported and expedited the establishment of the internet. When the the principal methods of communicating anti-establishment ideas and ideology (regardless of POV expressed) were books and periodicals, both of which could be purchased for cash: no records kept, or questions asked, there was no way for the Authoritae to record who had an avid interest in what political point of view. Now all of that is easily tracked (except for those few of us who have learned what steps need to be taken to cover our on-line activities, and taken them), mainly through two facilities: internet browsing activity, and credit card and virtual payment systems.
“sentenced to three years in prison for “stirring up racial hatred.”
Another thing that might stir up racial hatred is running around stabbing little English girls to death.
What may stir up hatred of woke leftist governments is their pretending it doesn’t really matter.
“Another thing that might stir up racial hatred is running around stabbing little English girls to death.”
Why Young, was the “real” perpetrator not White? I am astounded!!!
300 jihadist attacks in 8 years might also stoke a little racial hatred.
Young,
Buy HP 45-70gvt and fill them with lard.
Tempting. Liquified lard could be sprayed over entire communities and flotillas with a couple of crop dusters.
” Liquified lard could be sprayed over entire communities and flotillas with a couple of crop dusters.”
Hmmm. It seems to me that there are other inflammables that are better engineered for that application. One in particular that is essentially jellied automobile fuel comes to mind…
True but lard isn’t lethal, doesn’t destroy buildings and yet is horribly repugnant to some people.
Sorry, my misinterpretation of what you proposed.
Didn’t another famous Englishman, George Orwell, warn about the “Thought Police” in his book “1984”? Orwell apparently was warning England and the world about the dangers of adopting the tactics of communist regimes – like censorship, secret laws and a secret police.
Orwell was warning about international communism, rather than any tendency towards it in the UK. He had worked for the British Government during the war, then devoted his considerable talents to working with the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, which conducted an excellent propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union, Communist China, and their satellites for three decades before it was shut down by an idiotic Foreign Secretary who thought propaganda was wrong, as opposed to just enemy propaganda… The IRD was well ahead of the US in adopting such measures, notwithstanding such brilliant analyses by the likes of George Kennan in his rightly famous Long Telegram(me).
George “liked” you again, strangely within minutes of your posting. Are you one and the same?
I love how Mr Anonymous is so obsessed by my identity. He clearly has absolutely no self awareness. Bless.
HA! Love how ole Oliver toned down his “British” semantics once someone called him out for it. Now he sounds quite American.
It’s the same dumfuk
Hey, remember Kill a Commie for you Mommy or Kill em all let God sort em out bumper stickers?
Back when Government had total control over all.
*tosh!
“Orwell was warning about international communism, rather than any tendency towards it in the UK.”
Utter, complete hogwash. A mind-numbingly ignorant view of Orwell.
His passionate concern was, in fact, with your country’s “intellectual cowardice,” and with the then “prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia.”
(See his proposed Preface to _Animal Farm_, “Times Literary Supplement,” September 15, 1972)
Anon– The Left, now dominating many Western governments, keeps 1984 on every desk as an instructional manual.
* A moment of soberness recalling war. There is some ominous feeling that a dark world government is pulling strings and with indifference.
Let’s for a moment remember how Jewish people were arrested and what came next. For a moment understand the real possibility that there are those still on earth with such dark hearts and depraved indifference of human life.
God given right of speech because it’s the form created with such an ability and no doubt in the likeness of the creator.
The UK citizens do have a voice.
In Other News: “UK Vows to Send Shock Troops into Northern Ireland to Crack Down on Teenage Bloggers Accused of ‘Stirring up Hatred and Violence'”
~+~
A senior police official promised to reconstitute the Royal Ulster Constabulary and exercise summary justice after teenagers residing in the Bogside neighborhood of Derry posted images depicting the Teletubbie character “Dipsy” coloured as the flag of the Republic of Ireland.
“If the cultural appropriation of a true British Institution were not enough, stirring up sectarian violence by putting a Provo symbol on that institution is just asking for us to restore peace and order by any means necessary. Residents will come to appreciate and love our firm hand”
Darren: “In Other News: “UK Vows to Send Shock Troops into Northern Ireland to Crack Down on Teenage Bloggers Accused of ‘Stirring up Hatred and Violence’”
+++
Sounds like a great way to get the bloggers off their keyboards– and into the streets with clubs and guns.
But they banned guns! The IRA wasn’t supposed to have guns either. Anyhow. ..
“If the cultural appropriation of a true British Institution were not enough, stirring up sectarian violence by putting a Provo symbol on that institution is just asking for us to restore peace and order by any means necessary. Residents will come to appreciate and love our firm hand.”
War on improperly dressed Teletubbies. Firm hands. Does Babylon Bee write these nutty speeches? It is funny though.