Mr. Bean saw it coming

Mar 23, 2018 1:22 PM

katwa

Views

229198

Likes

6437

Dislikes

141

Mr. Bean saw it coming

Yeah, you'll never believe me where I found that picture. I just cropped it a bit.
Where I found it? Tumblr of all places.

In any case, here's the article (different picture of Mr Atkinson, same article)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9616750/Rowan-Atkinson-we-must-be-allowed-to-insult-each-other.html

laws

uk

mr_bean

current_events

political_correctness

Step 1: Claim to be offended and insulted by parliament. Step 2: Demand their arrest.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

This is BS. Your feelings don't trump my rights.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 245 Dislikes 4

v

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

He is an exceptionally intelligent And high educated comic!

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 4

Here in UK the police can fuck your shit up for being “offensive”. In America the media does it for them. We’re all fucked.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

US and UK is not "All". It's just you who's fucked. We're doing just fine in our horrible fascist central Europe.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

He’s just Bean reasonable.

8 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 2

That’s a pretty disgusting law.

8 years ago | Likes 98 Dislikes 1

It was only ever present in order to prevent things like people picketing at soldiers' funerals and shit like that. The papers picked it 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

up in 2012 and started going on about how it could be used by police officers to arrest anyone who swore etc, but in the 27 years 1.5/2

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

between it's introduction and 2012, like 4 or 5 people were ever arrested and I think there was a collective something like £500 worth1.75/2

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

of fines following it, but that didn't stop everyone going mental about it. Was revoked in 2013 and guess what? nothing fucking changed 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

Interesting. A good mind to not jump on the bandwagon.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

i think that section 5 of the public order act (1986) no longer includes "insulting", so no worries.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

there is plenty of subjective langue they can get with left dont worry.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Ephraim Borowski is the name of the man who 'killed free speech in the UK'. He took it upon himself to bring the case to the police.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

He reportedly a nasty piece of work; sexist, anti-musim and anti-refugees. and accused of bullying and harassment.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Last paragraph: gay campaigners arrested for insulting Islamist extremists (who advocate the killing of gays). Ehh, da fuck?

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Without a source I'm going to be sceptical of it

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

http://outrage.org.uk/1995/01/gay-activists-stand-trial-over-islamic-protest/ If you have time, you can look for the court case online too.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It seems like it was mostly words against words

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Im sorry, but when the goofiest man in the U.K. starts making sence you know something's wrong. This is coming from an American.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

rulers of the UK hate the native population and are actively tying to replace it.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Playful teasing builds resiliency in children. It has been proven. Without it, children develop poor coping mechanisms.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

The judge said the context was irrelevant. They had to deliberately misunderstand the joke in order to get a conviction. That's INSANE.

8 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 10

This would mean the death of British humor. Any humor, actually. I have half a mind to silly walk right out of here.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Do you need a grant?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 146 Dislikes 30

I'd be nice if the libertarians that held office were like that. Of course though, they're not, eg Rand Paul.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Rand Paul, though, is the only person really opposing Trump's new picks for SoS and CIA director: A Torturer and warmonger. I respect that.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Libertarians: pretending that "leaving you alone" suddenly erases a long history of oppression and poverty and makes you equal.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

Holding people responsible for the crimes of their ancestors is illogical, and immoral.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not about crime and punishment. It's about taking care of your community and not just letting the poor get fucked.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Think of it like this: if a big kid on the playground kicked the shit out of a small one, is it better for you to ignore it or help them up?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not like the assholes in power are ever going to do anything to fix it or help anyone either.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

We can't always be cynical. We have soc security, food stamps, social programs. Yeah it's hard and it doesn't always work, but we gotta try

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I agree but if you don't tackle corruption and monopoly they will run rife in a libertarial society

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Unlike how it is now!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ummm Sir, do you hate your country? do you not thank god you were born in your great country everyday? Are you a commie?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Ouch.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As a social Libertarian, yeah, minimal taxing to be able to have some social security for those that cannot work, and the rest has to get 1/

8 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 24

on by themselves, work, and make a respectable future for yourself. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 18

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

personal responsibility. Something that has gone out the window the past 10 years

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 6

With the advances in psychology thats not very surprising.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 8

I mean, I am hesitant to call myself a Libertarian these days because so many are pro corps. I'm more of a jeffersonian there.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Is it related to that youtuber that got arrested for teaching his dog nazi salute or something like that?

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 4

Yeah, that's how people are tying it into this. Crying to free Dankula and calling you all sorts of rude names if you dissent.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Fighting nazi slogans by becoming more like nazis is the height of stupidity

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Paradox of tolerance.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We ARE free to insult each other. Saying we SHOULDN'T insult each other is completely different. Don't conflate "shouldn't" with "can't".

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Nobody is arguing that you SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO INSULT each other. They're arguing that you SHOULDN'T INSULT each other. Big difference.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

(Yes, probably somebody somewhere is arguing that. They're few and far between. Engage with the actual argument presented.)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I am pretty sure the Scottish courts just said that you are not allowed to insult certain people.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

How can this be law? A world where everyone is offended by everything seems an underhanded population control method. All dysfunctional!

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Fuck censorship.

8 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

Aye, cheers for that contribution, George Orwell.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Right in the cunt.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't that be censoring censorship

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Maybe that is what censorship wants?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Now remember the pendulum swings both ways..today it's them tomorrow will be us

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

Yup, case in point the nazi who got arrested with the pug called for mass incarcerations of liberals.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 7

A lot of us saw it coming. It was idiots who went "No, people will use their common sense to not do bad things with the law" here's the

8 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 6

thing about common sense: it means different things to everyone. Where the line lays, is different for each individual. And for some, it

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 2

doesn't exist at all. I've been saying for years: we either protect all offensive speech, hate or otherwise, or we protect none of it.

8 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

I agree words schmurds nothing fucking matters then you die fuck you all peace be with you

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yep. Can't ban certain speech because everyone draws the line differently. If you think something said is stupid then challenge the speech

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Based on merit and fact, don't just disallow what you don't like.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Arrested for calling Scientology a cult? So now you can be arrested for telling the truth?

8 years ago | Likes 1463 Dislikes 9

ah but you are not telling the true truth of the truth of the true, therefore it is true that the truth is truer than true

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

used to be they'd just kill you.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Cunt.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Sure, you can be fined and fired in some places for saying transwomen are male

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Remember, when you give power of censorship, eventually the wrong people might be in power... And Scientology has tons of lawyers and more.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

well, if it's offensive to a Brit, yes...which shows just how absurd it is...America was right to fight a war to get away from this lunacy!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That has always been the case

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How can you defend liberal human rights like right to self determination and gender equality and honestly talk about any abrahamic faith?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Easy, just be a postmodernist scumbag that pretends not to believe in the truth, only a dystopian power struggle where might makes right.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Only the wrong kind of truth.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It’s not a cult if you gain religious tax exemptions.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well no one really cares about truth any more

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Some do, but they're all immediately branded as "nazis" by the mainstream left in every western country.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Concerning, when this is saying you cant critize or insulting bad acts. If we accept that then bad people can do what they want.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

In the UK, if the authorities call it "hate speech" you're pretty much screwed.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Ya know who Charles Murray is? He wrote a book about IQ and got lambasted as a racist because he reported his scientific findings without

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

saying anything racist. In fact, he and his co-author devoted pages to talking about how they weren't racist and that they were just

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

reporting the facts. People that want you to stop talking because you hurt their feelings don't care about facts or truth or honesty. They

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

just want to feel "secure" which tends to mean "having control over the actions of somebody who may cause perceived harm"

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Yeah, no. The Bell Curve was far from a simple statement of data.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Thats what happens when you don't have FREEDOM

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

What's worse, to me, is being jailed for protesting a group that openly says they want to murder you because of how you live your life

8 years ago | Likes 85 Dislikes 5

Islam?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's what got me. This group can say they want to murder that one. But I would get arrested for saying something against the 1st? Bullshit

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

This article is from 2013. The Outrage! members were ARRESTED in 1994. A much less gay-friendly time, and a much more tolerant place for 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 5

fundamentalist Muslims. You might recall a couple of events between then and now that changed that fact. Anyway, the Outrage! guys were1.5/2

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

arrested for blocking the highway, with the Public Order Act cited secondarily, and they weren't jailed. They were charged and found 1.75/2

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

not guilty afaik. Either way the max punishement is a fine somewhere around the low triple figures. No jail time. Imo they never 1.875/2

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

No, you can't. The public order act was introduced in 1986, this daily mail article dragged up shit as old as 1994 in order to make a 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

Check out Mr. Reasonable here with his facts and context. (Thanks.)

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

big deal about it in 2013. That was one case oft cited where "a 16 was arrested in 2008 for holding a sign saying Scientology is a 1.5/2

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

dangerous cult" but it's kinda simplified. A group was protesting outside the London Scientology centre, the police came to move them 1.75/2

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

on after complaints they were being obstructive. The entire rest of the protest agreed to move on, but the kid decided to fight it 1.875/2

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

so the police told him they would arrest him. He didn't move on so they gave him a court summons. The Crown Prosecution later deemed 1.975/2

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

English libel law, as an illustration, do not allow for truth as a defense as US libel law does. In the US system of justice, telling the...

8 years ago | Likes 273 Dislikes 6

You do have “privilege” under the Defamation Act though. It’s pretty much the “truth” Defense.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A lot of people also don't know that unlike the US "Freedom of speech" is not a freedom in lots of first world counties... Poor Dankula.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Looks like the Brits passed that law 2 years late.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How the hell does the Daily Mail exist then?

8 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 0

a hecking lot of air quotes

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because it's full of bullshit, and not a single truth is told within its pages!

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Ahahahahah

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

good lawyers and a healthy amount of "some sources say,"

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

truth, even if damaging, is protected. Not so in England.

8 years ago | Likes 220 Dislikes 1

Well that doesn't make sense. By that logic, the discovery phase of a court case technically meets the definition of libel.

8 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 0

No wonder we left.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Finally, the US is less stupid about basic human rights than another country

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Whut

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

What. The. Fuck?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Truth according to the Judge or the Jury? If I was a member of scientology this would be a lie. Can't use the defence

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 13

Truth=fact under US law

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Scientology has a fuckload of expensive lawyers that use any grammatical loophole they can find. Most other cults can't afford that

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

That's asinine. Telling the truth should never be illegal. That would stop whistleblowers, rape accusations, murder witnesses...

8 years ago | Likes 152 Dislikes 0

Tell that to Sweden and Germany.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I would happily tell them that they are objectively wrong.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"HELP he's murdering me!" "I am not, and now I'm suing you for slander. I'll see you in court, after I'm done murdering you."

8 years ago | Likes 102 Dislikes 1

As you can see, the defendant is not present for the trial. As such, I must be right.

8 years ago | Likes 72 Dislikes 1

The truth is protected in England, however the burden to prove it's true falls on the publisher not the recipient as in the USA

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Don't you mean author, not recipient? Also, truth really is not accepted as defense in libel in UK. Must show truth serves Public Interest.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Wait WTF, how would a UK libel case even be constructed then. The only proposition in the accusation is “I have hurt feelings”.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

"You hurt my feelings, change my mind" The SJW Crowder edition D:

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"harrassment, distress or alarm" its so horrifically open ended literaly anything could be hate speach.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So the law is entirely subjectively dependent on how sensitive I am. Got it. I now find all pants offensive. World, remove pants please.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Freedom of speech would be irrelevant if nobody ever said anything offensive or insulting

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 5

Go fuck yourself cool guy.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Sorta like how racism would end if we exterminated all but one of them?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Nah, then there'd be internal racism. Never underestimate the horrible need of a scapegoat for hate.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

As an Englishman i refuse to pander to this PC bullshit. I don’t seek to offend but if you need to be called a cunt, ill say it.

8 years ago | Likes 479 Dislikes 31

Just don't teach your pug to say cunt

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

HATE CRIMINAL HATE CRIMINAL HATE CRIMINAL

8 years ago | Likes 98 Dislikes 4

Please report to your friendly government reeducation facility for wrongthink post haste.

8 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 2

Perfectly put, fellow Limey Man!!

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

An Englishman wouldn't use the L-word! :O

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

One detects an imposter amongst our ranks!

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Agreed. As an Arab i'm all for being free to insult others in what you all might consider to be non-understandable gibberish.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Sometimes you need to call a cunt, a cunt.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

You been following that Count Dankula story?

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Oi m8 do you have a comment loicense?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Just don't say that in public in the UK

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I second the motion , I will fight for the right for you to be a prick and for anothers right to call you a prick

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You're a cunt, Harry.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And get mad when people call them out for being racist. Suddenly they're the victims even though they know what they are doing.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

A man who owns a coffee shop in vancouver picketed a gay wedding. He put it all over his facebook. People quit buying his coffee. 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

This is where PC isn't really understood by most people. It was meant to prevent one group of people ganging up on a powerless minority. >

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

In addition to this. Once you realise the creation of "alternative comedy" of which Stewart Lee (my username is based off one of his sets) >

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

helped co-write Jerry Springer: The Opera, when broadcast on BBC received an astronomical number of complaints, which lead to the change of>

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

blasphemy laws in the UK. Nowadays this would be called "politically uncorrect". Ignoring the real reason for political correctness!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Your gov't is tyranous, you should have a revolution or something

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/2 and a year later he went out of business. Being a racist isn't illegal but neither is refusing to do business with a racist.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

It's every Englishman's right to call a cunt a cunt

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's a difference between calling someone who deserves it a cunt and walking around shouting the n word. Most repubs do the second 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 10

Get used to prison mate.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Go ahead.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I agree

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

and that's okay because it's actually not illegal. The clause was changed to "threatening or abusive" in 2013.

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

I'd feel abused and threatened if someone in anger called me a cunt

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The legality of threatening behaviour isn’t under dispute as far as I’m concerned. It should be exactly as legal as it currently isn’t.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Shhh, can't be honest and acknowledge that 99% of the time free speech isn't actually under attack and that people claiming that it is 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 8

are usually just cowards afraid of the social consequences of speech and too weak to stand up for themselves and their convictions. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 8

If free speech IS being infringed, then I'm totally against it myself. But in this case the public order act had been in place since 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

1986, and in that 27 year period, there were like 5 arrests and ~£500 worth of fines collectively. The laws were designed to stop 1.5/2

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

Calling someone a cunt is fine. Racially abusing someone isn't.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 38

Exactly. But imgur is to offended to understand

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Stfu you cunt

8 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 5

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Socially, I'd agree. Legally that's being a cunt.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

As usual the closet nazis downvote a perfectly valid comment.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 21

It's amazing you associate defending free speech with defending nazis.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That's the paradox of tolerance.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Oi! @Trickymex! You’re a cunt, mate! ????

8 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 0

Arrest this man

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I respect this response v

8 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

Nah you’re alright mate :)

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Neil Armstrong?!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Wait what...? Protesting the killing of "gays, jews, and unchaste women" got people arrested in the UK?

8 years ago | Likes 71 Dislikes 8

We had a time when it was entirely unacceptable to say anything negative about any muslim without it automatically being racism.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

There was one case where a student was arrested for telling a mounted officer "do you realise your horse is gay?" and I recall something 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

about two guys from Outrage! being arrested in the 90s or something. The article is stretching to find people to produce as evidence 1.5/2

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

if it's going back that far. Should also be pointed out the public order act had been in it's previous form (insulting was removed in 1.75/2

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

2013) since 1986, and like 4 people have ever been arrested for it, and all of them were spurious in the extreme and treated as such 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

and yet now we have people being arrested and sentenced for a questionable joke involving a pug.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People get arrested in the UK for saying mean things about Islam...not even muslims but for expressing negativitiy towards BELIEFS!

8 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 8

Genuinely interested in examples of this

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

No actual examples of arrests. TR Is a nuisance who hasn’t spoken any sense since he was last paid to.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Look at basically every event Tommy Robinson has been to. Not far left slander about him, but the actual videos themselves.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sure they don't have guns to protect their rights to free speech so their government walks all over them.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 32

I think their problem is they have a half-assed right to free speech...which doesn't include shit that upsets anybody. which is insane

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Guns will fix that during the 2nd civil war.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Shove your crappy gun politics in to your own gun and fire them up your asshole.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I'd let you do it but, you don't have a clue how firearms work.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

of course not, i've never had a need to use one

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Is that what you do in the US then? You defend your free speech with guns? Tell me how many times have you shot a police officer who was 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Absolutely. Amendment #1 is right to free speech. Amendment #2 is the right to bear guns to prevent the takeover of a tyrannical gov

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

And look what a fantastic state your country is in!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

infringing on your right to say whatever you want? 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

We are dangerously close to police officers getting shot for suppressing our freedom of speech. They are being tyrannical. And we own guns.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Good luck with that

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But Americans don't use their guns to protect against their government. They use them to kill each others.

8 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 5

Good one

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

lol

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That's not how any of this works. Having guns wouldn't have stopped this. As we've seen plenty of failures with that in the USA

8 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 5

Violent crime almost unanimously goes up when guns go down. Its just the truth statistically. I don't care how you FEEL.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

30k dead annually by firearms in USA. 500k to 3million saved by firearms every year. Maybe exponentially more. Who do you care about?

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 12

Down vote the truth all you want Democrats. The truth is the truth.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

10 million lives are saved by potatoes every year. I can pull numbers out of my asshole too lol u silly imbecile.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

It's called statistics from the FCC. They are posted online for intelligent people to read. Your the reason America is failing. Stupidity

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Do ANY amount of research and you will see your wrong.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 14

*You're.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Yes we are on the brink of a 2nd civil war. Don't you see the country deviding? I hope your ready to fight for your freedoms because I am.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

What does that have to do with anything?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

26 loons who claimed to"believe in god" took over a building with guns. And we used the police and their guns to stop it.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Now that there are two counter claims against you, what is your response?

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Their counter points do not alter my facts.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Freedom of speech > Freedom from hurt feelings

8 years ago | Likes 638 Dislikes 32

8 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 1

Always upvote Jordan Peters

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

In Germany, you can tell people they are an asshole, but you could get charged with offending behaviour and get fined thousands of euros.

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

why? Because telling somebody they *are* an asshole is stating a fact -> illegal. Tell somebody *in their opinion they're an asshole ->legal

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 4

I'd like to point out for some nations there's difference between hurt feelings and say, fucking nazism and people advocating genocide kurwa

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 7

Polandball being such example. Your flirting with neonazis by rendering them legal... you do that. We've had tad worse experiences so excuse

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 6

us for constitutionally banning any form of ideology that if adopted by masses and political platforms means literal, actual death.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 6

i really wish more people stepped away from the ideological “WE SHOULD LET EVERYONE SUPPORT WHATEVER IDEOLOGY” to see the reality of what

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

harm some ideologies can do (those that call for violence) when left unchecked and allowed to flourish. its the tolerance paradox.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

People cannot be relied on to make unbiased assessments of negative claims, so there has to be laws against saying false claims which hurt.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Like libel laws? That's fine, but the UK law is ridiculous.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

8 years ago (deleted Mar 25, 2018 1:17 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

maybe you don't understand what freedom means

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

8 years ago (deleted May 25, 2018 7:56 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

That's offensive! See you in court, bucko!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I bet you play priest.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I see you.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

creates "issues"? I'd prefer splitting hairs over what I said vs jail time cuz I said something "insulting"

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

gas the jews isn't offensive. It's hate speech. there is a difference

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Shh, don't tell Google, facebook, Reddit, and Twitter that. They ban people who don't think exactly the same way as they want.

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 8

Downvoting this only proves you've bought into propaganda by these companies. Corporate censorship is a real issue.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Don't forget imgur

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They dont ban you yet. Just downvote you.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

true, then they can say that they allow everyone to voice their opinion

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There's a lot of fucked up shit about America, but I'd still rather live here than anywhere else. I'm a big fan of our Constitution.

8 years ago | Likes 90 Dislikes 23

Me too. I'm a Minarchist.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Username does not check out

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Minarchy. As small a government as is reasonable and effective. This falls well inside of the Libertarian umbrella.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Libertarianism is NOT anarchy, though anarchy is a form of libertarianism.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

“We may not always get it right, but there’s no place else I’d rather live my life”

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

A-fucking-men. We may be fuck ups, but at least we are relatively free to be fuck ups.

8 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 9

YouTube shows this of daily.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

In the UK you probably need a license to be a fuck up

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Heyoooooo

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

How's that net nuetrality thing going

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 7

That's offensive. I'll be seeing you in court.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Actually, nothing changed. We lived without this for like 10 years.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Nothing has changed at all about the internet. Almost like alarmist sensationalism is ridiculous

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

America is one of the less PC places especially compared to West Europe.

8 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 9

That's a pretty narrow view of the world. There's a lot of places where the concept of "PC" literally does not exist.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 4

And Canada. They’re arresting stand up comedians for “offensive” jokes

8 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 3

Wait what? Last I heard the comedians are trying to make a stand against humor after the little jeremie thing in Montreal

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Don't forget article c-16 which forces people to use made up pronouns (ze/zer) even though there are only 2 genders

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Cite me the language in that ammendment that makes that a crime. The Canadian BAR association shit on that professors amateur

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Legal interpretation of that bill, did you actually read it, or just get upset because a pundit or a YouTube video told you to.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Really? Less taxation but shitty workers rights, shitty healthcare, big pharma fucking over the little guy. Nope.

8 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 22

Less taxation is a good thing, workers have the freedom to move away from a bad job, and American health care is the best in the world...

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

...it's just really expensive.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You get what you pay for.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Ditto.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 9

I said there's a lot of fucked up shit about it. At least jokes aren't illegal here, though.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Free Speech is the most fundamental human right. Without it, everything else can be stripped away with little to no effort.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

To each their own. I've never known anything else so I can't pass judgement

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

Take my upvote, i wish more people had views like you

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Don't forget being arrested for jokes, police halting investigations of sex trafficking... wait, that's Europe

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 4

Making offending people illegal is inherently retarded, because it can only be selectively enforced.

8 years ago | Likes 1523 Dislikes 25

Yep, muslims are the only victims

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 15

PC culture is insidious.

8 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 4

Keep in mind this is the uk where for centuries insulting a person of higher standing could get a punishment

8 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 4

Thats pretty much every country mate.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Exactly. Nothing like having the politically motivated government of today decide where the line is especially when each party has an agenda

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The slipperiest of slopes

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

Morty: Ooo, oh boy Rick, I-I don't think you're allowed to say that word. Ya know?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

did you just used the r word?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

No. He said retarded.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

/sarcmark

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

careful, you’ll get arrested for saying “retarded”.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Nah don't worry, I live where we still have rights, for now.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

STFU IDIOT AND STOP OVERREACTING LIKE THAT

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 10

Some folks might not appreciate the sarcasm

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Sarcasm can only be delivered effectively by a few.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

v

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

The idea that someone being offended should matter is idiotic in the first place. We're supposed to challenge, question and criticize!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If your thoughts and soeech causes offense, you might be onto something.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

hey yeah good point. Still fuck you though for using that word

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It depends. There is a blurry line between speech which is jus offensive and that which is harrassing. Free speech has never been unlimted.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

It is not inherently retarded. It is inherently malicious. Or do you think the people that drafted those laws did not realize what they /

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

/were doing?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There's a difference between making jokes a person and hating a person. Just because I think something is funny doesn't mean I hate em

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And usually it will be enforced by or on the behalf of people who demonstrate exceptional loyalty to the sitting government. Hm.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Otherwise, taking offense to the law would make said law(and the lawmakers who pushed it through, for that matter) in violation of itself.

8 years ago | Likes 229 Dislikes 4

Not necessarily, the bullshit oversight committee established by the government would be designed to not agree with your logic.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

It would be difficult to prove that a law causes offense. There's no precedent for it and no expert psychologist would testify.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

How do you psychologically prove offense? Its literally one of the most subjective things possible

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I mean. I'm offended by it. I'm sure plenty of brits are offended by it. Or is that not what's referred to by offense?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

yep, totally subjective and power hungry

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

thats the entire point of doing it though. what you're calling a bug see as a feature

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Right? We would basically be arresting all old people that are stuck in their racist ways. The harmless ones that just use bad language.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm offended by your use of the word retarded, see you in court 8)

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

when retards makes the rules, expect retarded results

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've got a solution, everybody has offended somebody else at some time or other so we all just have to spend a year in jail.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm offended by people saying that they are offended by such things but no one will be arrested for offending me.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

inherently mentally challenged*

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I'm offended by the word "retarded".

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*subjectively

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Has anybody here actually read the legislation? Has Atkinson read the actual legislation? I suspect it differs from the portrayal here.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 12

it does. but people like to circlejerk and complain about problems that arn't real

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Yup. For example I take offense to the word retard. Should laws change cos I get offended? Absolutely not. It’s my opinion and not fact.

8 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 1

Everything is an opinion, every law ever made and enforced is based on an opinion

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Thank you for not being a retard about this. World needs more people like you.

8 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 2

You sound retarded.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

And this is what makes us a modern society. The freedom to say retarded things such as this.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

But his use could be implying that such action is retarding (delaying the progress of) society and further proving the OP's original point.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

That is true sir. Ergo, before I get offended, I should take a moment to think it through... oh, you see, there I go applying logic again...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

All uses of the word retard, or only when it is misappropriated to be used as an insult?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Put it this way. You don't call retarded people retards. It's bad taste. You call your friends retards when they're acting retarded. -Mike S

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

I call mentally retarded people mentally retarded when talking about them/their condition if its relevant. i dont address anyone as retarded

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Precisely. I appreciate the opinions of you bunch of retards.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm offended. Arrest him officer!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

hey there. I'm riding the coattails of your comment to point out that the "insult" clause of the Public Order Act was revoked way back 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

in 2013. In the UK the only things that you can be arrested for saying are things that incite racial hatred or qualify as hate speech. 1.5/2

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

So you are totally free to say "I fucking hate muslims/ gays/ minorities generally", but you are not free to say "we should kill them". 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Then in that case I fucking hate muslims/ gays/ minorities generally ;D

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

and I defend your right to say so, even if I think it makes you a horrible rotting prick.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

great point. but it seems that most people here want to be able to say they can kill people

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I object to your use of the word "retarded" as an insult but because I'm an adult I'm going to accept it and move on with my life.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

And I tend to object to people assuming authority over what sounds I'm allowed to make, but when asked politely, I'll at least try.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

When around them, I mean*

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

If more people would you shut the fuck up and move on with their life it would be a much better world to live in

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

It's government trying to legislate morality (words and thoughts) instead of legality (actions and results).

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

What about threatening to harm someone directly, just words, what about that particular case?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

To clarify: trying to change how you talk *about* people is trying to legislate morality instead of legality.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In practice, every government legislate morality since they determine what is punishable and what not and Universal morality does not exist

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I didn't say it was a wide line. That said, there's a difference between insults and threats.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The fact that you're offended offends me. Instant stalemate.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

nah, massive fines for everybody! :D government wins

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well the fact that you offense-stalemated me offends me to however offended you are TIMES TWO NO MATTER WHAT. Fucking eat it, scrub; I win.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

boTH OF YOU OR OFFENDING THE COURT!!!! DEATH IS YOUR SENTENCE! court wins evrytim

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Exactly. You can’t make “hate speech” illegal when there is no objective definition and no objective examples of it.

8 years ago | Likes 70 Dislikes 8

You can. It's not easy, but that's what science of law does.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

it my understanding hate speach is hating someone for what they are not who they are. because they are black, not cuz he is an asshole

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Basically the police guage if the crime is in the public interest to take to court, take a punt and see if it sticks.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

The issue there is that they can take "the public interest" to mean "their interest" or "the government's interest"

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

It isnt objective if their is a law to define it.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Interpretation and precedence is set by a court if the legislation contains no clear definition. Sometimes they refer to dictionaries!

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Sure we can. Hate speech = criticism + privilege. Only white people are privileged. Therefore, hate speech is whites criticizing nonwhites.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 8

Ha ha ha

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

You laugh, but I've actually heard this argument uttered in sincerity by people in real life.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

I laughed because I actually couldn't tell if you were serious or not.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yea I'm not at all surprised.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Anything negative about Islam is "hate speech." That's really all they are worried about now.

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 10

Exactly. You’ll never see Muslims prosecuted under this law

8 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

Actually the precursor to this law was to ban muslim imams preaching violence, several have been prosecuted under hate speech.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Only the ones advocating domestic terrorism. You wont see a muslim prosecuted for hating white people. The opposite will happen constantly.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

I hope it "backfires" when they inevitably put bots to search, that got auto translate and "suddenly" find Arabic hate speech.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0