Freedom Of Speech.

[Lucy75]

Every person that a court aquits is evidence that the police arrest innocent people. That's obvious and hardly worth stating.

Some are released without charge. Many are also charged and then released without prosecution, or prosecuted and found to be not guilty.

Meaning that they felt that they couldn't prove an offence had been committed.

And given that the only possible evidence was the witness statement of the police officer, that no offence had actually taken place.

 

You are assuming that innocent people are always found innocent and guilty people are always found guilty, when in fact guilty people get away with crime because of a lack of evidence and innocent people get convicted because courts sometimes get it wrong. Being unable to prove an offence was committed does not mean that it wasn't committed. Rape is a good example, plenty of rapists get away with rape because rape is very difficult to prove, but if someone raped you, you would know they are a rapist even if they are never convicted. You could even be prosecuted for slander if you spread that fact about, because you do not have freedom of speech.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 09:32 ----------

 

Kin Jong-Un, he says you're so wrong

 

An objective indicia for normalised freedom of speech (universally accepted as such) is press freedom, so here, fill your boots.

 

Why do I have this nagging feeling that I'm just wasting my time here

No, no, no: no distraction intended at all, it's actually meant to poke fun at you

 

So you don't think the people of North Korea are free to speak with limitations?

[L00b]

So you don't think the people of North Korea are free to speak with limitations?

By comparison with Cameron's "freedom of speech for everyone in democracies like Britain"? No, absolutely not.

 

You'd have to be a tool of 'Stanley' or 'Facom' magnitude to believe different.

[Lucy75]

By comparison with Cameron's "freedom of speech for everyone in democracies like Britain"? No, absolutely not.

 

You'd have to be a tool of 'Stanley' or 'Facom' magnitude to believe different.

 

They have to follow the same rules that we follow, they can say whatever they like but with limitations set by government. If they say something the government deem unacceptable they will be prosecuted just as we would be prosecuted if we say something the government deem unacceptable. So neither we or they have freedom of speech because all Governments restrict speech with varying limitations.

 

Based on David Camerons idea of freedom of Speech, Kin Jong-Un can say the same.

 

 

David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech, with limitations.

 

Kin Jong-Un says in a country like North Karia everybody was entitled to free speech, with limitations.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Lucy75

[Cyclone]

You are assuming that innocent people are always found innocent and guilty people are always found guilty, when in fact guilty people get away with crime because of a lack of evidence and innocent people get convicted because courts sometimes get it wrong.

So now you believe that sometimes the court convict the innocent.

But strangely you don't believe first that the police arrest them.

How do you think they ever end up in court in the first place if the police don't sometimes arrest the innocent?

Being unable to prove an offence was committed does not mean that it wasn't committed. Rape is a good example, plenty of rapists get away with rape because rape is very difficult to prove, but if someone raped you, you would know they are a rapist even if they are never convicted. You could even be prosecuted for slander if you spread that fact about, because you do not have freedom of speech.

Which makes it clear that legally, you are innocent. Which happens to be the case against here doesn't it. Legally that person is innocent. So I really don't know what point you are trying to make with it as an example.

There have of course been cases where people are actually convicted for hate speech, and indeed a fairly famous one for someone initially convicted (and later overturned) for making a joke about blowing Doncaster airport up!

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 10:28 ----------

 

Funny really

The fact he was arrested, charged and taken to court is evidence that what he said was in fact against the law

...

in my world the police tend not to arrest people that haven't broken the law, but they do arrest lawbreakers but then fail to secure a conviction

...

innocent people get convicted

Difficult to hold all of those opinions at once I'd have thought.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 10:30 ----------

 

Which leads back to my response originally.

 

And since we don't have a rash of prosecutions over the last 5 years against people claiming that homosexuality is a sin, I'd suggest that it is an opinion you can share with practically no risk of arrest. So a poor example

Hoist by your own petard.

 

Anyway, were you ever going to read and reply to the opening post, you've been avoiding doing so far at least 3 pages.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Cyclone

[L00b]

David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech, with limitations.

 

Kin Jong-Un says in a country like North Karia everybody was entitled to free speech, with limitations.

So, you believe North Korea is "a democratic country like" Britain. Oh dear

[Lucy75]

So now you believe that sometimes the court convict the innocent.

But strangely you don't believe first that the police arrest them.

How do you think they ever end up in court in the first place if the police don't sometimes arrest the innocent?

 

Which makes it clear that legally, you are innocent. Which happens to be the case against here doesn't it. Legally that person is innocent. So I really don't know what point you are trying to make with it as an example.

There have of course been cases where people are actually convicted for hate speech, and indeed a fairly famous one for someone initially convicted (and later overturned) for making a joke about blowing Doncaster airport up!

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 10:28 ----------

 

Funny really

 

Difficult to hold all of those opinions at once I'd have thought.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 10:30 ----------

 

Which leads back to my response originally.

 

 

Hoist by your own petard.

 

Anyway, were you ever going to read and reply to the opening post, you've been avoiding doing so far at least 3 pages.

 

The police arrest people after a crime as been committed, obviously they sometimes arrest the wrong person, but they don't arrest people for crimes that haven't been committed.

 

Someone that commits a crime can be found not guilty, the fact they are found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime.

 

Difficult to hold all what opinion at once?

 

I read and replied to the Opening post, that is the very reason you are now arguing with me.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 11:53 ----------

 

So, you believe North Korea is "a democratic country like" Britain. Oh dear

 

In which post did I say North Korea is a democratic country?

[L00b]

In which post did I say North Korea is a democratic country?

You can't remember your own posts?!?

 

Never fear, that's the beauty of online forums: the persistence of posters' statements. So, #103:

David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech, with limitations.

 

Kin Jong-Un says in a country like North Karia everybody was entitled to free speech, with limitations.

Notice the missing bit in your comparison, by any chance?

 

Can I just ask...are you on a prescription or something?

Edited March 18, 2015 by L00b

[Lucy75]

You can't remember your own posts?!?

 

Never fear, that's the beauty of online forums: the persistence of posters' statements. So, #103:

Notice the missing bit in your comparison, by any chance?

 

Can I just ask...are you on a prescription or something?

 

I can remember what I wrote but you appear to be having difficulty reading it.

 

So Britain a democratic country has free speech with limitations, North Korea not a democracy but also has free speech with limitations. Meaning the people in both countries can say whatever they like but will face prosecution if they say anything that the respective governments deem unacceptable.

So in realty the people have both countries do not have freedom of speech.

[Cyclone]

The police arrest people after a crime as been committed, obviously they sometimes arrest the wrong person, but they don't arrest people for crimes that haven't been committed.

They arrest people on suspicion of commiting a crime, quite often it turns out that no crime has been committed. This comes out either quickly, and they are released, or at some later stage when the CPS drop the prosecution or when the court acquits them.

 

Someone that commits a crime can be found not guilty, the fact they are found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime.

Yes, so what? You've also accepted that sometimes people are wrongly convicted. Which HAS to mean that they were wrong arrested. Something you previously claimed didn't happen.

 

I read and replied to the Opening post, that is the very reason you are now arguing with me.

 

Could you tell me what post number you replied to the OP in?

[Mister M]

I can remember what I wrote but you appear to be having difficulty reading it.

 

So Britain a democratic country has free speech with limitations, North Korea not a democracy but also has free speech with limitations. Meaning the people in both countries can say whatever they like but will face prosecution if they say anything that the respective governments deem unacceptable.

So in realty the people have both countries do not have freedom of speech.

 

We have Freedom of Speech but with necessary curtailments on what people can say. I think it's quite sensible not to have absolutes.

Most (if not all) human rights have certain qualifications. For example you wouldn't say just because prisoners are locked up, British people don't have right to liberty.