Is it ok to walk in London with an "ISIS" flag?

[unbeliever 10]

When you put limits on what people can think you are policing their thoughts.

 

Who decides what is offensive, and what isnt?

 

Should only those people with thoughts similar to yourself be allowed to express them?

 

Who should and who shouldn't have free speech?

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 12:41 ----------

 

 

I want your views banned as I find them fascists and extreme.

 

I find it odd that I'm on this side of the argument.

I have strong objections to the incitement to whatever laws which I have previously expressed. I make a distinction between "hatred" (which often seems to mean just criticism) and the promotion of violence and other crime against people who are different. I do not find the current incitement laws to be clear enough in that distinction, perhaps because the framers disagree with me. I also think that there's a world of difference between judging people by race (which is a matter of birth) and creed (which is a matter of choice).

 

However, expressing public support for a gang of rampaging murderous rapists crosses the line.

You can think good things about the game of rampaging murderous rapists all you like.

But parade your support publicly and you're supporting and encouraging, murder and rape. So you're not allowed. If I were in charge of reforming the incitement laws to protect free speech (which I would do), you still wouldn't be allowed.

 

If you think that's Orwellian, I suggest you re-read 1984 as you've missed the point completely.

[petemcewan 27]

When you put limits on what people can think you are policing their thoughts.

 

Who decides what is offensive, and what isnt?

 

Should only those people with thoughts similar to yourself be allowed to express them?

 

Who should and who shouldn't have free speech?

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 12:41 ----------

 

 

I want your views banned as I find them fascists and extreme.

 

 

It's got silly now.Any quality Philosophy Textbook will demonstrate to you how much of a popular conceit is the notion of unrestrained free speech and free will.

[gwhite78 10]

I find it odd that I'm on this side of the argument.

I have strong objections to the incitement to whatever laws which I have previously expressed. I make a distinction between "hatred" and the promotion of violence and other crime against minorities. I do not find the current incitement laws to be clear enough in that distinction, perhaps because the framers disagree with me.

 

However, expressing public support for a gang of rampaging murderous rapists crosses the line.

You can think good things about the game of rampaging murderous rapists all you like.

But parade your support publicly and you're supporting and encouraging, murder and rape. So you're not allowed. If I were in charge of reforming the incitement laws to protect free speech (which I would do), you still wouldn't be allowed.

 

If you think that's Orwellian, I suggest you re-read 1984 as you've missed the point completely.

 

You haven't answered my post. How is pointing out the numerous flaws in your argument of limiting free speech and peoples thoughts defending ISIS?

 

It is you who wants to police the thought and minds of individuals with views you consider extreme, so it is you should re-read 1984.

 

I ask again who should decide what is extreme and offensive, and what isn't?

 

What EXACTLY are people allowed to think?

 

Is putting limits on free-speech still 'free' ?

 

I consider your views to be extreme, should they also be banned and punishable?

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 13:10 ----------

 

It's got silly now.Any quality Philosophy Textbook will demonstrate to you how much of a popular conceit is the notion of unrestrained free speech and free will.

 

Yes banning peoples thoughts is silly.

Edited August 31, 2015 by gwhite78

[sgtkate 10]

You really should already know the answer, it really is quite simple.

 

You can (or AFIK are allowed to) express an opinion about anything you like, you cannot be punished for what you think. Thought crimes are not (yet) illegal.

You can (or AFIK are allowed to) show support for any legally registered organisation you like, it is ONLY illegal ACTIONS which are punishable. Agreeing with an organisation is not (yet) illegal.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 11:29 ----------

 

 

No, inciting hatred would be using threatening, abusive or insulting language. ‘I think’ is not (yet) deemed threatening, abusive or insulting under UK law.

 

Highlighting the relevant part of your post above you are indeed correct, it is not a crime to THINK something, but it might be a crime to SAY something.

 

What you should have said was:

I think you should kill all jews - not a crime

I say you should kill all jews - likely incitement to racial hatred

I pay you to kill all jews - crime

 

You can THINK what you want but you cannot always act upon it, even through speech. If someone supports ISIS in their head they have committed no crime, but the moment they start saying it or waving a banner of support they are in breach of the law. And no, I wouldn't be in support of them being allowed to do so, nor EDL flags, swastikas, IRA flags or effigies in support of Tony Blair

Edited September 1, 2015 by sgtkate

[Gomass 10]

Highlighting the relevant part of your post above you are indeed correct, it is not a crime to THINK something, but it might be a crime to SAY something.

 

What you should have said was:

I think you should kill all jews - not a crime

I say you should kill all jews - likely incitement to racial hatred

I pay you to kill all jews - crime

 

You can THINK what you want but you cannot always act upon it, even through speech. If someone supports ISIS in their head they have committed no crime, but the moment they start saying it or waving a banner of support they are in breach of the law. And no, I wouldn't be in support of them being allowed to do so, nor EDL flags, swastikas, IRA flags or effigies in support of Tony Blair

 

 

Saying it might be a crime, you can think it but you might be charged for expressing it verbally.

 

 

I can see the connection between ISIS, swastikas, IRA and even Tony Blair, but remind me how many bombs the EDL have planted and how many people they have killed or ordered killed?

[Zamo 10]

No you're wrong. Saying what YOU THINK should happen to a person or group of people is not (yet) punishable. The state cannot police the minds and thoughts of individuals. Although I'm sure our Orwellian govt is working on it...

 

Tell that to the subject of this article. He is currently on remand... court case later this month for inciting racial hatred. Personally, I think this case is weaker than if you SAY (verbally or in writing) that you think all members of a race or religion should be killed because the later clearly endorses a crime. The fact is that your example could encourage or persuade others to commit the crime, which is exactly why incitement is a crime.

 

Nobody is suggesting policing thoughts but communicating your thoughts turns it into a statement, which is something else. Putting 'I think' into a statement doesn't magic it back into a thought. You probably think adding 'allegedly' protects you from slander and libel laws... it doesn't!

 

Anyway, dragging this back on subject, the person in question wasn't thinking support for IS but showing it by wearing their flag. IS is a banned organisation and it is illegal to support it or be a member. It is an embarrassment that he wasn't challenged by members of the public. Too many people justifying their own cowardice by pretending they are simple tolerant and guardians of free speech. It is just excuses for not having the courage to stand up for your own beliefs and values... He might hurt me or even worse I might be called racist!!! Pathetic.

[sgtkate 10]

Saying it might be a crime, you can think it but you might be charged for expressing it verbally.

 

 

I can see the connection between ISIS, swastikas, IRA and even Tony Blair, but remind me how many bombs the EDL have planted and how many people they have killed or ordered killed?

 

 

You've misunderstood my point...the 'say' part was a 'say' in writing in your post not that he can say out loud 'I think'...hmm, now I'm confused... What I meant was:

 

Thinking we should kill all jews - not a crime

Saying we should kill all jews - incitement

Paying someone to kill all jews - accessory to murder

 

And on the EDL point...a quick google search brings up:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=edl+mosque+attack&meta=&gws_rd=ssl

 

So they have incited racial hatred and caused people and property to be attacked directly in their name. Members of their organisation have been sent to jail for paedophilia and murder.

Edited September 1, 2015 by sgtkate

[leviathan13 348]

I love how we pick and choose the shelf life of this kind of thing.

 

Not so long ago (in relation to the amount of time we humans have been on the planet) the St George Cross/Union Jack was a badge of terror to those we conquered. Apparently, I should be 'proud' of a symbol that has terrorised, threated and brought fear to the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout history.

 

America is proud to fly the Stars and Stripes... yet ask the native Americans what it means to them. And we were there even before that.

 

Likewise with Australia. People lived there long before we sent ships, but now they have a flag which incorporates the Union Jack and, if you don't like it, you can leave... but again, the white man is the invader.

 

At the end of it all, it's a flag and, if you take offence, that's up to you and your mind. I'm more likely to be 'offended' at someone wearing a Dirty L**ds shirt than I am some flag that we're getting hypocritically hysterical about.

[unbeliever 10]

I love how we pick and choose the shelf life of this kind of thing.

 

Not so long ago (in relation to the amount of time we humans have been on the planet) the St George Cross/Union Jack was a badge of terror to those we conquered. Apparently, I should be 'proud' of a symbol that has terrorised, threated and brought fear to the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout history.

 

America is proud to fly the Stars and Stripes... yet ask the native Americans what it means to them. And we were there even before that.

 

Likewise with Australia. People lived there long before we sent ships, but now they have a flag which incorporates the Union Jack and, if you don't like it, you can leave... but again, the white man is the invader.

 

At the end of it all, it's a flag and, if you take offence, that's up to you and your mind. I'm more likely to be 'offended' at someone wearing a Dirty L**ds shirt than I am some flag that we're getting hypocritically hysterical about.

 

 

It represents open and active support for crimes which are going on right now.

What's confusing?

[Gomass 10]

You've misunderstood my point...the 'say' part was a 'say' in writing in your post not that he can say out loud 'I think'...hmm, now I'm confused... What I meant was:

 

Thinking we should kill all jews - not a crime

Saying we should kill all jews - incitement

Paying someone to kill all jews - accessory to murder

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

And on the EDL point...a quick google search brings up:

So they have incited racial hatred and caused people and property to be attacked directly in their name. Members of their organisation have been sent to jail for paedophilia and murder.

Members of Christian church, Islam, the scouts, the Labour party, the Conservative party and probably lots of other organisations have also been sent to jail for paedophilia and murder, and plenty of people belonging to a variety of organisations will have incited racial hatred, should it also be a crime to support those groups?

[leviathan13 348]

It represents open and active support for crimes which are going on right now.

What's confusing?

 

Not really, that was my point about shelf life. We weren't terrorists, we were conquerers and explorers, years ago, when we were setting our little flag down and taking over the land. To the people we did it to, we were terrorists with numerous religious and political agendas. But, now, it's more or less forgotten about... which this will be in 200 years time and it'll have just been one more group of religious/political nutjobs trying to make a name for themselves.

 

It's crap to us because it's happening now, much like it was for those at the time when we were throwing our weight around. But in 4 or 5 generations time, it'll mean to them what our history means to others in this day and age.

[unbeliever 10]

Not really, that was my point about shelf life. We weren't terrorists, we were conquerers and explorers, years ago, when we were setting our little flag down and taking over the land. To the people we did it to, we were terrorists with numerous religious and political agendas. But, now, it's more or less forgotten about... which this will be in 200 years time and it'll have just been one more group of religious/political nutjobs trying to make a name for themselves.

 

It's crap to us because it's happening now, much like it was for those at the time when we were throwing our weight around. But in 4 or 5 generations time, it'll mean to them what our history means to others in this day and age.

 

When IS has ceased its crimes it will likely cease to be a crime to support them.

I doubt that will ever happen, but if it did we could discuss un-banning them and then people could openly support them.