1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut if you had read Dasa's posts, and you had agreed with others here that it constituted vicious and repeated hate speech, would you - in that situation reserve the right - to alert his posts and justifiably seek their removal?
The issue is not about me, the issue is whether you can be condemned for thinking and saying 'stuff'. If you are unable or unwilling to stick to the script then perhaps this is not the thread for you. Strike one.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFDasa has the right to express his thoughts, that they are hateful does not constitute a crime or a reason for banning him, he needs to engage in some overt action for it to constitute a crime. If you are unable or unwilling to refrain from further attempts to make the debate personal i shall ignore your texts completely. strike two.
But if you had read Dasa's posts, and you had agreed with others here that it constituted vicious and repeated hate speech, would you - in that reserve the right - to alert his posts and justifiably seek their removal?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf there are no moral issues pertaining to what he thought and said, and no moral issues pertaining to how people dealt with him, and no moral issues pertaining to his posts being deleted and him getting banned, what is the issue that you wish to discuss, and if it's not a moral issue, what kind of issue is it?
No there is no moral issue I wish to discuss.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe claimed all Muslims were terrorists, rapists, liked having sex with donkeys etc and advocated executing all Muslims pre-emptively to protect society from them.
His crime was inciting religious hatred. In what way did he incite religious hatred?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I said before, expressing them was a crime.
Dasa has the right to express his thoughts, that they are hateful does not constitute a crime or a reason for banning him, he needs to engage in some overt action for it to constitute a crime. If you are unable or unwilling to refrain from further attempts to make the debate personal i shall ignore your texts completely. strike two.
Originally posted by Rank outsideryes but that is abusive speech, its not inciting anyone else to an overt act of violence.
He claimed all Muslims were terrorists, rapists, liked having sex with donkeys etc and advocated executing all Muslims pre-emptively to protect society from them.
It is important to note that the offence applies only to words that are threatening, not simply ‘abusive’ or ‘insulting’ which protects criticism of groups for their religious, or lack of religious, beliefs.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/discrimination-law/inciting-hatred.htm#
thus being abusive is not enough
Originally posted by yoctobyteYes from what I can discern he was set up by the thought police.
Seems to me if you didn't like what the man was saying... simply ignoring his posts would have been the way to go rather goading him on by conversing when he was spewing such hatred.