My opinion?
Or demonstrated by your repeatedly missing the point?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Monkey241:
You clearly struggle with words.Your opinion…and we already know that you believe not all opinions are equal… so a pointless remark.
Monkey241:
I can insult you in such a manner as to not break the law.I can also do it in such a way that will see me criminalised.
You can express an opinion in any form of words you like.
You cannot express a wish for violence, in any form of words.
The words used by Trump were legal if he was calling for peaceful protest.
The words were illegal if he was calling for armed insurrection.
Actually no.
You can’t express an opinion in any words you like. If that were the case Sec 5 public order act wouldn’t exist [emoji6]
Violence or the threat of it is not necessary in the expression of that opinion to be guilty of that offence.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
You don’t see it at all?I can express a view in such a fashion that whilst distasteful won’t get me locked up.
Or I can express it in a manner that will see me done under sect 5 Public Order Act.
Both will be the same idea expressed but the speech will be different.
Freedom of expression is protected, speech less so
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
With this scenario I would argue that actually, its freedom of speech that’s protected and NOT freedom of expression. Because the idea is, you can say what you want as long as it’s delivered with a certain amount of decorum, however if you were to express yourself angrily it would be probably be with a lot less decorum by default.
As in, you’re allowed to SAY it, it just has to be respectful.
Freedom of expression would be allowing people to be disrespectful if they so choose as I see it.
But as I said before, they’re essentially one and the same thing anyway. It’s pure semantics what you define as an exercise of freedom of expression vs freedom of speech.
Franglais:
Monkey241:
You don’t see it at all?I can express a view in such a fashion that whilst distasteful won’t get me locked up.
Or I can express it in a manner that will see me done under sect 5 Public Order Act.
Both will be the same idea expressed but the speech will be different.
Freedom of expression is protected, speech less so
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
I can express distaste with an idea. I can`t express a desire for violence against it.
The words used are not the issue. It is the idea behind them.Using apparently “neutral” words whilst the meaning behind them is loaded with emotion, prejudice, and violent intention, is common enough.
With such words it is easy to interpret or mis-interpret them. That is their intention after all.
The Trump “insurrection speech” is just one. Some say it was an innocent speech, some say it was a call to insurrection*.
The actual words used are not as important as the meaning.Insurrection is an illegal act. The words used are un-important if there is a call to an illegal act.
*No need for us to argue which it was.
Well now, this is a can of worms. I think implying what someone meant when it isn’t spelt out in such words is a farse.
If there is a split opinion on it all you can do is take the original author at face value, or else saying “I didn’t do it” will end up being an admission of guilt.
“I mean he said he didn’t do it, but I know he’s capable of such things, therefore he definitely did it” etc
The guy was just rambling and flipping his statements, at one stage saying nothing untoward had happened and the next pleading for people to be peaceful as news filtered in to him how messed up it got. For people to suggest it’s an intended “call to arms” is disappointing. Because it’s a massive stretch to interpret things in such a way.
The words used are just as important as the meaning behind it, you can’t discard the definition of words just because you want to infer an ulterior motive. And that’s why our politics in the west is so toxic, because people keep inferring meaning to the things people say.
flammen:
Monkey241:
You don’t see it at all?I can express a view in such a fashion that whilst distasteful won’t get me locked up.
Or I can express it in a manner that will see me done under sect 5 Public Order Act.
Both will be the same idea expressed but the speech will be different.
Freedom of expression is protected, speech less so
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
With this scenario I would argue that actually, its freedom of speech that’s protected and NOT freedom of expression. Because the idea is, you can say what you want as long as it’s delivered with a certain amount of decorum, however if you were to express yourself angrily it would be probably be with a lot less decorum by default.
As in, you’re allowed to SAY it, it just has to be respectful.
Freedom of expression would be allowing people to be disrespectful if they so choose as I see it.
But as I said before, they’re essentially one and the same thing anyway. It’s pure semantics what you define as an exercise of freedom of expression vs freedom of speech.
By the same token you can be disrespectful…
The manner of expression is what is constrained.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
A can of worms …or farce (sic) is intriguing.
Personally I’d prefer that any condemnation of guilt rests on what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt rather than absurd subjective interpretation.
Like it or not, to go back to the point, what is protected at law is freedom of expression rather than speech.
You can find what I believe offensive… and that’s protected.
The manner of communicating that offensive idea isn’t
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
A can of worms …or farce (sic) is intriguing.Personally I’d prefer that any condemnation of guilt rests on what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt rather than absurd subjective interpretation.
This I agree with wholeheartedly but then you went silly mode and said this :
By the same token you can be disrespectful…
The manner of expression is what is constrained.
Which directly contradicts this below
monkey241:
Like it or not, to go back to the point, what is protected at law is freedom of expression rather than speech.You can find what I believe offensive… and that’s protected.
The manner of communicating that offensive idea isn’t
You say the manner of expression is the one that is constrained which reflects on a lack of expressional freedom which you say is protected.
flammen:
Monkey241:
A can of worms …or farce (sic) is intriguing.Personally I’d prefer that any condemnation of guilt rests on what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt rather than absurd subjective interpretation.
This I agree with wholeheartedly but then you went silly mode and said this :
By the same token you can be disrespectful…
The manner of expression is what is constrained.
monkey241:
Like it or not, to go back to the point, what is protected at law is freedom of expression rather than speech.You can find what I believe offensive… and that’s protected.
The manner of communicating that offensive idea isn’tYou say the manner of expression is the one that is constrained which reflects on a lack of expressional freedom which you say is protected.
No contradiction.
The expression is the idea …how you say it is constrained.
I can express the same idea in 2 very different ways…one polite, one not so.
One is lawful, the other not so.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
I can express the same idea in 2 very different ways…one polite, one not so.One is lawful, the other not so.
Yea… so again, what you’re actually saying is that freedom of expression is what’s controlled and not freedom of speech.
If it wasn’t limited you could express yourself in any way at all and it would be fine under all circumstances, but it isn’t.
It sounds like you have them confused.
The idea is the “speech” part and how you deliver that idea is the “expression” part.
Either way, I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, it’s just scenario dependant. For example If I insulted you once during a heated debate, it probably makes it no further than a telling off from the old bill at the absolute MOST, however if I gave you repeated abuse every time we crossed paths, it would constitute as harassment and obviously incur a bigger penalty. But it doesn’t mean it’s illegal to insult someone in and of itself.
Not at all.
The concept being expressed is identical… the language differs
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
flammen:
Monkey241:
I can express the same idea in 2 very different ways…one polite, one not so.One is lawful, the other not so.
Yea… so again, what you’re actually saying is that freedom of expression is what’s controlled and not freedom of speech.
If it wasn’t limited you could express yourself in any way at all and it would be fine under all circumstances, but it isn’t.
It sounds like you have them confused.
The idea is the “speech” part and how you deliver that idea is the “expression” part.
Either way, I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, it’s just scenario dependant. For example If I insulted you once during a heated debate, it probably makes it no further than a telling off from the old bill at the absolute MOST, however if I gave you repeated abuse every time we crossed paths, it would constitute as harassment and obviously incur a bigger penalty. But it doesn’t mean it’s illegal to insult someone in and of itself.
As for harassment… dont get hung up on that.
Abuse also constitutes part of the offence
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Bin Man:
Dimlaith:
Labour will hopefully never be in a position of power.Well they wont with this red tied tory running the show that’s for sure.
“New Tory, Old Danger” as the 2024 election slogan?
These posters didn’t work in 1997…
Nor this one in 2015, when the SNP actually ended up locking Labour out - and still are, of course.
