22 People Barred From Entering The U.K.

[Slytovhand]

I haven't checked out the list (I have a feeling a lot of names will just go over my head anyway), so I'll just throw in some general opinions on the subject.

Firstly, yep, the UK has the legal right to deny entry to those who it deems may be a 'menace' to society, or are likely to break it's laws. Inciting people to racial hatred is one of those. Thus, end of story! Why let someone into a country if you're only going to arrest them, throw them in jail, and then throw them out of the country anyway..???

Secondly, Mr Pedersen, on the subject of freedom of speech... I presume, from your posts, that screaming at the top of your lungs in an airport "I'm carrying a bomb, and I"m about to detonate it" is a perfectly ok expression of your rights?? Sure, no-one has to listen, we can all walk away (well... probably run ) but otherwise, it's no biggie... is it? What about threatening to do violence to someone? To scare people, and intimidate them? To provoke anger, outrage, hatred? And what if all that is said is based on lies?? Are blatant lies ok to express? Especially when the truth is unable to be expressed?

Next, don't we, as human beings, have the right to live our lives unmolested in our homes, in the environment we choose to live in? Freedom from harrassment? Am I not allowed to have my particular beliefs free from attack?

No, I'm quite happy that the gubmint is willing to do something smart for once, and legislate that tolerance has to go both ways, not just one way. If humans aren't willing to be respectful to others on their own determination, fine - make it a law..(until such times as humans can learn that lesson for themselves).

But yes, I do get where you're coming from. Failure to learn from our mistakes and all. I'm sure there should be a place for them to express their hate... I'm just not sure where it is...

[Rapscallion]

I suppose I should drop in a cultural note. While the US states have a long-ingrained culture whereby there is an acceptability of going armed as a right, any mention of limiting this right is met with a fairly strong response. I can see a similarly strong response based on the first amendment, now.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Something the UK signed up to a while ago is the EU convention on human rights.

Raps,

Article 11 is not an "absolute" right and as such has the following caveat

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So in my day job I *can* infringe on peoples rights to free speech, be it by placing restrictions on protests, wording on signs, what someone is saying. All of those things have basis in law and are allowed by the HRA.

[AFPheonix]

Similar to what many US towns do with the Klan. Those idiots are heavily guarded...because they *want* to start a riot. Think about it. They spew their racist trash, someone gets offended, attacks...and inadvertently *reinforces* the Klan's message of hatred. That's why many towns do not want the Klan, or similar groups around.

However, you get a group like the ACLU, who insists that they have a right to spew that shit. They will gladly sue a town, county, or state because the Klan's rights are being "violated."

Sorry, I don't buy that shit. What about the rights of society at large? Shouldn't we be spared having to deal with a bunch of sheet-wearing idiots? Call me crazy, but I can think of many groups (blacks, Jews, Catholics, to name a few) that would agree that the Klan and similar groups should be censored.

Except that the Klan's first amendment rights are not infringed by the US government. They still can say or write whatever they want as long as it stays within the legal realm (no slander or libel), and they are perfectly welcome to apply for permits to assemble and protest. They regularly get those permits approved. Fortunately for them, those permits include having cops be right there at their protests to keep counter-protesters from ripping them new ones.

Unfortunately, while it would be a lot quieter to not have to listen to morons like that, but by protecting their right to stand up and blather their nonsense, we protect our own rights to speak out about stuff that might not be popular, either. It IS within the public interest to protect these guys, because by extension, we protect ourselves.

[Pedersen]

Secondly, Mr Pedersen, on the subject of freedom of speech... I presume, from your posts, that screaming at the top of your lungs in an airport "I'm carrying a bomb, and I"m about to detonate it" is a perfectly ok expression of your rights?? Sure, no-one has to listen, we can all walk away (well... probably run ) but otherwise, it's no biggie... is it? What about threatening to do violence to someone? To scare people, and intimidate them? To provoke anger, outrage, hatred? And what if all that is said is based on lies?? Are blatant lies ok to express? Especially when the truth is unable to be expressed?

*sigh*

I just give up. I really do.

Government restrictions on free speech are censorship. Governments impeding movement based on expressed views of individuals are attempts to restrict the freedom of speech. Governments have a legal ability to restrict free speech. Doing so is censorship. If this is not censorship, then please explain to me how it is not.

Use simple words, since I'm obviously a moron.

[Rapscallion]

This may be censorship for a few of the people involved (notably those from the states), but have you thought about the reason why?

I'd like to think that everyone on here is intelligent enough to listen to a rant by Savage or the Phelps and think, "Wanker(s) - I can safely ignore that lunatic(s)." However, there are plenty of idiots around who don't realise that they're looking for a cause to fight. When their rights to free speech mean that others are encouraged to infringe on someone else's right to life without fear, then that's something that needs to be considered.

We've had problems before with muslim preachers trying to encourage young male muslims into becoming recruits for holy wars, and some were with notable successes. A large chunk of that list were people who either were doing that or were committing acts of terrorism.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

*sigh*

I just give up. I really do.

Government restrictions on free speech are censorship. Governments impeding movement based on expressed views of individuals are attempts to restrict the freedom of speech. Governments have a legal ability to restrict free speech. Doing so is censorship. If this is not censorship, then please explain to me how it is not.

Use simple words, since I'm obviously a moron.

Ok Mr Moron

Oh, I understand that it is censorship. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm just asking you, for your opinion, whether there are any situations in which such censorship is (in your mind) legitimately justified. From what I read of your previous post, it seems to indicate 'nay'.

[Pedersen]

This may be censorship for a few of the people involved (notably those from the states), but have you thought about the reason why?

Indeed I have, and do. My reply winds up being both to you and Slyt, so it's below.

I'm just asking you, for your opinion, whether there are any situations in which such censorship is (in your mind) legitimately justified. From what I read of your previous post, it seems to indicate 'nay'.

Extremely few and far between. The canonical example, here in the US, is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Words that, by their mere proclamation will imminently cause danger. Those situations I can (grudgingly) accept a restriction, since the lack of restriction opens a door to causing serious physical harm to innocent people at the whim of some jerk or prankster.

Phelps, Savage, and all of those Muslim preachers that Raps mentioned do not fit that same category. Their speech, their expression, is not in the same category. The closest concept we have would be "fighting words": Words that are chosen specifically to provoke a fight. For instance, a white man walking into an inner city neighborhood which has a high proportion of black people and calling random people "niggers" would be a case of fighting words.

Even those, though, I have to argue against government enforced censorship. It's actually the reverse of a slippery slope argument. I want to keep their freedom of expression intact so as to better reinforce my own. After all, if somebody like Phelps is able to spout his bilge without government interference, then what could I possibly have to say that would cause the government to come after me?

Mind you, I am not advocating the lack of consequences. If your speech is harmful (and false! I also disagree with UK libel laws that will allow a true statement to be considered libel if it is done with malice), then you must make reparations.

I am also not advocating the right to be heard. I am advocating the right to speak only.

I am also not advocating the loss of ability to decide what you, as an individual, will listen to, nor where you will and will not be able to listen to it. In other words, if someone tries to come into your home and tell you their opinions, you have every right to kick them out. I am simply against government enforced censorship.

I think that one of the most terrifying phrases in the English language just might be "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." If you didn't call for them, then I can guarantee that the only thing they're going to help you do is go through whatever your headache medicine of choice is. Keep the government out of my ability to speak my mind, thank you very much.

[Rapscallion]

Even those, though, I have to argue against government enforced censorship. It's actually the reverse of a slippery slope argument. I want to keep their freedom of expression intact so as to better reinforce my own. After all, if somebody like Phelps is able to spout his bilge without government interference, then what could I possibly have to say that would cause the government to come after me?

This is the only part that makes me worried about this move by the government.

Fighting words? We don't have that sort of concept over here. Quite frankly, most of that wankers have shown that they have contempt for UK laws, so why even give them the chance to prove it over here? Fuck 'em.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Well, while I totally agree with you, Ped, in theory, but then the next question comes in.. which is probably why the UK banned them (and censorship is in place)....

What happens when someone goes sprouting their idiocy and hate, and someone reacts (by beating them senseless)? No doubt, they will go to court for assault (and possibly more). What *should the courts do about this?

(personally, I'm for the "justifiable" side of things... if you deliberately go out of your way to antagonise someone, then you've got to take some amount of responsibility to what happens to you ... within reason)

[crazylegs]

most of that wankers have shown that they have contempt for UK laws, so why even give them the chance to prove it over here? Fuck 'em.

Rapscallion

I do think it would absolutely hilarious to watch Phelps be arrested for spouting his hate filled rubbish though!

[Rapscallion]

I'd love to be there Rick Rolling him.

I've been thinking about this. Both the US and the UK treasure freedom of speech. The US takes the view that it cannot be infringed, no matter what is said by who. The UK takes the view that a small part can be infringed so as to protect the rights of the majority and the greater likelihood of that freedom being preserved.

It's not so long ago that we had militant muslims parading using the freedom of speech to say that freedom of speech was wrong and should be banned. If that freedom leads (eventually) to a freedom being denied, then isn't the freedom flawed?

Rapscallion

[Evandril]

Again, I do not see it as a censorship of their freedom of speech...Just their 'freedom' of travel. While I QUITE strongly believe in the freedom of speech, there are lots of places I agree people should not have free access to... The military base I work on, for one. Keeping someone out of your country, in today's world, will do more to *spread* their ideas, if the reason why is public...but will also be spreading the knowledge that those beliefs are not ones that are very 'popular', as well.

[bigred]

Don't visa applications to the USA ask if you've ever threatened the overthrow of the USA government or plan to? Wouldn't that be a limitation on free speech (not that I plan to go there and advocate the overthrow of the government)

[Boozy]

What kind of dolt would answer "Yes" to that question if they wanted a visa?