Bitcoin Forum

When PC Becomes Dangerous

Scotland’s police are on a mission to stamp out offensive speech by force.

It is Scotland now, but will it one day land on our shores?

Police Scotland and a FOIA request made at the request of the highly respected UK paper The Independent, revealed that police are looking into “offensive” comments online with the express purpose of finding possible criminality.

The police, at the behest of the politically correct crowd, are on a fishing expedition to shut down free speech they don’t like.

The Brits already have Draconian limits to their free speech. Proselytizing on the streets and almost any comment against a Muslim could get you thrown in jail. They don’t have a First Amendment.

We should get down on our knees and thank God that the Founding Fathers included the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as our Bill of Rights.

About 20,000 people in Britain were investigated over the past three years for making insulting comments online; 20 people a day were looked into by law enforcement for criminality, according to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Independent.

Police Scotland’s response to The Independent was, “Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media and any offensive comments will be investigated.”

Currently, the police in Scotland are investigating a former Apprentice star who stirs up controversy to gain attention on Twitter. Katie Hopkins recently made off-color comments online about a Scottish nurse who contracted Ebola.

She is being investigated for “racist Ebola” tweets with an eye towards arresting her. She chastised the “little sweaty jocks” for “sending us Ebola bombs in the form of sweaty Glaswegians”.

She has also been reported to the police for “hate crimes” against overweight people after making rude remarks about the overweight.

She has almost 300,000 Twitter followers who want to read her outlandish comments because they hate them or love them. She is paid to troll.

A petition from Scotland’s PC crowd demanded her comments be investigated for criminality as “vile, racist tweets.” The police have enthusiastically taken up the cause.

Detective Inspector Glyn Roberts of Police Scotland put it this way: “Inquiries are ongoing into the nature of these tweets and to establish any potential criminality.”

“Police Scotland will thoroughly investigate any reports of offensive or criminal behavior online and anyone found to be responsible will be robustly dealt with.”

The PC crowd has law enforcement on their side and their goal is to silence “offensive” opinions by force. Idiocy could put a person in jail.

Who will decide who is offensive? The PC crowd will decide.

The police have no business investigating annoying comments but they are.

It’s Shariah law for Westerners.


http://www.independentsentinel.com/scotland-is-looking-to-imprison-people-for-offensive-tweets/?utm_content=bufferc94f3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming soon to all Europe...

Wait, so overweight people are a 'race' now and need protection? This is getting beyond stupid, look, if people are writing shit about you, don't read it, it's that simple, if they're harassing you directly and not leaving you alone, THEN you can do something about it, it's almost frightening that people out there don't understand what free speech actually means, it would be frightening, if it weren't the fact that people like this would be too stupid and incompetent to get these laws passed an enforced in the first place.

I'm not one of those assholes who will deliberately go out of their way to make fun of people who are fat and whatnot, but if they're in denial and complain about not being able to walk up the stairs and various health problems that revolve around being fat I'm going to say it to their faces.

People have already gotten criminal records in the UK for offensive tweets and Facebook statues, this isn't really anything new.

It isn't anything new no, but we haven't seen a lot of legislation against it yet, they're trying to make moves so they can do blanket surveillance on us.

I love Asymmetrical Warfare, this one is perfect, we have a girl with lot of supporter vs a state... it's seem asymmetrically rigged against the girl... but read the rest :).

you believe this bs a propos defending the weak? LoL, what a bunch of ignorant you are. I don't believe anything against freedom of speech.

Time to put this brave and opiniated young lady under the full protection of the Imperial American Forces (Darksiders included), and explain the dire consequences that the pieces of trashes that will harass her will endure (it includes but doesn't excludes assisted suicide, exposure of your dirt, "craft"crash, house burning, but if you prefer more legal: blacksite, gitmo, nails... you get the picture), and for the utter piece of trash subhuman pc corrected deep shit anti freedom of speech, it's mean fighting the Forces that Have swear and do by their blood, sacrifice for the defense of the sacred Rights of God, expressed elegantly under the Constitution of the United States of America, and BoR. In short dear FUCKERs of the QUEEN, yes trash hats, it can be dark... and stealth, I don't think that the slaves of the queens have the mean to rebel, and never forget the Sacred Forbidden Square is OURS.

To my friends in said square, if we have to sink carrier England (freedom of speech is inalienable), please, read the memos about evacuations ways, it will safely planned, it will only be temporary (but I can't guarantee a clean place to return, the trails of the Empire Forces...).

Ban from the UK for this post? So be it.

The argument for is that people can't spread hate simply by hiding behind a keyboard.
I personally believe in free speech as far as is reasonable.  I have no problem with people abusing celebrities and so on. The authorities have to understand that when someone says something online, they probably don't mean it.  Trolling is a big part of the internet nowadays and it shouldn't be an arrest-able offence.

Dear NUFCrichard,

I am sorry to vehemently disagree with your line of thought. Spreading hate behind a keyboard, what a utter BS. Since when does any institution has a right to decide what you can or can't say? If you let this privilege for what ever reason, you will have to endure the consequences of your "good intention" fuck that, the truth, you want to make us believe, that because a trashbag write on keyboard, and your super cops (too afraid to go in the street, where the REAL CRIMES happens) will stop him/her it will make the kingdom safer, the truth is that sooner or later it will be used against dissent, political opposition and co. Which path does it lead to?

This is what stupid illiterate in Market Ideologies can't understand, I buy, you sell, we trade, meaning we have diverging opinions without resorting to violence. And if I want, and my seller want, we can discuss of the why he sold and why I bought, which lead us to a peaceful discussion. There is no place for any entity to stop us, and you know why deepsubhumanantifreedomofspeech? You will learn it in blood, the way of the street, I will not remove you the privilege of being teached a one in a lifetime lesson on FoS IRL.

I understand that most gov hate to see 2 people discussing peacefully... why? because we may expose their scams and learn from each others to exploit or profit or flash them... they have to defend, happily, we can make money all ways. And frankly China will move to the US standard sooner that you may even realize, and secondly and more importantly, the group that will defeat the UNITED STATES defender of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, shall be ready to die. Because it's the only outcome that they can realistically expect.

Is it possible to jail a US citizen in Scotland for what he wrote on twitter to a uk resident from the US? I vote for "a little military training over a island chain" if such event occurred.

I understood travel ban because of medicinal drugs, now we have to clear our full written internet log before travelling anywhere? fuck that, air superiority, bomb everything, let the survivors rebuild, let's visit in peace... and if there are no survivors too bad... they should have fought a revolution, but were to weak for it anyway.

Remember safety first.

And if you think that I am amoral, or immoral by my writing... I will just say to you that your brain has been high-jacked by controllers enemy of the United States of America... Open your eyes before you die^TM

While I too agree that freedom of speech is more accurately "freedom of opinion and expression" I wouldn't want to forcibly spread my opinion to another country who has the lawful right to decide for themselves what type of government they wish to live under. If enough citizens of said country were willing to request military assistance in order to exercise these rights, I would think it reasonable to offer military assistance to achieve these ends. It's estimated that only 3% of the colonists fought in the Revolutionary war, 3% seems a fair number of a population willing to take the risk of life for liberty to justify actions.

Forcibly asserting our opinion on a population that has no desire or lacks the responsibility to maintain liberty is a waste of life, a waste of time, and a waste of resources.

P.S.
3% doesn't refer to the percentage of the population that desires liberty, it refers to the percentage of the country willing to die for it...

Hello pungopete468,

What I don't understand in your post is what I underlined, what's the differences between country, themselves, government and citizen.

For example we can say that the woman in question is a citizen subject of the Uk, however we can't say that her government represent her (a part if she wants to be self-jailed) as such is she really part of the country?

And there need absolutely 0 legal basis for Freedom of Speech, why because it's a God Given Tool to his Children, use it or don't be. It's not about spreading your opinions, it's like in the case of medicinal drug, be able to visit who ever you want outside of the border of the Empire, without having the risks of being arrested for what ever, who ever wrote on a account pretended to be yours... to high risk to be assumed, I prefer annihilation (and contrary to your opinions it could be a net positive for the USMIIC).

Next step is censoring anyone that would say something bad about the finance (or what ever) of a country? lol... Monster Joke will be called...

What people don't understand about my very aggressive vision of the enemy of America, is that if or when a big incident strike the US mainland, will the enemy show mercy? I don't bet. _{and I am not alone...}

p.s. it must be a life extinction event otherwise... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases no bet (or no base left uncovered).

To me it all depends on the severity. Should you be imprisoned for calling the Prime Minister or Queen a cunt? No. Should you be arrested for making death threats or threatening to rape someone. Quite possibly, yes.

Reminds me of all the cyber bullying acts/laws... Nothing new, some people need to learn how to keep their mouths shut, while others need to learn to not take virtual entities and their "offensive" content to heart. But this is the world today...

for example my post on this topic? should I have to go to jail for it? Making a though an offense... one step closer...

On the other hand I completely agree with you threatening people of what ever isn't great... again I wrote I am gonna rape you... (I don't even know if you are human or rapeable), but was speaking about poker... jail or no jail? the danger with electronic communication is deniability. Can you guarantee that your computer will only send clean unfalsifiable signals? I don't...

But in said case the girl did something much much worst than threatening anyone... she said what she thinks... and that is the biggest crime. 1 she has a thought 2 she expresses it...

Electronic Mind Readers (accurate or not) + though offenses = no more opponents... if only the planners of obamacare had that...

You have successfully raised good question on the topic at large that put me at unease, about trigger event for crime, but none about the case sadly... And when you think seriously about what you said about threats, in what way jailing will solve the situation? because you can't put on a life time, some one who said... blah blah... It's quite ironic that your superb deviation fall that flat...  What do you think about the case anyway? Good girl? Bad girl? Shall spend some formative time behind bars (to use the irrespectfullest way)?

for disclosure I never read about her, just the little extract in the post, and the "ebola to Glasgow" tips me enough on why they want her arrested... too much freedom in this young mind, for presumably destroyed by alcohols and co old men...  


this level of acceptance toward evil is pathetically lethargic... Happily the former slaves of Pharaoh didn't see thing like you do. IN GOD WE TRUST.

_{And sadly even if this sentence is more violent for more people than any other post, I ever wrote... the enemy of the Empire will not be merciful if the Empire is hit. planed accordingly it was.}

and this one is for my personal pleasure and to respond to the author of this magnificent topic and particularly to his last lines, you know what will be done of the PC crowd as you called it once usefulness is reached :
Why because at the end it's them or us, who are going to be in the coming graveyard (or jail first). I have chosen. Without Mercy, Using Deception when needed, no chance, no bet, safety first. they all start the same way, first the speech, then the gun, then your possession and finally your live. always. we remember.

Lol, another reason to stay anonymous. Use bitcoin and crypto dudes... And fuck the queen goverment.

The U.S. Bill of Rights enables the governmental bodies defined by the U.S. Constitution to assume powers that this does not grant to them otherwise, for it establishes, as a precedent, the positive definition of the limits thereof.

Wise words.
http://s12.postimg.org/wv69hcgod/moveaway.png

To clarify, let me break it down into a few separate points, I'll attempt to illustrate my opinion in a comprehensible manner.

Liberty is based on "rights" and "wrongs." To forcibly impose liberation on another person who has actively chosen to live as a slave is a violation of that persons naturally existing rights, until such time as they no longer wish to be enslaved and express their desire for liberty. Liberty exists as an intangible thought and does not require an acknowledgement to exist, if a person makes a poor choice and denies themselves of liberty, it's wrong to act in a manner which infringes on that persons right to choose however they want for themselves. It's not your right or any others' to force them to change, but it's their right to change themselves or seek for a change if they so desire.

When I referred to another country, I meant any other area outside of the borders of the United States and her territories. The US has no business interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Answering a call for help from an oppressed society isn't the same as inserting ourselves for a disagreement of their laws or ways.

By lawful right, I'm referring to those natural human rights which were referenced in the US Constitution under the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution acknowledged them as the Laws of God and declared itself "a nation under God." This statement ceded the power of any law which conflicts with those natural rights inherent to all human beings. "Human nature" exists, and these laws are a culmination of universal truths based on human nature. Therefore, regardless of where human nature exists, these truths will be evident. For instance, no rational person with the ability and opportunity to enact a positive outcome would spare a violent murderer at the cost of losing a loved one, especially to a violent or horrible death. No rational person would choose by in-action that their child, mother, themselves, or other loved one should unjustly suffer. A rational person would weigh the value of life heavily in favor over the risk that they may be imprisoned for acting within that natural right to protect life by force. There are many other natural rights including the right of freedom of thought, will, and expression. Since any rational human being has it in their nature to think, decide, and express themselves, it is a natural right to do so freely so long as exercising this right doesn't unduly restrict the rights of others; but I won't go into more detail on that now. Basically, natural rights are supported by evidence that human nature shares certain fundamental bonds in the ways of which rational people act and the choices that they make when confronted with the same problems.  

Government is the next level of authority over that of the individual, governments can only exercise powers ceded by the people who are being governed. Governments built upon liberty will actually define powers in their Constitutions that cannot be ceded by the people. Enumerating these powers creates a clear and unbreachable boundary. A government cannot by definition act unlawfully, and in the presence of liberty, cannot enforce laws above or over the "Law of God" also known as "natural human rights." If the government breaches this trust of the people, it's no longer considered legitimate, and people are collectively and individually responsible for reforming or abolishing it. If the people allow for themselves a tyrannical government, then they will live in tyranny. If a farmer is lazy and chooses not to plant food for his family, but rather enjoys lazy complacency; he and his family will starve to death when the crops he never planted provide no food. If the people of society choose not to hold accountable the actions of government, either by complacency, or fear; they will not enjoy the benefits of liberty, nor do they deserve it. The people of a society choose for themselves the outcome by their decision to act, or not to act; it's wrong to place undue burden on your neighbors by choosing in-action. Shifting the risks of maintaining liberty onto the shoulders of others while you're still able to act responsibly will always lead to an eventual loss of liberty.

It's for this reason listed above that I would disagree with any military intervention until such a time as enough people are willing to work towards liberty for themselves. If even a small portion of society is unwilling to take on the burden of action, how can they be expected to adequately maintain it? Only when people are willing to die for liberty are they capable of attaining it. Liberty is a restriction of government powers, and restricting the powers of government is like restricting the freedom of a powerful beast, the governed must be willing to oppose the subversion of liberty with great force if necessary, even at great cost...


This is a general message addressed to all:

If you enjoy liberty, please understand that the liberty you enjoy was paid for in advance with the lives of countless fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, and friends. Every single one of them were genuinely good and virtuous people who had valuable lives filled with the same feelings and emotions that we do today. They left behind families, and loved ones that they wished to return safely home to, but instead gave their lives to provide you with the choices you have today. Anyone who would take it upon themselves and choose to stand in the face of death so that their children, and their unborn grandchildren might get to live a joyful life is remarkable. Years of complacency has allowed society to reach the precipice of the following question, "Am I to sacrifice my life for the mere chance that my children and grandchildren might afford to enjoy a life of liberty, or am I to suffer until death at the understanding that my children and grandchildren will likely know suffering and oppression in their lives because I chose not to act?"

Please use what remaining power you have left to act while you still can; write your congressman even when you don't think it matters, protest the laws you disagree with, vote Libertarian even if you don't think they can win the election, and hope that the government doesn't fail the test of legitimacy... It's perhaps too late to prevent tragic events in the future, but to stop trying only guarantees them.

Add tor to the mix, and the government will stay clueless.

this happens throughout the uk, someone went to prison for a month for calling a politician a "filthy jew bitch", someone else got arrested for burning a koran and uploading the video, another got in trouble with police for making a joke about a car crash in which people died

Scotland looking to imprison government for offensive human rights violations

Man that is the stupidest law ever.  I hope they have some decent evidence when making arrests, how do you prove it wasnt a friend at your house using your computer or a hacker.

I hope you all realize that there is nothing strange about this law. The 'laws' get tighter and more restrictive year by year, this has been the case since the dawn of man. With every new clause they add, a portion of your 'freedom' is taken away. You don't necessarily always feel this incessant constriction but now and again you get a reality check.

I would like to report that this represents little more than an idle threat, or, perhaps, that it is merely the product of a rogue and overzealous intern. But, alas, I cannot. As The Independent’s James Bloodworth noted this week, this is in fact rather typical. “Around 20,000 people in Britain have been investigated in the past three years for comments made online,” Bloodworth confirms, “with around 20 people a day being looked into by the forces of the law, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” Worse, some of these people have actually been imprisoned: among them, a “woman found guilty of a public order offence for saying that David Cameron had “’blood on his hands,’” a man named “Azhar Ahmed, who was prosecuted for an online post mocking the deaths of six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan,” and a young man named Liam Stacey who tweeted something unprintable at a top-flight soccer player and was incarcerated for two months in consequence.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/katie-hopkins-views-are-now-considered-matters-for-law-enforcement-and-it-is-utterly-terrifying-9953339.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And people around the world wonder why so many try so hard to live and just be alive in the USA...

But then we also liberate ourselves constantly, bitcoin/internet etc.  So its just an ongoing process.

(Red colorization mine.)

The presence of confabulation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/confabulation) within a subspecies denies it all “rights” of the reasonable, for it exists without reason “in a world of pure imagination.”

I disagree, confabulation alters the recollection of an event from the perspective of the speaker, but that doesn't deny the speaker from exercising a right during a moment when the action is justified; though it may alter the recollection of events later, when a person uses force to exercise a right, that decision must face the scrutiny of a jury of peers to determine whether those actions were in fact justified. Justifiably exercising a right won't spare a trial...

(Red colorization mine).

What I have colorized, I do not concede.

2. Homo sapiens sapiens are subject to groupthink and the diffusion of responsibility: there is no reason to assume a group of them would prove any less unreasonable than a singular one.

1,3. It subjects them to confirmation bias, as your wording would suggest (i.e., you spoke to its hypothesis before you spoke to the evidence [Peculiar, right?] wherefrom it would, presumably, be drawn [i.e., you neglected to reference evidence]), for they will, at least, confabulate themselves beyond it.

2,3. Were individual Homo sapiens sapiens and their social groups of sufficient reasonableness to recognize the presence thereof within each other, it very well could.

If a single reasonable juror sits among a group of unreasonable jurors, that juror should not abandon reason to conform with the others. Doing so would be unreasonable and unethical for they would hold in their hands the freedoms of another person. Unduly restricting the rights of another person is widely understood to be wrong...  

For the purpose of my statement above, I assumed that the burden of providing evidence rested in the hands of the plaintiff and is a necessary part of any trial. I didn't reference evidence because I was only making a general point, not describing the process leading up to the jury reaching a decision. My wording is no more than an outline.

For the purpose of your final point, there is a distinct difference between recognizing the humanity of others and expressing that acknowledgement when many other factors change the way we interact. All of us represent a mixture of qualities benefiting us both introvertly and extrovertly. People can choose to ignore the humanity of others but to do so is disingenuous.

1. You have not been familiarized with the psychological phenomenon of groupthink.

2. "Justifi[cation]" occurs when one indulges confirmation bias (http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf) (i.e., they acquire evidence with the intent to evidence a or some certain something or somethings, respectively). Hypothesization occurs when one attempts to "make sense" of observations.

3. A phenotype is observable (when it is present).

I can't agree more with the 2 last paragraphs... but it still doesn't answer anything about limiting anyone freedom of expression, and particularly about this girl...



INSANE... so I can't go to the UK... and me that wanted to see the country side, me that wanted to eat lamb with mentol, me that wanted to eat a fish and chips with nice beers in a pub, me that wanted to eat real Indian and Pakistani food (almost forget, A nice real English Pudding), me that wanted to see Brighton, me that wanted to enjoy Scotland... sadly, I will have to wait for the US invasion to be able to visit... Why did England chose the path of censorship? are they on the road of the movie the last child of man?


Some smart People said that for every new law 3 must be removed...


Until the Imperial Forces enter the Battlefield and eliminate the threat, they can enjoy their privileges... then :



last question, who is going to be next?

Ahh and little disclamer to uk authorities, please be aware, 0 American Citizen. let's keep it this way... otherwise...

You should be aware that, were a “civilization” so primitive as those of Earth to become too egregious, a subatomic black hole would be delivered thereunto.

Scotland is no France, sadly.

This shit is crazy.
Denying freedom of speach is one thing, but freedom of expression is something that can be even worse...
Governments need to think about the repercussions of their actions before saying things like this.

looks like scotland isn't the only country who jails people for speech. it's only a matter of time before it's the same in the good ol USA.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/06/christie-blatchford-man-jailed-for-a-year-after-anti-islam-speech-spurs-emergency-alarm-on-toronto-subway-train/

When the fuck are they going to start going around arresting people who offend me for attacking freedom of speech and claiming that people should be shot or blown up for having a different opinion for them? How the fuck can people seriously defend this kind of bullshit with a straight face? I don't care if it's offensive, you can't throw a man in jail because he said some mean things about you.

apparently, you can.

I've had to absorb far too much intolerent bullshit for one week, it's making me really angry :(

i feel the same way. i only wish my anger was isolated to one week.

Scotland is part of the U.K.  They have common law there. Anyone who is oppressed by the Scottish government has the right to appear before Queen's Bench so that it can be shown who he has harmed or what property he has damaged. He has the right to face his accuser in court.

If the Scottish government can get on the stand to be questioned by the accused, I would like to see it. I would also like to see the harm or damage done to the Scottish government who is on the stand, by the accused... cuts, bruises, broken bones, etc.  http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

:)

This is how it used to be, this is no longer how it is...

If you disagree with the new way, they will remove your opinion from the matter and pass judgement how they see fit. This is the way it works now... See how far your demands carry you in the real world today...

It's such a screwed up world right now.  There's a lot of hysteria and a lot of bad decisions being made.  Already, I hear people saying things that would indicate we should throw our freedoms away in the interest of someones feelings over their religion.  Man, have your religion and let me religion in private.  Don't force crap on me and if you don't like texts, twitters or cartoons then look the other way. 

Freedom was relegated to “rights.” What else did you expect?

Yep.

What I find really amusing about this story is that the comment that shocked the most the political connected (to the ctrl+p handlers) was her disrespect for the nurse with Ebola... Happily she survived, but is the offensive tweet promoter still free? I am just curious...

I do not find anything bad with people being responsible for what they do. Maybe that would cause them to think before doing, which is not often the case.
On the other hand there is always a ground for a misuse, meaning a strict form of censorship.

think, write, express... did you know that the Nazis never build the censorship apparatus? they just took the keys... from the "good intentioned people", at least work will make them free :D.

Sure. On the other hand, you should be held responsible for your actions in a good and in a bad way. Sometimes people confuse the freedom of expression with the incentive to think before acting (is that your case?). That is my point.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/facebook-cop-death-threats-890732

Threatening to kill many people and asking others to help... that's really terrible.

By the way: did anyone here watch the Mean Tweets videos on Jimmy Kimmel ? (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRBoPveyETc)

There is a difference between being offensive, to let's say a group of people you don't like, and making a direct death threat.

Surveillance state at it's finest. Exactly where the spying agencies are transforming society into.