Scotland Is Looking to Imprison People for Offensive Tweets

[ObscureBean]

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.

[Wilikon]

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...

[BitCoinNutJob]

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.

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

[username18333]

. . .

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.

. . .

(Red colorization mine.)

The presence of confabulation within a subspecies denies it all “rights” of the reasonable, for it exists without reason “in a world of pure imagination.”

[pungopete468]

. . .

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.

. . .

(Red colorization mine.)

The presence of 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...

[username18333]

. . .

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.

. . .

(Red colorization mine.)

The presence of 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.

[pungopete468]

. . .

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.

. . .

(Red colorization mine.)

The presence of 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 individual.

1,3. It subjects them to confirmation bias, as your wording would suggest (i.e., you spoke to the hypothesis before you spoke to the evidence 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 its presences 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.

[username18333]

. . .

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.

:  a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

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

2. "Justifi[cation]" occurs when one indulges confirmation bias (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).

[BitMos]

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.

Wrong, if the said mentally prisoner slave work to projects that may be nefarious to the security of the Empire, it's the Duty of the Empire Forces to annihilate such threat, and if the people under his rule decide to fight for their pharaoh they will face their destiny. Or at least refrain from opposing the Empire Forces, as such the collateral damage of the annihilation of their master is their liberation. But I agree it goes against their will of being slave. I don't believe in the free will of being a slave.

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.

If you pose a threat to the Empire, you will face the Empire.

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.  

You are not aware of the Messianic nature of America? IN GOD WE TRUST

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.

Annihilation of the threat... in truth at the end of the first night it was already over for them...



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...

the subversion of liberty? you mean that through freedom The People went to the Moon?

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.

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...

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...

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?

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.

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

Scotland looking to imprison government for offensive human rights violations

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

like a rat

and as always surrender or die

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...

[username18333]

. . .

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.

[panju1]

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.

Scotland is no France, sadly.

[elliwilli]

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.

[WEB slicer]

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/

[Lethn]

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.

[WEB slicer]

you can't throw a man in jail because he said some mean things about you.

apparently, you can.

[Lethn]

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

[WEB slicer]

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

[BADecker]

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/

[pungopete468]

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...

[grendel25]

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.