You should go to British universities, with their student "safe spaces" and their banning of anyone with non-PC views from giving talks there. Once bastions of free speech and healthy debate betwen people of opposing views, British universities today are, like many other once-great British institutions (parliament, the BBC, town and city councils, etc), stinking cesspits of intolerant politically correct Left-wingers who think they have some God-given right to tell us what views are "acceptable" and what aren't in today's society.
Same thing here in the states on many colleges and universities. What they do not realize is that today they ban speech they disagree with, tomorrow it may come when their speech is also banned. Then we will all live in a very controlled society, muzzled to accept what ever the government or the elite wants. This is highly dangerous. But it is the way it is. I never before seen a group where they are more than willing to give up their rights so their feelings can't be hurt. Their turn will come.
The US still has sedition laws. excerpt: Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sedition
Heh, yes and the left wants to use them to go after the right. It was only a few years ago that liberal columnist Joe Klein suggested using sedition laws to go after Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
That comment you quoted had nothing to do with sedition laws. I responded to your comment on sedition.
It might get a few backs up, but I doubt enough to beat Mrs. Clinton unless it was already very close. Anyway, the UK will never ban Trump. The establishment faux-left knows that its cherished claim to "tolerance" would be shot forever.
Using sedition laws to shut down hate clerics or Kahane types is legit .. I don't know what constitutes sedition in the UK.. Perhaps they reject being used by an American problem or being subject to the consequences of Trumps insults and lies.
Brits certainly have the right to petition against and speak out against Trump.. They think he's a creep and they don't want him in the UK stirring up trouble.
OK....again I don't see how US sedition laws fit into this other than I suspect you would like to see Trump arrested and sent to the Gulag for badspeak.
Yes these Fabian (PC, political Marxist ... fascists) that wish to ban free speech might think on the words of Heinrich Heine “Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen" "Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people." The sickening thing is that the so-called liberal lefties that so loudly pronounce that they represent the majority against, the so called hate speech, are in fact the real hate mongers that wish to produce a society where the real fascists can take control and ban all political opinion, other than their view of what is acceptable according to their own Marxism Political correctness. Personally I don't mind if anyone should express a view against my ethnicity, my skin colour or my religion, I have experienced it already in my life & it hasn't made any negative impact on my life. I don't want any middle-class Fabian trying to argue my corner & as a side effect introducing Marxism Cultural fascism in the place of free speech. I actually believe that people having prejudice is both natural and healthy for human expression.
If by some miracle he gets in as president he will be too busy building his Great Wall to go globetrotting anyway...unless he wants to visit Putin.
I wonder do you feel the same way about the fact that the Christian religion is not compatible with Arab thinking and as such should be sponged from their society or do you in reality support our presence there? If so you are being hypocritical.
IMO I Have zero issues with Trump visiting the UK I am all for freedom of speech, just as I am all for the people who don't want him here exercising their freedom of speech as well. The issue I have is with one poster vomiting hypocritical comments concerning people who they want to stop having the freedom of speech they so vehemently defend for Trump.
As far as I am concerned they are all as bad as each other, even the OP author displays a hypocritical stance.
Oh yes I accept Islamic hate speach against Christians & the predominantly Judeo-Christian society of Western Europe. It is free speech which I accept. Infact I recently received a PM from a moderator (Meta777) because I called within a post all Americans as being "Amoral morons" so what is the problem with that?
I was curious that is all, there was no accusation in my question to you. By your answer I assume you do not agree with our presence there then?
Piers Morgan: Why I’m so embarrassed today for Britain. The same parliament that hasn’t banned a single UK citizen from returning after fighting for ISIS is seriously debating banning Trump from its shores King Salman of Saudia Arabia can allow 50 people to be beheaded last month and nobody in the corridors of British officialdom batted a public eyelid. Yet he is treated like some kind of deity when he arrives in Britain in his fleet of gold-plated jets. Russian President Vladimir Putin commits and spouts all manner of despicable, murderous, bigoted things and Britain welcomes him with State dinners at Buckingham Palace and handshakes outside Downing Street. As for Chinese President Xi Jinping, there is barely enough room in my expansive sick bucket to cope with my involuntary spewing at all the sycophantic grovelling that goes on when he swings into my home country. I know how Trump’s feeling better than most because I faced a similar attempt in the U.S. to have me deported for my views on guns. More than 150,000 Americans signed an official White House petition demanding that I be booted out of the country for having the audacity to suggest better gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre. (In fact, to my chagrin, there was also a rival petition which started up in the UK insisting I be banned from going home. So yes, Donald, my fellow Brits have tried to ban me too… What was interesting, and relevant, about the U.S. petition was how the White House handled it. Obliged to respond to any petition that gathered over 25,000 signatures, President Obama instructed his then press secretary Jay Carney to announce that I would not be deported. Why? This is what Carney said: ‘Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First. President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. However the Constitution also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press – fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy. 'Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment or any other matter of public concern.’ So I was saved because the President concluded I was perfectly entitled to air my opinion about a matter of public concern. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ating-banning-Trump-shores.html#ixzz3xhZPsQ9o
