Jane Collins MEP (Ukip) sent death threats over Rotherham pedophile abuse scandal

[Kyle]

im not gay but i would give undertaker a good seeing to

punish all death threats regardless of where they come from. tis the only way!

[-:Undertaker:-]

It seems pretty obvious to me that what I object to isn't the speech, but the genuine potential of violence occurring.

"I'm not homophobic, but..."

"I'm not racist, but..."

Who is that supposed to be? Me?

[Kardan]

It seems pretty obvious to me that what I object to isn't the speech, but the genuine potential of violence occurring.



Who is that supposed to be? Me?

No, but it's what you're acting like.

People that say 'I'm not homophobic, but...' always end up saying a homophobic sentence. Likewise with the racism. You're saying, 'I agree with free speech for all, but...'

You're just contradicting yourself completely.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, but it's what you're acting like.

People that say 'I'm not homophobic, but...' always end up saying a homophobic sentence. Likewise with the racism. You're saying, 'I agree with free speech for all, but...'

You're just contradicting yourself completely.

I don't see why you can't understand this.

I oppose hate speech or anti-free speech laws because they seek to punish speech for being speech. I don't oppose Police investigating a genuine threat against the life of an individual though because the speech is merely an indicator/evidence that violence (an actual crime, not merely uttering a word the government doesn't approve of) is about to occur. It's the violence or potential of violence itself which is the problem, not the speech. Hence why I oppose anti-free speech laws and support freedom of speech & expression.

And it's blindlingly obvious with the example that you brought up about airport security vs direct death threats.

[Kardan]

So why have you said in the past that if someone is to threaten to rape/kill/torture a 2 year old girl, then they shouldn't be punished because it's a 'slippery slope'. Is that not an indicator that violence is about to occur?

You're full of contradictions, it's unbelievable.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So why have you said in the past that if someone is to threaten to rape/kill/torture a 2 year old girl, then they shouldn't be punished because it's a 'slippery slope'. Is that not an indicator that violence is about to occur?

You're full of contradictions, it's unbelievable.

I don't recall defending that. Have you got a link to that claim?

But again, you've not understood what I am saying. If a 2-year old was threatened like that, it wouldn't be the speech I wanted made illegal because it's just words: it'd be the fact that violence was about to occur to that 2-year old which would be what i'd be concerned about.

[Kardan]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...=790098&page=2

[The Don]

Are you being serious? Do you realise when you say 'although' and say the exact opposite, that actually means something, right?

How can you say all speech should be allowed, and then say in the same thread that action should be taken on serious death threats?

I'm literally astounded.
@djclune; @Jellyfish; @FlyingJesus; @scottish; @buttons; - It's not just me, is it?

"I'm not homophobic, but..."

"I'm not racist, but..."

Haha, don't worry it's not just you. Tom's already got a great quote of Dan saying he's for freedom as long as they're doing what he likes

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see why you can't understand this.

I oppose hate speech or anti-free speech laws because they seek to punish speech for being speech. I don't oppose Police investigating a genuine threat against the life of an individual though because the speech is merely an indicator/evidence that violence (an actual crime, not merely uttering a word the government doesn't approve of) is about to occur. It's the violence or potential of violence itself which is the problem, not the speech. Hence why I oppose anti-free speech laws and support freedom of speech & expression.

And it's blindlingly obvious with the example that you brought up about airport security vs direct death threats.

Ah so you're only blindly following one way or the other in instances which you like. For example, I remember you calling people hypocrites when people were opposed to that christian couple that turned away the gay couple from their b&b saying that if we disagreed with that we must disagree with the free market. Yet here you're picking and choosing to suit yourself. It is amusing to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...=790098&page=2

Caught red handed. Great work!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Haha, don't worry it's not just you. Tom's already got a great quote of Dan saying he's for freedom as long as they're doing what he likes

Nope.

Ah so you're only blindly following one way or the other in instances which you like. For example, I remember you calling people hypocrites when people were opposed to that christian couple that turned away the gay couple from their b&b saying that if we disagreed with that we must disagree with the free market. Yet here you're picking and choosing to suit yourself. It is amusing to watch.

Yeah..... and what is your point or comparison to prove me wrong there?

I stand by the rights of private property to turn away who they like, indeed I said in the thread Kardan quoted that if an airport (which should be properly private with private security) wanted to clamp down harshly on idiots who shout BOMB then that'd be completely up to them, even if I think that a drunken fool shouting it in an airport doesn't warrant a huge overreaction.

I mean, should Westboro Baptist Church be arrested for what they say?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...=790098&page=2

So you believe troll comments on the internet should all be arrestable offences? So if somebody tweets Tom Daley and says something like "you ******* ****** you deserve to die" they should then be arrested by the Police?

There's a difference, which the Police look into, between genuine threats and non-genuine threats. In the case of that Tom Daley example, I would on the face of it take it as a non-threat where as say if he had letters sent to his address saying "IM GOING TO KILL YOU" then on the face of it that would be taken as a genuine threat.

But neither you or The Don have tackled what I have said about the speech being the crime as opposed to the potential violence.

[Kardan]

My favourite part of your post is how you ignore the comments about the 2 year old girl but start to talk about Twitter and Tom Daley. Nobody has even mentioned that.

- - - Updated - - -

And I also forgot that genuine murderers have the decency to post a letter rather than tweeting their threats. /s