Freedom of speech

[Thomas]

That's what I'm talking about!! I see no frills or special effects just you two on a sofa having one of these discussions. Classic!

Which is why in this thread I said I was talking about Law not religion. But he Geronimo wanted to talk about it religion and the word religion means a bonded obligation to Good. And we all know how things are twisted, but is it your world view that we should have a bonded obligation to do bad towards each other. I hope that helps you out a little.

A classic case is what has been discussed on this forum about people regardless of their sexual persuasion encouraging anal sex in public. Now as having sex in public (when in the sight of others who object) is already an offence I fail to see why thinking or speaking about it should be banned.

One example (there are more; just as evil) Because policy can change like already mentioned with Hitler, I hope that helps you out too.

Another case is politicians like Geert Wilders who was banned from speaking to a group from the House of Lords as his views where deemed to be racist. However by not allowing him to speak it has given ammunition to people like him who will claim that if he was a non white, non christian individual then he would be allowed to say why he likes. Which is not true but as it is only being debated by those who hold the view unchallenged.

House gods/lords (They are not, I can assure you) which make up policy should not exist anyway, because we all ready have Perfect Laws. And all they do is make things worse, especially for the majority of people. Just like in another thread "there is no good legislation" when we really look. Hope that helps too.

Just my view

Hope this helps too.

[Geronimo]

That's what I'm talking about!! I see no frills or special effects just you two on a sofa having one of these discussions. Classic!

Which is why in this thread I said I was talking about Law not religion. But he Geronimo wanted to talk about it religion and the word religion means a bonded obligation to Good. And we all know how things are twisted, but is it your world view that we should have a bonded obligation to do bad towards each other. I hope that helps you out a little.

A classic case is what has been discussed on this forum about people regardless of their sexual persuasion encouraging anal sex in public. Now as having sex in public (when in the sight of others who object) is already an offence I fail to see why thinking or speaking about it should be banned.

One example (there are more; just as evil) Because policy can change like already mentioned with Hitler, I hope that helps you out too.

Another case is politicians like Geert Wilders who was banned from speaking to a group from the House of Lords as his views where deemed to be racist. However by not allowing him to speak it has given ammunition to people like him who will claim that if he was a non white, non christian individual then he would be allowed to say why he likes. Which is not true but as it is only being debated by those who hold the view unchallenged.

House gods/lords (They are not, I can assure you) which make up policy should not exist anyway, because we all ready have Perfect Laws. And all they do is make things worse, especially for the majority of people. Just like in another thread "there is no good legislation" when we really look. Hope that helps too.

Just my view

Hope this helps too.

Thomas stop making things up that i wanted or dont want to do, You started the discussion on religion as far as i can see, whether the almighty told you to or not i dont know...im not on his contact list. But i think it was so you could unload your 'alternative' 10 commandments on us. Which incidentally came over as the drunken rules of an off-grid hippy, who decides he is the laird of the eighth acre of land he has purchased, land that until he bought it was used as the dumping ground for the the council allotment thats runs along side it.

I personally dont care if religion or the bible are two different things in your eye, as far as im concerned they are the same in the way aspartame and corn syrup are the same.. Poisonous and to be avoided, the way a slug would avoid a salt factory.

Other than that i agree...with virtually nothing you say.

[Thomas]

Which is why in this thread I said I was talking about Law not religion. But he Geronimo wanted to talk about it religion and the word religion means a bonded obligation to Good. And we all know how things are twisted, but is it your world view that we should have a bonded obligation to do bad towards each other. I hope that helps you out a little.

[Thomas]

.

Can anyone show a good example of the principle of "Freedom of speech" and why was that specific phrase chosen. It could have been a lot better couldn't it. Because its really about brain washing the public (it seems people here are still falling for it)

It's "do what thou wilt that shall be the whole of the law" Aleister Crowley type satanism. Anything goes, liberalism, (well, whatever suits the so-called ptb and the current agenda.)

[Geronimo]

.

Can anyone show a good example of the principle of "Freedom of speech" and why was that specific phrase chosen. It could have been a lot better couldn't it. Because its really about brain washing the public (it seems people here are still falling for it)

It's "do what thou wilt that shall be the whole of the law" Aleister Crowley type satanism. Anything goes, liberalism, (well, whatever suits the so-called ptb and the current agenda.)

No!

[legaleagle]

Thomas
Well surely this post is an example of freedom of speech at it's best. If you had said the comments in public about killing homosexuals for inciting anal sex in public you would have almost certainly fallen foul of the law. In my opinion you should be able to say this and anything else you believe, no matter how much I disagree with what you are saying.

I'm afraid I don't see what limiting free speech would do to stop a Hitler type scenario, in fact surely the reverse would be true.

You also took my example of Geert Wilders and replied that you don't agree with the house of lords!! That while your opinion is a different discussion altogether.

I should also clarify that I merely found the discussion between you and geronimo funny I was not taking sides.

I do however find it strange that this seems to be one of the few areas you feel the state should interfere. Surely as you feel the government makes far to many rules(your distinction) limiting free speech would only add to this.

[Geronimo]

Thomas
Well surely this post is an example of freedom of speech at it's best. If you had said the comments in public about killing homosexuals for inciting anal sex in public you would have almost certainly fallen foul of the law. In my opinion you should be able to say this and anything else you believe, no matter how much I disagree with what you are saying.

I'm afraid I don't see what limiting free speech would do to stop a Hitler type scenario, in fact surely the reverse would be true.

You also took my example of Geert Wilders and replied that you don't agree with the house of lords!! That while your opinion is a different discussion altogether.

I should also clarify that I merely found the discussion between you and geronimo funny I was not taking sides.

I do however find it strange that this seems to be one of the few areas you feel the state should interfere. Surely as you feel the government makes far to many rules(your distinction) limiting free speech would only add to this.

Perhaps the handing out of free gobstopper thats going on nationally is a surreal attempt by the government to stymie free speech.
Whats says you Thomas, if you can speak!

[Thomas]

Perhaps the handing out of free gobstopper thats going on nationally is a surreal attempt by the government to stymie free speech.
Whats says you Thomas, if you can speak!

Well free speech is like political correctness very misleading, and I was drawing on the distinction of good speech over bad speech. Like politicians when they talk policy you know its bad, always bad in the bigger picture. And how the so-called ptb use liberalism to encourage people to do bad (like watching TV "programs") "Mad as Hell" People become like the people on TV for example.

[Thomas]

Well surely this post is an example of freedom of speech at it's best. If you had said the comments in public about killing homosexuals for inciting anal sex in public you would have almost certainly fallen foul of the law

Fallen foul of legislation not Law. It wasn't that long ago that even within legislation it was illegal, homosexuality.

But do remember in true Law, a case has to be proven beyond any doubt, not like legislation and its version of capital punishment that still goes on. And with policy false accusation Law is not seen to be done for a long long time and also with policy which can change no one is even safe in their own homes, even Queers (that could/should in the safety of their own homes, take the consequence of it in the universe cause and effect.)

I do however find it strange that this seems to be one of the few areas you feel the state should interfere. Surely as you feel the government makes far to many rules(your distinction) limiting free speech would only add to this.

No, making up policy in the bigger picture is a capital offence and the reasons should be obvious, but it does show what an upside down world we live in.

For instance it does not need a jury to see for example that Tony Liar (lot more of them too) is a war criminal and much of the Law should work on those obvious weightier issues of Law. If the whole nation said stop or else, he would have to back down and no one would need to get hurt in those wars. Another example too of bad "Freedom of speech" in warmongering and making the weightier Laws of no effect.

Many of the weightier Laws are ignored and you say you are a Barrister, can you name some an explain some like usury for example as that should be easy really?

[Geronimo]

People become like the people on TV for example.

You mean they are not all the time?