Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Frankly the SNP are 'bloody awful' at running a country HOWEVER unfortunately for Scots themselves they will never be voted out in Scotland as long as they continue with their anti-English edicts. An alarming percentage of Scots are blinded by their xenephobia of the English, like the Irish they blame ALL the ills in Scotland on the English, its something that has been around for a while but has accelerated particularly quickly over the last 5-10 years.
Personally I'm wondering if the explosion in English xenophobia (not just from the Scots and Irish but from the world in general) has something to do with Russian/Chinese BOTS? Or perhaps I'm just being dragged in by conspiracy theories here!?
What the BOTS (whoever they are) seem to fail to realise is that the English don't seem particularly perturbed by anti-English xenophobia! In fact many English seem quite oblivious to it!
Cheers to the Scottish Police for taking the correct stand.
The Washington "hate crime" legislation Senator Bill 5427 is far more lucrative. It allows one to "tattletale" by phone on their neighbours, and collect $2000 as a reward.
It is a direct result of TransActivists whose 'NO Debate' mantra has not sufficiently silenced women and men, gay and straight, who object to trans ideology that values men's feelings over women's sex-based rights.
Merely uttering the words 'Transwomen are men' has gotten people censored, abused, threatened and even fired.
As a result more and more people see the trans movement as a shambolic and dangerous power-seeking political/cultural attack on science, ethics and common sense.
And we are speaking up.
So the activists and their allies, the SNP and the Greens, went a step further to make it official - "Shut up or suffer the LEGAL consequences if you hurt someone's 'feelings'."
This matters immensely when you realize that Canada isn't far behind with their pronoun laws and the 4 yr old case of nurse Amy Hamm in BC who was professionally punished for saying there are only two sexes.
Plus Australia has pretty much lost it's mind in this regard also..
The Anglosphere is truly in crisis.
Insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillie767
How wise the Founding Fathers were when they codified Freedom of Speech in the US Constitution.
It's not perfect, but certainly better than not having it.
Close enough to perfect, fershur. Especially when you look at the kooks and head cases illustrated in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint
The abuse against Jews has been sickening but guess what.... Glasgow is now flying the Palestinian flag...so what does that tell you about our crazy government in Scotland..
They are unhospitalized psych patients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpaul
anyone remember the old nursery rhyme? " sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", some people need to grow a thicker skin, this "I'm Offended" business has gone too far.
You cant yell "Fire" in crowded theatre. Even the First Amendment wont protect you from that one
Actually, this often quoted exception is limited, and not a free pass.
The "shouting fire" scenario came from a 1919 decision written by Justice Holmes in which he said that Charles T. Schenck had advocated a position that presented a clear and present danger during a time of war was not protected by the First Amendment. Even Justice Holmes, who wrote the initial sentence, limited its application. He said that (1) the statement was false; and (2) caused a panic.
" “We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights,” Holmes wrote. “But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”"
However, the following year, Justice Holmes adopted a dissimilar argument and dissented in Abrams v. United States. Further, he distinguished Abrams from Schenck by saying that Abrams was not advocating impediments to US military actions and therefore his speech was protected.
I think the Bible is considered hate speech across the pond. What does "stir up" mean?
Get your knickers in a twist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
