Distasteful by acceptable free speach? Or shouting "fire"?

[iapetus]

BBC Newsnight interviewed some British Islamists last night:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4735963.stm#

Do you think what they are saying is acceptable as free speach, or is it crossing the line into something that could morally be suppressed? (Incitement to violence/treason/etc?)

(Note: the link will only be active for 24 hours after the original broadcast, i.e. until 1030GMT tonight)

 

[griz]

I can't get the video to work. Do you have the text of the interview?

 

[iapetus]

Afraid not.

Just to make sure you're clicking in the right place, its the linked text "The latest programme available in broadband", or the "video" button beside it. (Either should do).

It didn't work for me either the first two times I tried, and then it worked fine (still does now). Don't know why.

Edited to add:
When I tried, the first time(s) it asked me what to play it with (Windows media player or Real One), but didn't automatically start up once I had chosen and clicked OK. When I clicked on the link again, it worked).

Also "1030GMT tonight" is, err, completely meaningless - I meant 2230BST, which is 2130GMT)

 

[boofus]

You don't go to prison for screaming FIRE! You go to prison for manslaughter when the ensuing mob tramples each other to death.

Same thing. Those jihadis can say anything they want. If nothing happens. Good. If people die, charge them with murder, hate crimes, conspiracy to commit murder, terrorism and throw the book at them.

 

[skidmark]

There is a very thin line between supporting the concept of Islam as a personal religion and espousing the violent overthrow of legally constituted government so that the tenents of Islam become the law of the land. What I heard on the video was that the members of the various groups believed that "democracy" was bad because it was not based on Islam, and that they were "intellectually" supportive of, and in favor of, anyone who acted to change the present British government, by violence as opposed to by "democratic" election, into one based on Islamic law. I just never heard them actually say they had done anything or actually encouraged anybody to do anything. (But they all had wierd accents. When are the British going to learn to speak English?)

Because I do not know, and do not want to look up, British law, I cannot say if the things they said violate British law. Because IANAL and all those other disclaimers, I cannot say that if they made those statements in te USA they would not violate federal treason/insurrection laws.

However, I am convinced that those persons are dangerous. They need to be watched, and they need to know they are being watched. I don't think there is any need to try to "entrap" them, as they are most likely to cross the line by themselves without any help from "us."

What amused me was the conversation about going into the 2,000 mosques in Great Britain to teach the Moslems about democracy, and the response that "they" did not want democracyt but wanted an Islamist nation.

I've got a small news flash I'd like to share with all Islamists/Moslems/True Believers around the world - neither Great Britain nor the United States are "Islamist" countries, so if you want to live in an Islamist country do not come to either one. A second news flash worth sharing - if you want to live in an Islamist country that has running water, flush toilets, electricity that stays on all day every day, and great welfare benefits for those that cannot get a job paying $250K without a grade-school education, go build all that infrastructure in some existing Islamist country. Do not come over here (USA or GB) to get all the benefits and then demand we change to suit your desires.

I'm going to go wrap my head in duct tape and take some more meds. Maybe I'll be calmed down by lunchtime.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[griz]

OK, operator error corrected. I didn't have the time or inclanation to watch the whole thing, but from what I watched I agree with skidmark. Comments like "what the bombers did was right for them" are carefully worded so they don't actually say they are supporters. I thought I caught one statement (my audio is poor) around three minutes in where the guy said he supported the conversion of the country (I'm assuming England) to Islam, by force. If that's what he said, it would at least be in support of a crime (in this country, I don't know the law across the pond) and the statement may be criminal itself.

 

[Rebar]

Free speech isn't the real issue though.

If you listen carefully, you'll find that the "extremists" are in fact interpreting the koran correctly, that Islam is a profoundly anti-Western philosophy, and that it is the duty of all muslems to defeat democracy and Western culture for the final victory of the Worldwide Islam Caliphate.

And until the so-called "moderate" moslems get together and create a "reformed" version of Islam that does not call for world domination, and that specifically condemns violence and the murder of innocents, we're going to be fighting for a long time.

 

[NMshooter]

I do not believe the UK has anything like our first amendment.

What might be considered OK here might get you prison there.

That said, I think that the UK is clearly in for some interesting times...

 

[rhubarb]

What if this was about right-wing gun owners who espoused the overthrow of the current illegal gummint of the U.S. of A.? They read some old text known as the Constitution and talk about how if they were to live honestly by that tome, there would be shootin' and hangin' in D.C. They think that if the gummint takes someone's property and gives it to someone else who will make a profit, the gummint has done wrong. They get so wound up that they talk about things like "awkward phase" and whether shooting gummint revenuers is wrong. Their belief system is clearly at odds with modern American life and law. Since what they believe is dangerous, they must be dangerous and must be watched.

Thoughts and words can not be illegal. Actions can.

 

[skidmark]

Thoughts and words can not be illegal. Actions can.

I'm going to disagree with you on that one - at least concerning the words part.

You can think anything you want to. The government (as of what I know right now) has no way of knowing what you are thinking. But if you put certain thoughts into words, even words that you intend only to be seen, read, pondered, refined, rehashed, revised and rethought by you, the government can convict you of any of a number of extremely serious offenses. Several young teens have been persecuted (oops! did my fingers misspell a word?) for stuff that was written in hard-copy or computer diaries but never sent to anyone else or otherwise distributed. They goofed by telling someone else about what they had written, and that person ratted them out to the "AUTHORITIES" because what they said they had done was "dangerous" to our homeland security.

There have been fewer publicized incidents of the same happening to adults, but the record is clear that you can end up imprisoned and fined for "mere words".

What really bothers me is that so few out there in the real world seem to recall the various and sundry psychiatric imprisonments that were handed out during the 1950's and 1960's for folks that were declared "dangerous" for what they had written - folks who had never - using any meaning of the phrase - published their words.

The only thing I have to say about the subject is - everybody knows I am crazy and that nobody should trust or believe anything I say or do anyhow. I'm just the demented kook who goes around pretending to be sane, sober, and kind to little children, old ladies, and puppies.

stay safe.

skidmark