| > One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article (not threats), and then had to stealth-edit your racist post to be about threats after I called you out. Now you’re stuck in that position. Please don’t get heated again. Silly comments about contacting the prime minister and deflecting by calling racism detract from your argument and make you seem quite immature. It’s both sad and telling how you read “minorities will violently attack you in the street” from that message, rather than “people will call the police on you and you may loose your job or face other societal consequences in response to your speech”. > One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article Of course I am. To me it doesn’t make a difference if you’re legally allowed to say something but then immediately face legal consequences from saying that thing, and just not being legally allowed to say something. It’s one and the same. And the laws are good. I’m ok with them. Unlike the US the UK has a very healthy and diverse press, despite having no constitutionally defined freedom of speech, and the courts are robust and generally sensible. So whatever, you’ve got to face consequences of your actions. If you want to go and send racist stuff to footballers then you’ll be banned from football. Cool. 100% down with that. |
>Of course I am. To me it doesn’t make a difference if you’re legally allowed to say something but then immediately face legal consequences from saying that thing, and just not being legally allowed to say something. It’s one and the same.
Then why deflect for several posts to talking about threats?
I get that you’re probably trying to cover for any legal consequences to your racist post (yes it was racist, tell it to the judge) We could’ve had a more fruitful discussion about the laws in the article otherwise. But my attention span is strained.