[landl0rd]

That's basically irrelevant from where I stand. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative. That we should "respect different choices". The point of an inalienable right is that it's intrinsic according to our basic values. The british failing to respect that doesn't change it.

[erxam]

There is no such thing as an unalienable right or as a human right.

Rights are simply the expression of the interests of certain classes at a certain point in time.

That said, I struggle to find "free speech" a compelling inalienable right when it's what has directly led to the disaster befalling the Americas in this very moment. Especially since the American conception of "free speech" isn't just to be able to express oneself, but to actually have one's words be accepted no matter what.

[landl0rd]

Okay, I think we have a fundamental disagreement in our first principles that won't be reconciled. I hope people who believe as you do live abroad and do not bring those views to America where y'all could vote. Nothing personal but that's not a reconcilable difference.

[pcrh]

You would have to point out where the current law in the UK is unjust.

The current law surrounding "inalienable rights" in the UK is based on the ECHR that I linked to.

[landl0rd]

I believe that America's standard of imminent lawless action is the only even remotely-okay circumstance under which you can punish speech directly. The ECHR really doesn't have any bearing on what is right and wrong; laws do not determine morality.