April 4, 2012

“Freedom of Speech Wanes in Britain”

Whereas feeling offended becomes something of a positive right. Multiculturalism 1, Liberty, 0.

Bonus perversion: legal precedent has now been set for criminal incarceration based on the purported feelings of a message’s receiver / “target”. Raising the question, how long before the legal move is made from prosecutions based on ostensible malice of intent on the part of the author / utterer to prosecutions based on “the author / utterer should have known how his words might be taken” to “reasonable people largely agree that this sounds offensive” to “READER POLL”?

And what mechanism is available to account for potential malice or opportunism on the part of the (supposedly) offended?

I won’t bore you yet again with how this all works. But don’t say I haven’t been warning you.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:39pm
47 comments | Trackback

Comments (47)

  1. My comment over there is in moderation at the moment:

    They don’t really need to keep justifying the American Revolution, but they’re givers.

  2. Wanes? It’s stone dead. That’s just poking the body with a stick.

  3. I laugh, McGehee, though my amusement is tempered by the evidence that so many of my countrymen seem eager to race the Brits to the bottom.

  4. Britain and Europe are already gone. Color them part of the caliphate.

  5. One may be jailed in Britain for burning the Koran. Or racially abusing someone verbally. Or “inciting racial hatred”. The Uruguayan footballer Luis Suarez was banned for 8 matches for replying “Porque, negrito?” to Patrice Evra’s demand to get his “filthy South American hand” off his head.

  6. Speaking of Britain, has anyone else here seen this?

  7. It was all over Minitrue this morning, Mike. She hasn’t been well received by the sisterhood.

  8. …Luis Suarez was banned for 8 matches…

    What’s the penalty for just punching Patsy in his face? I seem to recall Joey Barton getting 3 games.

    Hey — I merely observe the incentive structures; I don’t set ‘em up!

  9. Punching his ugly mug = straight red card and 3 match ban. Use of “negrito” = 8 match ban & £40,000 fine.

  10. It was all over Minitrue this morning, Mike. She hasn’t been well received by the sisterhood.

    I’m reminded of a similarly delusional woman from many years ago: Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey.

  11. I’m reminded of a similarly delusional woman from many years ago: Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey.

    Arthur Kade?

  12. Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey. Now there’s a blast from the past. Violated all sorts of truth-in-advertising statutes.

  13. I suspect Dharun Ravi probably thinks we’re on our way to stealing a march on Britain here.

  14. That Samantha Brick thing is an April Fool’s joke, right?

    RIGHT?

  15. That Samantha Brick thing is hillarious.

    I doubt she’s serious, if she is, I’m sure she’ll punish herself amply by being herself. But it must surely be a punking. It’s absolutely brilliant. Look at all the traffic it’s trolled up.

    Also, she is kind of hot. Especially for being in her 40’s.

    Mostly though it’s just fun to see how irate some people become over the tiniest things.

  16. I reserve “hot” for women who are, you know, actually hot.

    She looks fine.

  17. By British standards, most of the PW commentariat should be in the pokey. Or is it the hoosegow?

  18. She looks fine.

    Apart from where she looks like a plastic doll that was left too long near a space heater, I’d agree with you.

  19. By British standards, most of the PW commentariat should be in the pokey. Or is it the hoosegow?

    At Her Majesty’s pleasure.

  20. I imagine that any guy who has had his senses dulled by about three drinks would find her hot. She’s almost attractive. And I’ve always found that there’s a certain percentage of guys for whom the presence of even a borderline blonde chick is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, so she probably misconstrues experiencing that curious phenomena for being actually hot or something.

  21. She’s built like a brick, well, Samantha.

  22. If she were really actually smoking hot, it wouldn’t be nearly so funny though. What the hell would be the point?

    I doubt hardly anyone would be talking about it.

    Which is why, whether it’s sufficiently cute smartass bitch reporter over here, or her editor, someone is fucking brilliant.

    If it had been a once-off thing, maybe it could be serious. But then, (not so much ‘after’ as mostly immediately before) all the outrage, she doubles down with a second trolling, follow-up article asserting QED, the fact that some people are mad proves my preposterous assertions was right. Someone somewhere knows what they are doing.

    http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh

  23. Hey, kids, note that women in general aren’t as attractive as the ones you download.

    Next thing you’ll be complaining about some chick’s knees being too sharp.

  24. You can download women? No one tells me anything.

  25. OT, here’s a nice little piece on how property rights inherently function to solve problems.

  26. George Orwell was British. Perhaps he was into something?

  27. Everyone should read the piece bh linked. It makes a very good point.

  28. It makes a very good point.

    why do you hate busy bodies

  29. It is always and only about FEELINGS with progressives. As far as that oldish brit, I would prefer chilin with Gemma Massey but maybe thats just me and some phase that I FEEL like I’m in. Her saying that her friends wont bring their husbands around her says more about her friends and their husband’s than it does about her. But alas she is similar to our POTUS in that she FEELS that everything that happens in her world is about her….

  30. cranky-d, the author of that piece is absolutely correct. He’s also absolutely politically correct, because his principle would, correctly, allow that same restaurant owner to put up a sign: “No niggers/kikes/dagoes/micks/slant-eyes/spics/queers/identifiable ethno-religious group I hate allowed inside.” So long as that restaurant owner is not able to call the cops to shut down the competing restaurant next door which welcomes some or all of the above with open arms, there’s no problem there either.

    If he had actually made that argument, he wouldn’t be employable any more… and he knows it.

  31. I agree, a restaurant owner should be able to put up a sign like that. And if I saw it, I wouldn’t go to his restaurant. Nor would a whole bunch of other people.

  32. This topic reminds me of a funny brouhaha from awhile back.

  33. Thank you for that bh.

  34. You’re right that he wouldn’t be employable, but it’s insane.

    Nobody would put up any such signs, except perhaps in parody, and exceptions in cases where minorities are excluding whites or other minorities.

    Fucking Walmart doesn’t care, can’t afford to lose 20% of their business, and if they tried would lose 88% of it overnight. I am not old enough to know WTF a lunch counter is, but the Ronald McDonald corporation is not going to enforce racial segregation.

    The degree the fear of this insane impossibility actually scares people into supporting such government intervention wherever it pleases is kind of disturbing.

  35. Talking about “lunch counters” or “back of the bus” always implies that it was private companies that were behind racial segregation when it was always a government mandate. If it hadn’t been it would never have even gotten off the ground.

    It was about keeping power for the Democrats in that era just as the latest greatest newfangled mandates/regulations/usurpations are now.

    Now as then they find some group or class to demonize and pretend to save us from if we will only give them the power. Just for awhile, they’ll just stick it in a little bit, promise.

  36. Yes if Republicans win the whitehouse then a new fast food franchise called Whitey Burger will not allow black people to eat there and will force white hispanics to sit in a separate section for fear that they might be packin’ heat.

    Remember Whoopi Goldberg who taught us that a strict constructionist view of the constitution would restore black people to a state of chattel slavery….um….somehow. To the hollywood and academic left the constitution is the angry ancestor shadow that haunts us forever. It is not our friend. It wants to seduce us or frighten us until we return to primitive ways, indian massacres, hangin’s, duels, and tricorner hats.

    Meanwhile Roman Polanski should be allowed to return to Hollywood because he’s a genius and it wasn’t rape rape.

    It’s a funny old world and it just keeps getting funnier. I actually look forward to being boxed up for underground storage sometimes. No more insane headlines. No more stupid Slim-jim flavors. No more “pretty vampire” movies. No more kids with tiny roller skate wheels hidden in their shoes suddenly zipping off in my peripheral vision and freaking me out in the dairy section at the grocery store. No more dumb aging hippy cartoonists crying out for global authoritarianism to save the planet on Facebook. No more customer abusive airline practices. Nope. Just a lot of nitrogen and carbon going back where it came from where nobody has to smell it.

  37. Remember the guy who owned the cheese steak stand in Philly, and had a sign that demanded that everyone place their orders in English? Good God, what a case of the vapors everyone had over that. Can you imagine if he’d had a sign refusing to serve certain ethnic types?
    bh; thanks for the links. I had thought that the wheels started to come off for Althouse when she got knocked around at that union rally last year, while her menfolk did nothing. Apparently, she’s had issues for a while.

  38. Whether or not anyone would open up such a restaurant wasn’t really the point. (You might be surprised, and also on who would open it and where).

    The point is that carrying his argument to it’s logical conclusion would invalidate at least half of the bias industry and the bureaucrats who enforce it. Substitute housing (or hiring) for restaurant and tell me no one would refuse to rent to/hire certain groups.

  39. Barry the golfer tells us Augusta National must admit women to membership. There’s our new lunch counter.

  40. Funny how Barry the Golfer didn’t turn down a chance to play at Augusta in spite of its War on Women.

    Men’s clubs? SEXIST!

  41. Reckon Barry’s comments will put that little Asian kid Tiger on the spot? He’s a member.

  42. Black-Asian, sdferr. Get with the multilayered hierarchy of privilege.

  43. I stole that one, by the way.

  44. “Multi-tiered hierarchies of racial privilege” might be the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.

  45. So Amynda is more than just a mild laxative, Abe?

  46. I’m thinking yes? But I’ve always been partial to unintentional humor.

  47. always implies that it was private companies that were behind racial segregation when it was always a government mandate.

    And based on the Progg notion that blacks carried strange black diseases and we shouldn’t let their cooties get on us. Thanks Woodrow Wilson!

    Notice how the Jim Crow laws all involved quasi-sanitation concerns: swimming pools, drinking fountains, lunch counters, bus seats, hotel beds. The white women in The Help were obsessed with keeping their black maids off their toilets, but they’d let them cook their food and change their babies’ diapers (which is what permitted the chocolate pie incident to occur).

Leave a Reply