People are being arrested in the UK for planning or suspected of planning a rally for human rights, civil liberty and cultural preservation. https://video.nostr.build/63b6e2c25852d3f4297cebefa407d403c7b75ffefb94f19325288064d54367fe.mp4
Discussion
Welcome to socialism.
I'm pretty sure they look like voters...
Today, the anti-fascists are the biggest fascists. The anti-racists are the biggest racists. The protectors of democracy are the biggest impediment to democracy. Those claiming to fight for freedom are the biggest tyrants. Those claiming the moral high ground are the face of evil.
We live in an upside down world.
I would bet things will be fairly similar if Kamala gets in. (Maybe?)
I'm surprised the Trump campaign hasn't pointed at Britain as a warning of where the US could be headed under a Harris presidency ÂŻâ \â _â (â ăâ )â _â /â ÂŻ.
Maybe they have, I'm not really in the news loop.
I donât think so, not because of Kamala, but because the US constitution is a written document that still has enough Kasha with the courts and a Supreme Court that presently likes to try to read the thing, that these things would be clear first amendment violations. The UK doesnât have a written constitution, Iâm not a citizen or an expert but my uninformed opinion is that is easier to massage and erode, or if you are a fan of the changes âimproveâ.
I'm not sure either. But isn't it happening already in the US?
No, that case doesn't really have to do with free speech imo. Imo it's more like impersonating an election authority which idk if that's illegal but I'd imagine it is.
Here is the judges argument for why itâs not free speech among other arguments for the rulings they made. Free speech starts on 38.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733.54.0_1.pdf
Essentially they say he is not being charged for the words he wrote, he is being charged because the words he wrote were in the purpose of a crime to defraud someone.
My gut says this case comes down to their intent. If he was actually trying to get people to think they could vote when they couldnât and so trick them out of it, then I think he could be guilty. If his intent was, âthis is sillyâ, then I think he wouldnât be guilty. Which one of those is the case is a fact question. And Juries determine the facts of the case. In this case the jury heard his claim that it was satire and they didnât believe him.
Itâs like if I use words to trick a grandma into sending me money because I pretend to be her grandson in distress. I used words, words are free speech, but the charge isnât that I said certain forbidden words, or topics, itâs that I defrauded a grandma.
With more reflection on the original video I will say there is a lot of framing, assuming the framing is accurate it feels like a clear over reach and abuse. But if the framing is false itâs similar to the use of RICO. Which is a little shady, but that might be a better comparison in the US and can be abused.
Just my random opinion.
Characterized as similar to RICo in the US and that scene could very well take place in the US. A conviction would require proving the organization existed and existed for the purpose of committing crimes. And sometimes i think RICO is an over reach and unconstitutional, but so far the Supreme Court doesnât agree.
I will also say something may be unconstitutional but it takes years to work through the court and that doesnât help anybody in the short term that is actually being harmed.
It sounds like you have quite an informed opinion lol interesting case
"Come down hard, come down heavy" ... UK government right now
I don't understand why they don't just punch these traitors in the face. The pigs don't even have guns, and they would be hard pressed to prove you hit them as their teeth are already jacked up.
Liberal Americans be like "Britain gave up their guns, and nothing bad happen there"