undefined

points

by Quarrelsome4 hours ago |

comments

by ImJamal3 hours ago|

[-]

First, she was not, at the time of arrest, holding a prayer vigil. She was by herself.

Second, if it was a legitimate arrest why was she was paid out by the government for a settlement?

Also, this has happened to multiple people who haven't organized prayer vigils in the past, not that it would matter if they had.

by Quarrelsome3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is an anti-abortion campaigner who is playing with the line that intends to prohibit what she does. This is theatre, its artificial news. Its someone intentionally going out into the world to play victim. Focusing on people like this is not a healthy way to understand the world.

DON'T PROTEST ABORTION NEAR OR OUTSIDE ABORTION CLINICS. Its that simple. If you're an anti-abortion campaigner, don't do your shit near abortion clinics.

I think the prosecution failed as it transpired the clinic had actually closed. Which demonstrates the issue. She was trying to get arrested so it didn't even matter that the clinic was operational.

by ImJamal2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You are only focusing on one person not the others because you think it is the strongest case. Second, you support thought crimes and I am opposed to them. She was not yelling or holding a sign. Literally just thinking. That is the very definition of a thought crime.

We have such a fundamental difference of an opinion on the thought crime issue that focusing on this specific case isn't going to go anywhere so continuing this conversation is just going to be a waste.

I hope your thoughts don't get you arrested.

by Quarrelsome2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

She was literally campaigning against abortion near an abortion clinic which she knows is against the law. Criminals who have self-respect don't fucking live-stream their crimes and then act like a victim when they get arrested.

Its not a thought crime, its a crime crime.

by ImJamal19 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't care if it is against the law. The conversation was about free speech. I'll even give you that she was protesting. All that does is proves my point. If you are not allowed to protest quietly while not impeding anybody then you do not have free speech.

Second, it clearly wasn't against the law because they dropped the charges and gave her a settlement.

Third, just because something is against the law doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to say it. The law does not dictate morality.

If the parliament passed a law saying you cannot criticize them, would you say well it is the law and as such it isn't a violation of free speech? Would you call somebody doing that a criminal?

Fourth, the police literally said "You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.". Meaning the offense was literally her thinking. If you are not allowed to have wrong think then there is clearly thought crimes.