undefined

points

[-]

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 ImJamal1 hours 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.

by Quarrelsome10 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

She has free speech. If she wants to write an article, post a comment, write to her mp, she runs a few campaign groups, she can organise a march, she can talk freely about her opinion. Nobody stops her doing those things, she has free speech. What she doesn't have is the right to harass people who are trying to get an abortion. She has an effective restraining order from abortion clinics that she is violating as part of her campaigning.

Why don't you see the difference between free speech and harassment? Your stance undermines free speech by giving it zero responsibility. These are rights hard won by our ancestors and you cheapen them by pretending they're all about some cheap technicality that permits toxic groups to intimidate other people.