Louis Theroux

I work in a bookshop and Louis Theroux once asked me where something was then when I told him he didn't thank me or anything, CUNT.

i was so fascinated by this i watched it both airings on bbc2. just wanna hate them so much but then thats what they want! they're like smack dealers everytime you think about them you get all worked up

well they can fuck-off!

i cant take it anymore!

still - the one about pikeys should be friken awesome

GO Louis!

  On 4/5/2011 at 8:20 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 3:36 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 1:02 PM, keltoi said:

these people (or people like them) would not be able to operate in the UK. WTF's going on over there?

First Amendment

 

Trying to explain to a lot of Americans that the bill of rights isn't neccesarily good because it's old and may in fact be bad because it's so old can be very difficult, but it's magnified in the case of people who take an extremely old book at face value and are lawyers.

 

 

the constitution isn't the problem, and anyone familiar with it will tell you the same. the process is corrupted. if you have a book of law that is never universally followed, the book is worthless.

Yeah basically I agree, the reason it isn't universally followed just like the Bible isn't because its archaic and open to interpretation. Freedom of speech is a huge grey area nightmare although yes in principle it's a fantastic idea. I just don't think you should be allowed to routinely ruin funerals in the name of freedom of speech, that isn't right and I think most people agree despite the constitution.

  On 4/5/2011 at 6:06 PM, Rhombix said:

I'm fine with people being allowed to speak their opinion, but the Westboro Baptist Church are, IMO, taking it way too far. Holding signs up with messages like "GOD HATES YOU" in public, is that really freedom of speech? Is that not destructive, harmful, and grotesquely offensive?

yes, it seems like you're figuring out what freedom of speech means.

  On 4/6/2011 at 12:59 AM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 8:20 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 3:36 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 1:02 PM, keltoi said:

these people (or people like them) would not be able to operate in the UK. WTF's going on over there?

First Amendment

 

Trying to explain to a lot of Americans that the bill of rights isn't neccesarily good because it's old and may in fact be bad because it's so old can be very difficult, but it's magnified in the case of people who take an extremely old book at face value and are lawyers.

 

 

the constitution isn't the problem, and anyone familiar with it will tell you the same. the process is corrupted. if you have a book of law that is never universally followed, the book is worthless.

Yeah basically I agree, the reason it isn't universally followed just like the Bible isn't because its archaic and open to interpretation. Freedom of speech is a huge grey area nightmare although yes in principle it's a fantastic idea. I just don't think you should be allowed to routinely ruin funerals in the name of freedom of speech, that isn't right and I think most people agree despite the constitution.

you shouldn't be allowed to ruin funerals, I agree - I didn't watch the vids fully (China) so I'm not sure what they did. However the right to privacy (a funeral) should trump open free speech - you can't just walk into someone's living room and start spouting bile.

I don't see where the grey zone is, please cite some real-world examples. Wherever possible I think freedom of speech should be interpreted as liberally as possible. Are they actually inciting violence? As long as they aren't explicitly inciting violence, they should be allowed to rant as they please. Just like the kkk and nazis should be allowed to have marches like any other group. I think the Bill of Rights is one of the crowning achievements of American republican democracy. Other things I'm not so fond of - electoral college anyone? - but the Bill of Rights rocks.

  On 4/6/2011 at 12:59 AM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 8:20 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 3:36 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 1:02 PM, keltoi said:

these people (or people like them) would not be able to operate in the UK. WTF's going on over there?

First Amendment

 

Trying to explain to a lot of Americans that the bill of rights isn't neccesarily good because it's old and may in fact be bad because it's so old can be very difficult, but it's magnified in the case of people who take an extremely old book at face value and are lawyers.

 

 

the constitution isn't the problem, and anyone familiar with it will tell you the same. the process is corrupted. if you have a book of law that is never universally followed, the book is worthless.

Yeah basically I agree, the reason it isn't universally followed just like the Bible isn't because its archaic and open to interpretation. Freedom of speech is a huge grey area nightmare although yes in principle it's a fantastic idea. I just don't think you should be allowed to routinely ruin funerals in the name of freedom of speech, that isn't right and I think most people agree despite the constitution.

what i meant was, the constitution was intentionally made for changes or amendments to be incredibly hard..the law of the land isn't meant to be changed on a whim.

but you are right in the sense that instead of legitimately amending and following it, our leaders merely circumvent it altogether when it suits them

Here in Europe (at least in Finland and rest of Scandinavia) there are laws against hate speech, so in a sense there isn't "real" free speech here.

  On 4/3/2011 at 11:10 PM, Rhombix said:

Also, irlol at the counter-protest with the "TITS or GTFO" signs.

yes. the "GOD HATES SIGNS" sign was even better.

  On 4/6/2011 at 8:26 AM, azatoth said:

Here in Europe (at least in Finland and rest of Scandinavia) there are laws against hate speech, so in a sense there isn't "real" free speech here.

I'm not sure there's free speech in the US either. I dont think they would be allowed God Hates Niggers signs. Or would they?

  On 4/6/2011 at 5:47 PM, Rambo said:

  On 4/6/2011 at 8:26 AM, azatoth said:

Here in Europe (at least in Finland and rest of Scandinavia) there are laws against hate speech, so in a sense there isn't "real" free speech here.

 

I'm not sure there's free speech in the US either. I dont think they would be allowed God Hates Niggers signs. Or would they?

I don't imagine so, but maybe? I think the UK has some law about incitement to racial hatred or something. That is basically a limit to free speech, I can understand that people prefer straightforward rules and that the more caveats you add the more it chips away at the basic rule, but I think it's okay to draw some boundaries around freedom of speech. I mean it's okay for the Klu Klux Klan to make public statements but for that to work you have to be free to not listen to them. If everyone who is making a statement has the freedom to make it no matter what then it becomes a who can shout loudest competition and the people who want to have the freedom to talk quietly about the nice weather were having aren't free any more. You would hope common decency would prevent people from ruining funerals but if it must be legislated against then so be it.

  On 4/6/2011 at 1:13 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

you shouldn't be allowed to ruin funerals, I agree - I didn't watch the vids fully (China) so I'm not sure what they did. However the right to privacy (a funeral) should trump open free speech - you can't just walk into someone's living room and start spouting bile.

 

I don't see where the grey zone is, please cite some real-world examples. Wherever possible I think freedom of speech should be interpreted as liberally as possible. Are they actually inciting violence? As long as they aren't explicitly inciting violence, they should be allowed to rant as they please. Just like the kkk and nazis should be allowed to have marches like any other group. I think the Bill of Rights is one of the crowning achievements of American republican democracy. Other things I'm not so fond of - electoral college anyone? - but the Bill of Rights rocks.

Those are examples aren't they? If you think people should be quiet at a funeral that is a limit to free speech. And if you think inciting violence shouldn't be allowed then thats another one.

  On 4/5/2011 at 5:35 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 5:23 PM, joshuatxuk said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 3:36 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 1:02 PM, keltoi said:

these people (or people like them) would not be able to operate in the UK. WTF's going on over there?

First Amendment

 

Trying to explain to a lot of Americans that the bill of rights isn't neccesarily good because it's old and may in fact be bad because it's so old can be very difficult, but it's magnified in the case of people who take an extremely old book at face value and are lawyers.

 

I'm ok with the bill of rights in general, Westboro trolling is the ugly side of it, but with so many nutjobs here I don't want to compromise it either: there are plenty who would run rampant with excessive imprisonment beyond the horrible state it's in already. Too many morons to simply revise it to modern language.

 

I'd say the aspect of the Constitution most Americans, especially conservative ones, get wrong is the powers of government. Much of the health-care opposition argued it's unconstitutional because it's not in the document. Well no fucking shit, medicine was almost non-existent and the average life expectancy was 25-30 years during the late 1700s. They also argue that draconian laws and inconsistent standards nationwide are part of state rights. On the other hand, they don't acknowledge that a permanently standing national army overseas isn't in the Constitution either. It's fucking ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's a shit document or anything, it's just that there are those people who refuse to consider that it might not be infallible; patriotism is so indoctrinated in some people that they honestly think the constitution informs morality and not the other way around.

Well put, I very much agree with this. The U.S. constitution and patriotism are such frequent crutches here for arguments, I guess they always have been, it's just such a trend here at the moment.

The original documentary he did is here

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7735501683185935638#

I sort of want to see that Steve Drain guy's documentary, just to see what sort of spin WBC give themselves when handed the opportunity.