Eminem has a new song for the Generation Z TikTok users who tried to "cancel" him

First topic message reminder :

Eminem released a new song Friday following a social media campaign from Generation Z TikTok users who sought to cancel the Grammy and Oscar-winning rapper over some of his controversial lyrics.

The music artist shared part of the track's lyrics, which appear to address the backlash, on Twitter.

“I won't stop even when my hair turns grey (I'm tone-deaf) / 'Cause they won't stop until they cancel me,” Eminem wrote alongside a preview of the new lyric video for "Tone Deaf."


The controversy kicked off in February, when a Gen Z TikTok user argued the rapper's 2010 hit "Love The Way You Lie" glorifies toxic relationships and domestic violence.

The hip-hop ballad, which features chart-topping artist Rihanna, describes the dangerous cycle of being trapped within an abusive relationship and the tug of war between love and hate that comes with it. The song came out after both artists were involved in highly public abusive relationships, Rihanna with ex-boyfriend Chris Brown and Eminem with ex-wife Kim Scott.

Fans of Eminem, born Marshall Bruce Mathers III, defended the rapper on social media and pushed back against members of Gen Z, those born roughly from the mid-1990s to the early 2010s.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/music/young-tiktok-users-tried-canceling-eminem-he-responded-tone-deaf-n1259837

I'm hoping that this helps some people realize the madness of cancel culture. I could rant and rant, but I'll open the floor for discussion instead

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Her claim is 'a member of the royal household', have you any idea how many members are in that family?....I think she will have to be a tad more specific.

I'm not arguing it's likely bull shit.

I'm just pointing out how this gets started.

Is calling someone who is fat, a "fat ass" hate speech?

What about calling someone a retard?

Redneck?

Cracker?

Limey?

Septic?

Spic?

White Trash?

None of tha above would bother me personally....I doubt any of it would be considered to be hate speech.....apart from the permenently offended.

I do remember though that you told me off once for calling you a yank.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not arguing it's likely bull shit.

I'm just pointing out how this gets started.

Is calling someone who is fat, a "fat ass" hate speech?

What about calling someone a retard?

Redneck?

Cracker?

Limey?

Septic?

Spic?

White Trash?

None of tha above would bother me personally....I doubt any of it would be considered to be hate speech.....apart from the permenently offended.

I do remember though that you told me off once for calling you a yank.

None of them bother me personally either.

But the jails are full of people that have done things that didn't bother me.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
None of tha above would bother me personally....I doubt any of it would be considered to be hate speech.....apart from the permenently offended.

I do remember though that you told me off once for calling you a yank.

None of them bother me personally either.  

But the jails are full of people that have done things that didn't bother me.  

I doubt anyone is serving time for calling someone a cracker.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

None of them bother me personally either.  

But the jails are full of people that have done things that didn't bother me.  

I doubt anyone is serving time for calling someone a cracker.

Not here. I want to keep it that way too.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
I doubt anyone is serving time for calling someone a cracker.

Not here. I want to keep it that way too.  

Not here either, it's more used as a quaint way to compliment a female.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Not here. I want to keep it that way too.  

Not here either, it's more used as a quaint way to compliment a female.

Give it time. It will get there and someone will be persecuted and possibly prosecuted for using it, all under the pretense of being "civilized".

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Not here either, it's more used as a quaint way to compliment a female.

Give it time.  It will get there and someone will be persecuted and possibly prosecuted for using it, all under the pretense of being "civilized".  

I doubt it.

Being civilised doesn't mean being a snowflake.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Give it time.  It will get there and someone will be persecuted and possibly prosecuted for using it, all under the pretense of being "civilized".  

I doubt it.

Being civilised doesn't mean being a snowflake.

Are you sure about that? I mean it doesn't have to, but it sure seems like the snowflakes are using civility to ram shit down peoples throats.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I doubt it.

Being civilised doesn't mean being a snowflake.

Are you sure about that? I mean it doesn't have to, but it sure seems like the snowflakes are using civility to ram shit down peoples throats.

I think most people can work out what is genuinely hate talk and what is merely throwing a few insults around.

You are on social media too much.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you sure about that? I mean it doesn't have to, but it sure seems like the snowflakes are using civility to ram shit down peoples throats.

I think most people can work out what is genuinely hate talk and what is merely throwing a few insults around.

You are on social media too much.

Most people can. I don't think cancel culture is the result of most people. Just a loud minority.

That's also the way a lot of laws get passed.

What are you prevented from saying that you want to??

You may not have hate speech laws, but you do live in a society that possibly has a bigger % of the permanently offended than we do here.

Syl wrote:What are you prevented from saying that you want to??

You may not have hate speech laws, but you do live in a society that possibly has a bigger % of the permanently offended than we do here.

I'm not prevented from saying anything I really want to.

For now. And I want to keep it that way.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:What are you prevented from saying that you want to??

You may not have hate speech laws, but you do live in a society that possibly has a bigger % of the permanently offended than we do here.

I'm not prevented from saying anything I really want to.  

For now.  And I want to keep it that way.  

Ditto, so there is no problem.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not prevented from saying anything I really want to.  

For now.  And I want to keep it that way.  

Ditto, so there is no problem.

Sure there is. If other people are prevented. It's not about what I want to say.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Ditto, so there is no problem.

Sure there is. If other people are prevented. It's not about what I want to say.

It seems to be people on social media rather than any legal system that are making decisions of what is acceptable or not.
If that's the case, just stand up and be counted....like Eminem has.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sure there is. If other people are prevented. It's not about what I want to say.

It seems to be people on social media rather than any legal system that are making decisions of what is acceptable or not.
If that's the case, just stand up and be counted....like Eminem has.

You're missing the point. This is the kind of crap I want to prevent, even if it might not be something I would say.


https://thesuffolkjournal.com/26253/opinion/detainment-of-british-woman-for-misgendering-person-shows-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-uk/

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
It seems to be people on social media rather than any legal system that are making decisions of what is acceptable or not.
If that's the case, just stand up and be counted....like Eminem has.

You're missing the point. This is the kind of crap I want to prevent, even if it might not be something I would say.  


https://thesuffolkjournal.com/26253/opinion/detainment-of-british-woman-for-misgendering-person-shows-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-uk/

I'm not missing the point at all.

The case you have quoted wasted police and court time and money...but it wasn't a simple mistake in calling a he a she or vice versa was it? ...

"St Albans Magistrates' Court had found Mrs Scottow guilty of persistently using a public communications network to cause annoyance and anxiety in February."

Scottow did appeal the conviction and was cleared. by the way.

But sometimes online trolls are held up as examples, probably to attempt to deter other online trolls, who, as we all know can drive people to suicide and be untouched by the misery they cause.
One notable online troll was Brenda Leyland. Read up on that case, she was only practising her right to free speech too....look where it got her.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:


You're missing the point. This is the kind of crap I want to prevent, even if it might not be something I would say.  


https://thesuffolkjournal.com/26253/opinion/detainment-of-british-woman-for-misgendering-person-shows-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-uk/

I'm not missing the point at all.

The case you have quoted wasted police and court time and money...but it wasn't a simple mistake in calling a he a she or vice versa was it? ...

"St Albans Magistrates' Court had found Mrs Scottow guilty of persistently using a public communications network to cause annoyance and anxiety in February."

Scottow did appeal the conviction and was cleared. by the way.

But sometimes online trolls are held up as examples, probably to attempt to deter other online trolls, who, as we all know can drive people to suicide and be untouched by the misery they cause.
One notable online troll was Brenda Leyland. Read up on that case, she was only practising her right to free speech too....look where it got her.

I didn't say it was a simple mistake.

The event should never have happened.

Shouldn't even be laws about mean words.

Sticks and stones eh?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm not missing the point at all.

The case you have quoted wasted police and court time and money...but it wasn't a simple mistake in calling a he a she or vice versa was it? ...

"St Albans Magistrates' Court had found Mrs Scottow guilty of persistently using a public communications network to cause annoyance and anxiety in February."

Scottow did appeal the conviction and was cleared. by the way.

But sometimes online trolls are held up as examples, probably to attempt to deter other online trolls, who, as we all know can drive people to suicide and be untouched by the misery they cause.
One notable online troll was Brenda Leyland. Read up on that case, she was only practising her right to free speech too....look where it got her.

I didn't say it was a simple mistake.

The event should never have happened.  

Shouldn't even be laws about mean words.  

Sticks and stones eh?

So you think people should be able to mount verbal campaigns of hate against others, like Brenda Leyland and thousands of other people do, both on and offline, and there be no one to answer to?

Glad I live in a country where there are limits tbh.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I didn't say it was a simple mistake.

The event should never have happened.  

Shouldn't even be laws about mean words.  

Sticks and stones eh?

So you think people should be able to mount verbal campaigns of hate against others, like Brenda Leyland and thousands of other people do, both on and offline, and there be no one to answer to?

Glad I live in a country where there are limits tbh.

There comes a point where it's harassment. Even we have laws against that. It's not so much the words, it's the repetitive nature. Sorta like stalking.


You do realize that most forums run through the US for a reason. Much less hassle with speech laws.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
So you think people should be able to mount verbal campaigns of hate against others, like Brenda Leyland and thousands of other people do, both on and offline, and there be no one to answer to?

Glad I live in a country where there are limits tbh.

There comes a point where it's harassment. Even we have laws against that. It's not so much the words, it's the repetitive nature. Sorta like stalking.  


You do realize that most forums run through the US for a reason.  Much less hassle with speech laws.  

So then there ARE laws concerning hate speech in your country, as long as it's repeated enough times.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There comes a point where it's harassment. Even we have laws against that. It's not so much the words, it's the repetitive nature. Sorta like stalking.  


You do realize that most forums run through the US for a reason.  Much less hassle with speech laws.  

So then there ARE laws concerning hate speech in your country, as long as it's repeated enough times.

It's not hate speech though. You can't follow a woman around all day saying you love her. It's not the words per se, but actions mixed with words.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

So then there ARE laws concerning hate speech in your country, as long as it's repeated enough times.

It's not hate speech though.  You can't follow a woman around all day saying you love her. It's not the words per se, but actions mixed with words.

But you could constantly tell someone you hate them because they are black or gay or disabled...and as long as you dont follow them around, that's OK.

These signs are protected speech. There could come a point where these people could follow someone around enough with these signs to be considered harassing. And of course trespassing laws apply on private property, so they are limited to where they can spew their nonsense.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not hate speech though.  You can't follow a woman around all day saying you love her. It's not the words per se, but actions mixed with words.

But you could constantly tell someone you hate them because they are black or gay or disabled...and as long as you dont follow them around, that's OK.

Yes.

What about disturbing the peace...do you have laws for that?

All speech is considered constitutionally protected unless it falls within several limited exceptions. ... They are for the most part: incitement, obscenity, fighting words and offensive speech, and threats.

Korben wrote:All speech is considered constitutionally protected unless it falls within several limited exceptions. ... They are for the most part: incitement, obscenity, fighting words and offensive speech, and threats.

Correct.

Syl wrote:What about disturbing the peace...do you have laws for that?

We have local laws saying you have to be hateful at a lower volume at certain times.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:All speech is considered constitutionally protected unless it falls within several limited exceptions. ... They are for the most part: incitement, obscenity, fighting words and offensive speech, and threats.

Correct.  

Indeed.and (offensive speech)  In general, speech that offends can be defined as speech that: "Causes someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" "Causes someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting"offensive speech

So calling somebody a "Fag" (offensive word for a gay man)  is offensive and therefore not protected, so the person is the picture cannot claim freedom of speech and is in fact committing a crime

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Correct.  

Indeed.and (offensive speech)  In general, speech that offends can be defined as speech that: "Causes someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" "Causes someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting"offensive speech

So calling somebody a "Fag" (offensive word for a gay man)  is offensive and therefore not protected, so the person is the picture cannot claim freedom of speech and is in fact committing a crime

So the US laws are not that dissimilar to the UK laws then.
Thanks Korben.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Correct.  

Indeed.and (offensive speech)  In general, speech that offends can be defined as speech that: "Causes someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" "Causes someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting"offensive speech

So calling somebody a "Fag" (offensive word for a gay man)  is offensive and therefore not protected, so the person is the picture cannot claim freedom of speech and is in fact committing a crime

The courts have ruled otherwise.

Syl wrote:

Korben wrote:
Indeed.and (offensive speech)  In general, speech that offends can be defined as speech that: "Causes someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" "Causes someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting"offensive speech

So calling somebody a "Fag" (offensive word for a gay man)  is offensive and therefore not protected, so the person is the picture cannot claim freedom of speech and is in fact committing a crime

So the US laws are not that dissimilar to the UK laws then.
Thanks Korben.

Except he is wrong.

It's why the Klan can still march.

It's why BLM protestors can scream ACAB while marching.

Since 2005, the Rev. Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church have protested at the funerals of slain Iraqi and Afghan war veterans in the hope of spreading their belief that those wars were the result of America’s willingness to embrace homosexuality. In 2006, Phelps staged such a protest near the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.

After notifying Albert Snyder of their intention to protest, seven members of the church demonstrated at Matthew Snyder’s funeral with signs bearing messages such as "Semper Fi Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." They were not noisy, did not block access to the funeral and obeyed official directives to remain at least several hundred feet from the ceremony. Snyder was aware of the protestors’ presence, but he did not see the content of their signs until after the funeral when he did a Google search and found a news broadcast. Phelps also posted an Internet "epic" on the church’s website, claiming that the Snyders "raised [their son] for the devil, . . . taught [him] to defy his Creator, to divorce and to commit adultery . . . [and] taught him to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity." As a result, Snyder suffered severe emotional distress.

Snyder sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. Although the district court cautioned the jury against suppressing speech merely because it was offensive, the court also instructed the jury that it was to determine if the protestors’ "actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous, and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection." The jury returned a guilty verdict and damages of $10.9 million against the protestors. The district court reduced the award to $5 million, but denied the defendents’ other post-trial motions, ruling that the protestors created an "atmosphere of confrontation," which invoked the rights of mourners to "avoid being verbally assaulted by outrageous speech and comment during a time of bereavement."

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, found that the First Amendment protected the protestors’ speech (580 F.3d 206 (2009)). Although the court recognized that the expression profoundly distressed Snyder, the appellate court concluded that the speech could not reasonably be read to imply a provably false factual assertion about the Snyders and that it expressed "hyperbolic rhetoric" intended to spark public debate. The court reasoned that the First Amendment provides "breathing space for [such] contentious speech," even when it involves "exaggeration, vilification of men ... and the probability of excesses and abuses." Snyder appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Social science can inform the tensions raised by the case through insights into the effects of offensive speech on those who experience it (see Nielsen, 2004), individual differences in perceptions of offensive speech, the contours of the fine line between speech on the one hand and intimidation or harassment on the other, and the emotions that offensive speech can elicit in its targets or in observers (such as judges or jurors). In particular, demeaning and disrespectful treatment — such as that associated with offensive speech — tends to be associated with anger. Such anger is likely to lead to responsive action, including the desire to curtail the offensive speech and to punish the speaker. Indeed, the court has long recognized that expression can "stir people to anger ... strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea" (Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949).

Nevertheless, the court’s free speech jurisprudence does not allow government-sanctioned punishment of speech solely because the message may be offensive. Rather, it allows regulation of speech only if there are objective indications of harm, such as threats, fraud or violence. The court protects offensive speech because speech on matters of public concern is valuable even when it is delivered in an offensive manner and because punishing offensive speech can lead to censorship of unpopular views. In doing so, the court has implicitly recognized the inherent tensions created by our psychological responses to offensive speech and the importance we place on the free exchange of ideas.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/01/jn

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Indeed.and (offensive speech)  In general, speech that offends can be defined as speech that: "Causes someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" "Causes someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting"offensive speech

So calling somebody a "Fag" (offensive word for a gay man)  is offensive and therefore not protected, so the person is the picture cannot claim freedom of speech and is in fact committing a crime

The courts have ruled otherwise.

Fighting words
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

if i was gay i would consider being called a "fag" as fighting words ....as the person would get a smack in the mouth

Now i am not an American law legal expert and this is just my opinion based on a quick search and no in depth research ,and would bow to Quill legal expertise

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The courts have ruled otherwise.

Fighting words
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

if i was gay i would consider being called a "fag" as fighting words ....as the person would get a smack in the mouth

Now i am not an American law legal expert and this is just my opinion based on  a quick search and no in depth research ,and would bow to Quill legal expertise  

The courts have ruled in favor of the Westboro clowns. No need from input from the fake lawyer.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The courts have ruled otherwise.

Fighting words
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

if i was gay i would consider being called a "fag" as fighting words ....as the person would get a smack in the mouth

Now i am not an American law legal expert and this is just my opinion based on  a quick search and no in depth research ,and would bow to Quill legal expertise  

You are quite right.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

So the US laws are not that dissimilar to the UK laws then.
Thanks Korben.

Except he is wrong.

It's why the Klan can still march.

It's why BLM protestors can scream ACAB while marching.

The problem with that theory is the Klan advocates terrorism, while BLM peacefully advocates equal justice.  BLM is petitioning the government for a just and constitutional cause, which is protected by the 1st Amendment.  The Klan advocates imminent lawless action.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action are as follows:

US Constitution wrote:Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

Free speech does not extend to advocating, or actually breaking the law.  The Klan does both, while BLM does neither.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Except he is wrong.

It's why the Klan can still march.

It's why BLM protestors can scream ACAB while marching.

The problem with that theory is the Klan advocates terrorism, while BLM peacefully advocates equal justice.  BLM is petitioning the government for a just and constitutional cause, which is protected by the 1st Amendment.  The Klan advocates imminent lawless action.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action are as follows:

US Constitution wrote:Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

Free speech does not extend to advocating, or actually breaking the law.  The Klan does both, while BLM does neither.

Are you saying the Klan can no longer march?

Original Quill wrote:

Korben wrote:
Fighting words
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

if i was gay i would consider being called a "fag" as fighting words ....as the person would get a smack in the mouth

Now i am not an American law legal expert and this is just my opinion based on  a quick search and no in depth research ,and would bow to Quill legal expertise  

You are quite right.  

Nevertheless, the court’s free speech jurisprudence does not allow government-sanctioned punishment of speech solely because the message may be offensive. Rather, it allows regulation of speech only if there are objective indications of harm, such as threats, fraud or violence. The court protects offensive speech because speech on matters of public concern is valuable even when it is delivered in an offensive manner and because punishing offensive speech can lead to censorship of unpopular views. In doing so, the court has implicitly recognized the inherent tensions created by our psychological responses to offensive speech and the importance we place on the free exchange of ideas.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The problem with that theory is the Klan advocates terrorism, while BLM peacefully advocates equal justice.  BLM is petitioning the government for a just and constitutional cause, which is protected by the 1st Amendment.  The Klan advocates imminent lawless action.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action are as follows:



Free speech does not extend to advocating, or actually breaking the law.  The Klan does both, while BLM does neither.

Are you saying the Klan can no longer march?

Marching is acceptable. So is speech. It's the illegal stuff they do that gets them into trouble.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you saying the Klan can no longer march?

Marching is acceptable.  So is speech.  It's the illegal stuff they do that gets them into trouble.

Marching and demos are acceptable in the UK too.


"The law is clear that neither the police nor the Government have any powers to ban a static demonstration (assembly) unless it is on private property.

To ban an assembly on private property, called a trepassory assembly, the police must reasonably believe that it may result in serious disruption to the life of the community.
An Order banning a trespassory assembly is made by the local Council on police advice with the consent of the Home Secretary.

Static demonstrations do not by law have to be notified in advance
serious public disorder, or serious disruption to the life of the community, or serious damage of property, or the purpose of the organisers is to intimidate others
The conditions or restriction that can be placed on an assembly are limited to its size, duration or location.

Marches or processions.

There are different laws for marches or processions. There are very limited powers to ban a march/procession.

A march/procession can only be banned where the police consider that it would result in serious public disorder and that placing restrictions or conditions on such a march - for example its duration, location and size - would not be enough to prevent the disorder.

The local authority need to support the police assessment that a ban is needed and then make a banning Order which in turn requires the consent of the Home Secretary."


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-agrees-march-ban

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you saying the Klan can no longer march?

Marching is acceptable.  So is speech.  It's the illegal stuff they do that gets them into trouble.

No fucking shit.

Doing things are different than saying bad words. Doing things isn't hate speech.

That's why the Westboro clowns never ran afoul of the law and their speech was protected. They didn't do anything illegal.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Marching is acceptable.  So is speech.  It's the illegal stuff they do that gets them into trouble.

Marching and demos are acceptable in the UK too.


"[b]The law is clear that neither the police nor the Government have any powers to ban a static demonstration (assembly) unless it is on private property.

I think most of your laws trace our own First Amendment rules.  In the US there are laws about speech advocating insurrection, and/or advocating criminal activity, that constitute exceptions to the First Amendment prohibitions.  The First Amendment protects pure content, but not speech acts aimed at illegal activity.

But the UK, and Europe in general, go further and prohibit speech on the basis of content solely, if it goes to certain subjects such as Nazism and racial hatred.  Every once in a while, I hear of a prosecution of someone over there on the basis of words alone.  That is a clear no-no in the US.

That is why the feds in our country have such difficulty bringing charges where race is clearly implicated.  They have the Klan Act of 1871, but it requires action and clear evidence that that action is racially motivated.  It requires a clear connection by direct evidence, between the words and the illegal activity before  they can prosecute.

The First Amendment is that powerful.  That is why people are so frustrated, when in certain cases, the context clearly shouts racism, racism.  Context and innuendo do not cut it.  The First Amendment requires express evidence of a connection of words to action.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:


Marching and demos are acceptable in the UK too.


"[b]The law is clear that neither the police nor the Government have any powers to ban a static demonstration (assembly) unless it is on private property.

I think most of your laws trace our own First Amendment rules. .

? i think you will find most of your laws trace ours  American law system is based on centuries of English principles regarding right and wrong. This English common law system combines with U.S. case decisions and statutes to form what we know as law.

Korben wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think most of your laws trace our own First Amendment rules. .

? i think you will find most of your laws trace ours  American law system is based on centuries of English principles regarding right and wrong. This English common law system combines with U.S. case decisions and statutes to form what we know as law.

Except, the UK didn't write it down in a written Constitution. The consequence of this has been that a higher law doesn't stand as a hard and fast roadblock when modern exigencies come about.

This issue of unconstitutional 'speech acts' is one such instance.