Slashdot Mirror
UK Pressures the US To Takedown Extremist Videos
chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"
So they're already stopping the 24x7 broadcast of extremist videos.
This will be a nonstarter. The US government isn't going to start attacking "hate websites" or otherwise poop on the first amendment. Companies like Youtube will certainly comply with the British government. Net result: such content won't be on the most popular avenues of the net, but it'll still be out there for those who are "interested" in such things. So you and I won't be able to browse to it on google video, but it'll be hosted on, I dunno, hatetube or something.
Dystopia is so far off, but around the corner...
We are not the UK anymore.
We should get them to do the same thing to Joe Baptista and his "Assassination Politics". Guy is the stupidest troll ever. Look him up.
that it's alright for elected officials to protect their positions from being challenged through democratic processes like anything on the internet/media to "protect the social good"?
maybe I'm just a little crazy, but that screams of a corrupt government to me.
If the enemy is willing to tell you their plans, pay attention.
FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.
Next they will say all Republican activity is hate related and must be censored. Oh hell, just let the British government choose our politicians for us. It will be like the good-ol days all over again. Never mind that previous revolution and all that...
...they hate us for our freedom.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
We have freedom of speech. The UK is just going to have to deal with it.
Odd, I'm British and I haven't noticed any government cameras in my house. Or on the road outside it for that matter. Maybe they're just very well hidden.
Doesn't have the same dramatic kick as it did in the late 1700s.
...and set up the Great Firewall of Britain. Err. The United Firewall Kingdom. The Duchy of Cornfirewall? The sun never sets on the British Firewall? Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday firewall? Robin Hood, setting the walls of the castle on firewall?
Anybody got any better names for it?
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
How it works in the US is,
You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.
The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.
I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Can someone show me a specific example of where he incites violence in his videos?
YouTube will instantly pull the video and once it is reuploaded do it again.
The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK.'
Those websites would categorically not be allowed in China, either. UK government, please don't look to China for legal inspiration.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
The First Amendment issues are obvious here, but I have to say, we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.
We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.
The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.
The United States needs to ignore the UK's demand, and the UK, if it insists, can certainly petition google to take action on this.
But unless we rely on the idea that free people in a free society can think critically, why not just invite the government into our lives completely? Why even have a free society, if we're really just animals, a few videos away from going on some kind of horrible killing spree? Why go through the pretense of insisting that human beings are capable, through independent thought and taking responsibility for their actions, of liberty?
The "categorically not allowed in the UK" bit could not, as an American, concern me less -- and should the United States attempt the same kind of argument with the UK in the future, the UK can and should ignore the United States's demands to infringe the right of people to say and read/watch what they like.
The alternative, where the government makes this decision that there's just stuff we can't watch, is scary.
US law is already subordinate to other foreign laws (ever see the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981?). So, why shouldn't the US just kowtow to the UK, or any other government?
What I want to know is: when is the Constitution brand toilet paper coming on the market?
Can someone please be so kind and teach Mr. samzenpus grammar?
"the takedown" ... noun ... take=verb
"to take down"
If the UK doesn't want it, they can put up a firewall. Like China.
I don't know if I'm just not watching enough Fox, but I don't see many reports about domestic Islamic extremists in the US, yet I see stories about the KKK and neo-Nazis all the time. I wonder if the news networks don't report on these guys because they are afraid of them and not the white supremacists?
David Cameron (UK prime minister) has let all the rhetoric go to his head. He actually believes it when the US politicians pat him on the head and tell him that the UK and USA do indeed have a special relationship. Wake up, any balance of power between the USA and UK finished sometime before World War 2, over 70 years ago. The "special relationship" deal is that the USA expects the UK to give their requests special treatment (collude in "special renditions", help out on a war, that kind of thing), but don't expect anything in return beyond maybe the occasional tour of the White House and a signed photo from the president.
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.
But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.
And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing the crap out of their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.
Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.
We'll consider doing it when you get around to exempting Americans from libel tourism in your courts.
Removing these videos is definitely a violation of the first amendment and the material would still be available to those seeking it. I do not support the terrorists in any way, but the US or UK government forcing YouTube to remove these videos is the wrong approach. The first amendment has to be a sacred right or we will lose it. It is a slippery slope from banning terrorist videos to banning anti-government videos and then any video the government find inconvenient. There are other ways to address terrorism and murders have happened for 100s of years, with or without these videos. Shame on the Brits for even suggesting it! Governments should not concern themselves with the contents of YouTube or any other site unless a chargeable crime has already been committed.
Urges you mean, article title is a troll
the 1st amendment says we can't do that!
Hey, UK, maybe if you stop trying to control what people are allowed to say they'll be less likely to want you to be blown up.
I don't know where you got this idea, but you're dead wrong. The US has given the UK the single greatest gift we can bestow on a nation, simply because we like them so much. That's right, we've sent them real American football! And yet you say they don't get anything from our special relationship, open your eyes man.
I'm not for other countries pushing in on my rights as a voter in the United States of America, and in this case, being protected under the first amendment.
However, we can't always presume the videos are posted by Americans, and therefore protected under the First Amendment.
The line grays considerably of course if an American is posting how they feel by way of a proxy video, but still, I'm of the opinion the poster should tape themselves stating how they feel/believe, not use someone elses words.
I seem to recall that the British had a problem with the US's freedom before anyone else did.
People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.
But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.
And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.
Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.
There's this little thing called treason and it is defined in the constitution as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Alwaki's videos most definitely fit this description and are thus treasonous speech. Treasonous speech is not protected by the constitution. I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
We're sorry. We are really trying to get them to stop, but they're just NOT LISTENING.
- U.K. Anonymous Coward
The last thing we want is governments deciding what is and isn't "contrary to public good" and therefore should be censored. Freedom of speech is far too valuable to allow any "extremist" to come along, say some nasty things, and have us lose our civil rights. Ahmadinejad exclaimed that they curtail access to porn because it harms society. Once government starts making these calls, these rights will never be granted again until we colonize mars and say "fuck you" to earth's governments.
American football doesn't exist in the UK, they tried and it flopped. Rugby players are fitter, have significantly better stamina, are steroid junkies from college, and don't need armor when bumping into each other, plus they can run for more than 3 seconds without needing a break and a change of players. Oh yeah, rubgy is played in many other countries at a high level, unlike grid-iron.
Well thank you sir for pointing that out. I'll have to remember to use [sarcasm] brackets when I type out obvious jokes from now on.
The Glen Beck show has been shown to incite mass murder plots. If Google is going to be "forced" to remove these videos, then they should have to remove all Glen Beck videos too.
Trying to take down Tea Party folks? Isn't it couple hundred years too late? Or did they get confused by the name?
How are those gun rights working out for you chaps across the pond?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Someone actually pressures the U.S.? Are you sure it's not the other way around?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm
you live in the outer Hebrides?
There is a difference. I do acknowledge that once you start limiting the freedom of speech, it is very difficult to draw the line (IE: Slippery slope)... But there is quite obvious difference between "Reporters criticizing the government get jailed" and "Content that is intended to incite people to commit violent crimes against democratically elected officials should be taken down". The question is where to draw the line between those and whether the videos actually contain any of the latter (and if they do, would they be illegal under some USA laws, too).
Hyperboles are bad, mkay. If someone incites people to violence against democratically elected representatives and the said representatives (who have families, etc...) get uneasy after one attack, it doesn't really justify claims that they're acting like the chinese government.
I hear you guys just had some sort of rally against that sort of hyperboles. Perhaps you'd need more of those.
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
You're an idiot. The US cannot agree to a UK request that categorically violates the US Constitution. Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
It's like requesting that the US make Catholicism the official national religion. It's never going to happen, not for any religion (such a thing would violate the Constitution), and it is bizarre to even ask.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Odd, I'm British and I haven't noticed any government cameras in my house. Or on the road outside it for that matter. Maybe they're just very well hidden.
Well, if you live in Birmingham, that might well be true.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Frankly, the request from the British government, both to YouTube (and other companies) and to the US Government is all three: reasonable , legal, and likely to happen.
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence. None of these characteristics provided any value to our societal discussion of ideas (which is what the 1st Amendment enshrines, but does not define). No one in either the US or the UK needs to see these for any reason other than military intelligence (which, we can get without allowing them to be made for public consumption).
Legal in that according to both UK and US law, these videos fit within the various exceptions to protected speech (that is, they fit into well-defined categories of speech NOT afforded protection). Thus, it's entirely likely that the UK request to the US government will see some sort of follow-through by the US Executive branch, as the content of the videos isn't reasonably up for discussion as to the legality thereof - it's not like they have to be parsed for obscene vs offensive categorization, and I don't see any court ruling in favor of these videos being protected speech (here in the US). It's actually a pretty cut-and-dried case of Incitement to Violence.
Likely as both the above cases point out, it's pretty much a no-brainer request to the US, as it doesn't run afoul of any of our laws, or even likely to produce a court case. In addition, for private providers, its very clear that they violate pretty much any T-O-S I've ever seen for posting public video or images.
Free Speech is great, but there are well-defined (for very good reasons) exceptions to protection, and this stuff very clearly fits inside those exceptions.
But, I do expect the various TLA agencies to continue to listen to al-Awalki - after all, he's giving them plenty of rope to hang himself by.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Why don't they just block the videos from ip addresses originating in the UK? Kind of like BBC does to us over here in the states?
Very nicely thank you, I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
...you are free to LIKE anyone you want, for any reason at all, or no reason at all. In a free society you are free to HATE anyone at all, for any reason at all, or no reason at all.
In a free society, hate is not a crime.
Pretty well - our death rate due to firearms (accidental or otherwise) is very low.
So much for "if guns were illegal, only criminals will have guns!"
I like guns as much as the next guy, but our lack of a second amendment equivalent really doesn't put us at as much of a disadvantage as people seem to think.
turn into pressures?
Oh I get it, just more hyperbole that's guaranteed to get the colonial rebels frothing at the mouth? ;)
None of which are in houses, which was the original comment. Almost all the cameras are in already very public places, such as town centres.
It is currently frowned upon to post items on Ebay for sale that are illegal to sell (or even display) in France and Germany. Specifically, Nazi memorabilia. Pretty much so that any such auction is immediately terminated by Ebay administrators. Why? Is the sale of such items illegal in the US?
The same thing is likely to happen with YouTube. Videos that purport to be "Islamic training" will simply disappear within a few minutes of being posted. No government involvement, nothing legal being done at all. The videos aren't illegal in the US but they aren't really a good idea.
What about freedom of speech? Well, as some folks have pointed out it is currently illegal to post videos of a 12 year old getting her introduction into sex. Not just against the YouTube terms of service but actively illegal. I believe it is legal to post instructions on making nitroglycerin but instructing people where to place quantities of it is illegal.
The folks behind these sorts of videos aren't just telling people how to make bombs but are also offering suggestions on what to do with them after they are made. And what to do should they get their hands on a gun, like Nidal Malik did. Mr. Malik followed instructions very well, wouldn't you say?
With this in mind, there may actually be some grounds for the US to say the content of these videos is illegal. Unfortunately, the posters of these videos aren't in the US so arresting them is going to be difficult. Probably a moot point anyway. YouTube is going just make them disappear.
I suppose being stabbed instead of shot is a huge improvement. Hooray for the UK, home to the EU's highest rate of violent crime!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If I took a video of me screaming "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater then put that video on youtube.com would it be taken down....?
Vinaka Jo
It's not as one sided as some in the US like to make out - we have had periods of mutual benefit. The fact that we have land here for US air force bases, for example. Or the trade of custom reactor designs for our subs in exchange for acoustic silencing tech that the US didn't have.
The UK may be a physically small country, but it holds a disproportionate amount of power in the EU for its population which makes it politically very potent.
Only the properly ignorant think this is about who has the biggest army or other nonsensical bravado.
And yes, during WW2 we were economically crippled and relied on convoys from the US. It may have had something to do with being bombed continually by an enemy force and surrounded by submarines. Prior to WW2, the UK was coming off the back of one of its biggest periods of trade and industry - we were the workshop of the world for a long time, despite our diminutive land area.
I like guns as much as the next guy, but our lack of a second amendment equivalent really doesn't put us at as much of a disadvantage as people seem to think.
Sure it does. Your Government took away your right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self and state. Your lack of a second amendment equivalent put you at a HUGE disadvantage with regards to keeping a right that your countryman had enjoyed for hundreds of years.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Before WWII? I think you've been reading the same history book as Dave Cameron (the one where the UK and USA are fighting together in 1940).
There's no question that the UK was a major power 60 years ago.
A better case could be made for ~1955, but even in 1966 Britain was able to argue that its global reach amounted to shouldering enough of an anti-communist burden to justify staying out of Vietnam.
The Falklands War is quite interesting here, not because it demonstrated some lingering imperial might, in fact the opposite - the UK depended heavily on the USA. Where it gets special is that this help was given (initially) without approval from the White House, solely by virtue of long-established intelligence and military links.
That's a noun. You wanted "take down". Is this so hard?
For those crying censorship and first amendment, do realize that the US government isn't even involved in this fiasco. It's the UK government going directly to youtube. So that's a foreign political body talking to a private organization. Sorry but the big scary republicans and ultra leftist communist subversives aren't even an issue here. Youtube can do whatever it pleases including nothing at all. Youtube could take down a video because your video promotes strawberry icecream and they prefer chocolate. That's how private organizations work.
Now to the issue its self. What defines an extremist video? In the case that it falls more toward the direct instructions of how and where to perform a violent terrorist attack, then no it isn't protected under free speech it's just conspiracy to commit an act of terror. When you reach the point that you're just directly telling someone to go commit a crime (not a case of someone saying a crime SHOULD be committed but rather giving direct instruction TO commit a crime), then it's not expressing an idea and it's not free speech. Taking it down wouldn't be a case of censorship it would just be disrupting enemy information.
Now without seeing the videos themselves I can't say for sure that this is the case, but I just wanted to clear up that not every case of interrupting the flow of information is censorship. It is something that needs to be scrutinized closely though, and there's no hard and fast rule to measure by, it's really something that can only be handled on a case by case basis.
Have you never moved away from your hometown? You have such a narrow world view it is staggering. We indeed have a special relationship with the UK. They are in the same boat as we are fighting against Islamic radicals. They are one of our closest allies. We may not comply with what they request but that would be due to the inability to enact something like that because of our Constitution. We certainly are close partners though and have a lot of cooperation. We are in this with them together.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
In what respect?
Other than "not being able to own a handgun", how am I at a disadvantage? My life expectancy is higher, I am considerably less likely to be killed by a firearm, either maliciously or accidentally, and my countrymen never had the "right" to own firearms before me - they just did.
You can still own and use shotguns and other rifles for sporting purposes, but no handguns. The right wasn't taken away (there never was one), it was decided by rule of law to make them illegal.
It's still legal for me to kill a Scotsman with a bow and arrow. How's that loss of the right to kill people working out for you over there?
I used to live down the street from one of al-Awlaki's mosques. It still seems surreal that a high-profile terrorist was living and working within a few miles of my house.
Well, no actually. You're assuming that British people study the US constitution - they don't. Secondly, it is up to the American people to determine how to interpret the US constitution. There is nothing idiotic about that.
If a friend and ally makes a request, you can certainly consider it (before you say no). Constitution or not, quite possibly the specific videos in question might infringe some law or regulation, so there could be reasons to take down these videos if you look hard enough.
Just because there's a combined form doesn't mean it's always correct.
Takedown is a noun: The wrestler scored two points for the takedown.
Take down is a verb phrase: Take down that video please!
See also: login, singin, setup, everyday, etc.
Confidential to Facebook: "Logout" isn't even a word at all.
We've got anti-hate laws here too (hatred described - IIRC - as any speech promoting violence against someone... a bit of a simplified explanation but it'll do)
We haven't got a strong history of anyone paying attention to requests. There are rather a lot of people who flock to hate sites and use the information to 'excuse' their own violence though. (with violent voices agreeing with a speaker, violence is more likely. "righteous" violence can be triggered by hate speech)
I'm with removal of public promotion of violence. Why do people take the right to speak as meaning the right to bully others?
Am I misreading something? The article says that YouTube has policies to take various videos down, and says that "the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos", but it doesn't actually say that anything has been successfully taken down due to pressure from or legal actions by the US government.
I approve of removing that trash from YouTube.
The most interesting part, IMO, is that the RAF wanted to use the base at Ascension Island (a British territory) for refuelling of long distance missions prior to the main fleet arrival. Apparently the Americans who had been using the base for a nominal $1 a year fee said no, we couldn't use it.
I think the relationship between Britain and the US was immediately redefined at that point. Note the wikipedia article "Only after Mrs Thatcher intervened with Ronald Reagan did the Americans reluctantly concede."
As far as I can tell Handguns are legal too as long as you can give a valid reason for owning one (Such as Sports or Work)
well we're having fun and just passing the time here on slashdot, I didn't mean the date to mean literally 1939. Though you might argue the industrial capacity of the USA outstripped the UK sometime in the 30s or 40s. Mind you if you are looking for dates when political power swung globally from the UK to the USA you might also argue that 1956 was a brutally clear point in time. The British and French won militarily in Suez but had to get out as soon as they had done this because the USA told them to... could be argued this was the end of empire for the UK.
Dear UK,
We've considered it and the answer is "no".
Thanks,
The USA.
Seriously, if one person in sixty million is moved to violent action by a video, is the problem the video, or that one person?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
This is a gray area. On the one had say some one trolls a comment section on one of my sites with unrelated comments of hate speech. It's my site and there for I remove the comment and ban the ip it came from. Moreover on my sites I agreed to the TOS of my hosting provider and if I was hosting at home on one of my epic sw33t uber l33t cloud 2.0 beta highbryd Linux boxes I agreed to the TOS of my ISP. So then I start my own ISP but then there's the TOS of some one elce I'm conecting to on trunk lines. So over all even when I block ip ranges from Russia due to bot activity I'm in a seance violateing freedom of speech/traffic/net nutrailty. So at the end of the day freedom speech is a trivial arcan notion that people falcely belive in like say crazy religious people. Wut Eva I'm off to play w0w.
You asked what the disadvantage was of not having a 2nd amendment equivalent. The disadvantage is plain -- your Government took away your right to keep and bear arms. Saying that you can own shotguns and rifles rather misses the point. Besides which, my understanding is that you have to give up other rights in order to be able to own those shotguns and rifles. It's not a "right" if you have to submit to police inspections of your home in order to exercise it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How about self-defense?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK.
This should not raise first amendment issues because the US is not the fucking UK. We fought a big war in the 18th century, remember?
These videos are despicable, but our right to unpopular speech is our main protection from the threat of tyranny, so Youtube should tell the UK to fuck off. Too bad that won't happen. Or if the videos are bad enough to fall under US anti-hate standards, they can be yanked anyway, but no one in the US should be forced to shut up simply because of international pressure. In any case, we can't allow our Constitution to be trampled on by foreign governments, no matter what language they speak or how close we are. We love security but we love freedom more, slippery slope, blah blah blah...
It's a private company. They can serve what they want. They can stop serving it at any time they want.
Ha! Where was the US and its infamous constitution when Bush invaded two sovereign nations and took almost all freedoms from its own ppl away?
news flash people:
Google isn't congress. (yet)
The 1st amendment doesn't apply. Google can censor whatever it wants on its properties.
If I absolutely had to die and had a choice in the manner, I would most certainly choose being shot over being stabbed. Sounds like "knife crime" replaced "gun crime" in Britainia quite as predicted.
No thanks, I'll take instant-death from a shot to the head, or the low pain bleed out of a bullet wound (in comparison to multiple stabbings).
Ok, but this isn't the UK so shut your face. Here even if we don't like what is being said, its your right to say it, without being harassed by the government.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Actually the bill of rights passed by the British Parliament in 1689 did include the right of non-Catholics to be armed for self defence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
At a certain point a monopolies 'rights' become limited/modified as it interferes with the common good of society.
I personally would think that Google may fall under that premise now. Once you become the sole practical source, you don't get to choose what you do with it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Idiot.
Self-Defense is explicitly noted as not being a valid reason.
So wait till the movie has started and use your free speech to create a panic.
So that makes you feel good then...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
While we will allow al-awlaki to say what he wants, we also have targeted him for assassination.
There is subjectivity, there are gray areas. That is life. You cannot have perfectly objective, hard and fast rules for everything. It just doesn't work out. Whining about it does no good and just shows an ignorance of the law. It is built with flexibility, interpretation in to it on purpose in many areas.
Well, no actually. You're assuming that British people study the US constitution - they don't.
I also don't assume American people study the British laws -- but I expect our diplomats and heads of state to know at least the tiniest iota of the country's laws that we're trying to deal with before making rather ridiculous requests.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Actually that isn't really true after demographic normalization. That's a euphemistic way of saying the less politically correct 'stick to the mostly-white cities and you'll be fine'. (I'll probably get modded down, but anyone interested can easily do an analysis of demographic breakdown vs per-capita homicide rates, the data is all there and easy to obtain. Mostly white cities in the US are as safe as Europe.)
They never took away the right to bear arms - we never had that right to begin with. The laws of the UK have been in flux for almost a thousand years, but we didn't have a right to bear arms that was subsequently taken away.
And regarding submitting to police inspections - owning a gun is not the same as buying a pack of gum. There are checks and laws and requirements for owning one. Not much of a "right" with a mandatory 5 day waiting period eh? You can go for the strawman argument, but it really serves no purpose.
I'm sure there are quite a few of us sitting here reading this thread, still waiting for this ever so plain reason to actually be made clear. So far there seems to be no disadvantage at all. Just what can't the British do now that a right to bear arms as a part of a well regulated militia (yes, that last part always seems to get missed out when talk of the second amendment gets started, even though it's really rather important as is alters the meaning of the "right to keep and bear arms"), would give them?
The US -has- ignored the constitution in recent memory, and got away with it. So clearly they can again. The US gov only listens to money, not the UK. Catholic isn't likely to become a state religion, it's not Protestant. However the Republicans would certainly vote for a state religion if they had the chance. If they can openly support creationist nonsense (intelligent design) and prayers in school then i'd not put official state religion past them.
The amount of firearms they may own is strictly controlled by the government. Their government also knows exactly who owns a firearm and its exact location and assumed use. They also have the right to take the firearm away without notice by force if necessary. I can go on, but this is pointless.
Read his damn wiki page people, and you will agree with the British prime minister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
*Spoiler alert*
the guy was involved with 9/11 and the fort hood shootings
And he is right! There is a special relationship between the USA and the UK. It's the same relationship as that between master and dog...
Below is from an e-mail forwarded to me. I haven't verified the authenticity of its contents. None the less, I think it's worth posting.
In January 2007, Democrat Keith Ellison, (D - MN) was sworn into the House of Representatives. For the ceremonial photo afterwards, he chose to place his hand on a 1764 copy of the Quran, once the property of Thomas Jefferson. One assumes he felt this would soothe those who opposed him being the first not to place his hand on the Holy Bible, but instead on the Quran ... he should have read his history on WHY Mr. Jefferson had a copy of the Quran in his possession ... he might not have felt so comfortable with his choice ... I hope you will take the time to read why ...
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America 's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson " believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Tripoli .
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East . Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria .
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States . Congress appointed a special commiss
Life is not for the lazy.
Well, there you go. You have no right to defend yourself in the United Kingdom. In fact I believe they sent some poor sod up the river a few years ago for having the nerve to shoot the kids that were breaking into his house. Even the most liberal/left-wing American states still give you the right to defend your home with deadly force. Hell, even Canada still lets you do that.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Atheists don't kill in the name of... well, nothing. There has never been a war to un-convert people.
Give it time. Atheism has only gained a large number of adherents within the past few decades. It took christianity ~1,300 years to get as far as the crusades and atheism has already made a start down that road.
Maybe you didn't read too good.
The federal courts decide what is offensive, and have done so many times.
This is NOT an occasional case. Offensive presentations bring lawsuits
every day in the cities and states of the US. More are decided on the
Offensive side than NOT. Turns out, there always is some idiot who takes
any freedom to the offensive level.
Go figure.
But some how the Muslims think that Islam will be exempt from that prohibition regarding respecting or establishing an official religion in the United States and that Sharia must be respected in place of the Constitution...
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.
My apologies, of course the UK government clearly forgot that the correct American approach to "free speech" is only to try to take down videos released via Wikileaks and not You Tube. How silly of them not to realize the important difference.
.
What We Can Learn From Terrorists 19 Oct 2010, 11:00
.
Tariq Ali argues that terrorists have changed the world in ways that serve their own religious, political and ideological aims. They've forced the West to compromise on the very foundations of liberal democracy and wind back hard-won freedoms in the name of security.
.
Speaking at the recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas, Ali provocatively suggests that the terrorists' actions pale in comparison to the West's retributive "Wars on Terror". In fact he calls these wars "State Terrorism" of which the cruel backlash has been an increase in the ranks of extremist organizations.
.
In this broad-sweeping discussion, Ali draws a parallel with the current geopolitical situation and that of the Western world in the late 19th century. Like today, that society was in a period of transition, with no meaningful political opposition. What emerged then was a group of violent activists in the form of anarchists.
.
Ultimately Ali's message is: we must understand the motivations of terrorists in order to deal effectively with them. And to Ali this means relinquishing our bias to Israel and our occupation of parts of the Middle East.
.
Tariq Ali appeared at the 2010 Festival of Dangerous Ideas, presented by the Sydney Opera House and St James Ethics Centre. Chair of the discussion was Ann Mossop.
.
Tariq Ali was in Australia to present the 2010 Edward Said Memorial Lecture at the University of Adelaide.
.
Scion of a famous Punjabi political family, Tariq Ali is a writer, filmmaker and occasional broadcaster. He has written more than two dozen books on world history and politics, and seven novels (translated into over a dozen languages) as well as scripts for the stage and screen. He is a regular contributor to "The Guardian" and the "London Review of Books", and is a longstanding editor of the "New Left Review". He currently lives in London.
.
Ann Mossop is Head of Public Programs at the Sydney Opera House, and was the co-curator - with Simon Longstaff, of the St James Ethics Centre - of the 2010 Festival of Dangerous Ideas.
.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
.
. What We Can Learn From Terrorists 19 Oct 2010, 11:00
.
. Tariq Ali argues that terrorists have changed the world in ways that serve their own religious, political and ideological aims. They've forced the West to compromise on the very foundations of liberal democracy and wind back hard-won freedoms in the name of security.
.
. Speaking at the recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas, Ali provocatively suggests that the terrorists' actions pale in comparison to the West's retributive "Wars on Terror". In fact he calls these wars "State Terrorism" of which the cruel backlash has been an increase in the ranks of extremist organizations.
.
. In this broad-sweeping discussion, Ali draws a parallel with the current geopolitical situation and that of the Western world in the late 19th century. Like today, that society was in a period of transition, with no meaningful political opposition. What emerged then was a group of violent activists in the form of anarchists.
.
. Ultimately Ali's message is: we must understand the motivations of terrorists in order to deal effectively with them. And to Ali this means relinquishing our bias to Israel and our occupation of parts of the Middle East.
.
. Tariq Ali appeared at the 2010 Festival of Dangerous Ideas, presented by the Sydney Opera House and St James Ethics Centre. Chair of the discussion was Ann Mossop.
.
. Tariq Ali was in Australia to present the 2010 Edward Said Memorial Lecture at the University of Adelaide.
.
. Scion of a famous Punjabi political family, Tariq Ali is a writer, filmmaker and occasional broadcaster. He has written more than two dozen books on world history and politics, and seven novels (translated into over a dozen languages) as well as scripts for the stage and screen. He is a regular contributor to "The Guardian" and the "London Review of Books", and is a longstanding editor of the "New Left Review". He currently lives in London.
.
. Ann Mossop is Head of Public Programs at the Sydney Opera House, and was the co-curator - with Simon Longstaff, of the St James Ethics Centre - of the 2010 Festival of Dangerous Ideas.
.
.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
The headline says extremist, the sub heading says al qaeda. Does this apply to all extremists? There are a lot of US extremists both in the christian and political spheres. Somehow I don't get the feeling youtube is going to be asked to take down any of those. No one on slashdot needs examples right? I am willing to participate in a genuine debate about hatespeech legislation and how it should apply to the internet, but if this is more of the blatant racism against muslims that pervades the western media at the moment then I have only one response: NO.
What a bunch of pussies.
Look around a tad bit more.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/
HOwever, you would need to fit some criteria before they are in your home specifically.
Speaking of which, actually the supreme court does not according to the constitution have the power to pass on the constitutionality of laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. Nowhere is that authority granted by the constitution. The John Marshall led court (long may his and its name live in infamy) simply usurped that power in Marbury vs Madison. Congress did not slap it down at the time, and ever since then we have been saddled with this odious de facto operation by the court.
The Soviet Union had a very nice and noble constitution, too, but it was given the finger by a series of de facto dictators. The US has allowed the supreme court to be its dictator, but it need not continue to do so. As Josef Stalin said, how many divisions has the Pope? Well, in the US, enforcement power lies with the executive branch. The supreme court may arrogate power to itself and proclaim certain things which are themselves unconstitutional, but if the president commands the executive branch not to enforce these findings, the supreme court may fulminate and wriggle impotently on its back like an overturned turtle, with the same lack of effect.
And here is the mental breakdown of the differences between the US and UK.
You see, you most certain did have the right in the first place. The government doesn't give you rights, it takes them away. The US constitution doesn't give anyone rights in the US, it specifically prohibits the US government from taking the right away. It specifically states that you already have the right to keep an bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
But I can see your argument. That is if you think the government gives you the rights it deems important (hopefully you and the government see eye to eye on a lot of things). You would be absolutely correct in that you never had the right in the first place. However, on this side of the pond, we enjoy having the right independent of government, and the limitations on government being able to remove it.
The British government knows whereof it speaks when it comes to inciting cold blooded murder - indeed I remember a certain T. Blair comparing anyone who didn't agree with his murder plans in Iraq to those who wanted to appease Hitler.
it was definitely a turning point - if you scratch the surface of the austerity measures, in particular the defence cuts - (Nimrod, Aircraft carriers, JSF, the dead-duck Chinooks, the stalling of Trident replacement) a lot of the sub-contractors are from the US defence industry. This is probably why Hilary Clinton had a major strop with the UK Government the day after the measures were announced and then tried to drum up support in the UK press.
Instead, the UK government has signed a major allegiance with France (now that's a stick in the eye for the US) and so our new aircraft carriers will be configured for French jets and also the UK will have brigade level integration with France.
As bad as it sounds, most people survive knife stabbings here in the UK.
I always remember something my elderly father said about knive-crime:
"We didn't have knife crime in my days. We had coshes and knuckle-dusters."
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
You are several times more likely to be stabbed though. That seems enjoyable.
Also, if you government goes Nazi you won't be able to effectively fight back with your tea tray.
Incitement to hatred is censored in both countries. Ask the scum at Westboro Baptist Church. Also, do you still have "under god" in your oaths and suchlike? No official religion. Just official religious-ness.
"why are other people making this decision for me?
Because you chose to live in a country / political state with laws that affect these issues, that have been decided by the population.
You have two main options: combine with your fellow citizens to change the laws, or move to a place where these laws do not apply. Simple.
Quite a lot of people fall into a third category of moaning about laws they like but neither actually doing anything about getting those laws changed or moving out to another country / location, though.
Nope - handguns are not legal at all. That's why our Olympic team have to train outside the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4162498.stm
No offense England but .... you lost the Revolutionary War, you don't define the rights of people on this continent.
I'm British and I've noticed lots of government cameras on the road outside. What is this strange place you live where the roads have no cameras on them?
US Senators made a lot of idiotic requests to the Scottish and UK governments while investigating possible links between the release of Al Megrahi and BP. In doing so they exposed their ignorance of the Scottish legal system and constitutional reality in the UK. Idiotic requests between nations aren't new, and they aren't one-way.
I'm also reminded of Chinese protestations to the Norwegian government over the award of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. The idea that the Norwegian government didn't have control over the Nobel committee was entirely alien to the Chinese.
actually, Cameron has been going out of his way to tell us in the UK that in the UK/US relationship we are the junior partner in one partnership out of many. He's right obviously.
But he went as far as to say that Britain was the US's "junior partner" against the Nazis in 1940. Of course, somebody with a smattering of knowledge of history put him straight and he immediately apologised to WWII veterans. But it shows clearly how far he's prepared to go to change the rhetoric about the 'special relationship', even to the extent of downgrading our 'finest hour'.
What's "amusing" about him is that he'd be the one going ballistic about the comics portraying Mohammad. Or exhortations to kill all muslims.
But when you're in the Stone Age, Irony doesn't exist...
That would be "had the nerve to shoot the person who was fleeing his property, in the back"
That isnt reasonable self defnce. Also 19yr olds arent normally called "kids"
Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
This is politics. If you don't make the request, it's your fault for not making it. If you do make the request even in the full knowledge that it cannot be complied with it's the other guy's fault for refusing.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
Yet, that probability still exists.
Just tell them to PISS OFF!
In india it is ok for a man to set his wife on fire if she thinks she was cheating on him without any proof without so much as a slap on the hand, and they want to blame everyone's hatred on something else other then their own actions. Few like Americans, but Americans understand this, because they are different then the rest of the world, and own up to it, if the Brits did something that someone else deems wrong in their eyes, dont try to force YouTube to limit someone else's point of view because it does not fit with yours.....where is your chant against Ozzy, because his music cites people to suicide, where is you chant against India for setting women on fire (which in my point of view is NEVER ok to do), let's take care of these problems first, as it has been there much longer then your prime minister's fear for himslef was.
So there's a good chance there was some other legitimate reason to want him removed from the planet.
The problem with obscenity prosecutions, from the defendants view, isn't that they're trying to prove they didn't commit the particular crime at issue. The defense, rather, has to prove that no crime existed. At all. That's a much tougher bar to get over.
When you're charged with obscenity, the prosecution tells the court "Defendant sold obscene item X. Selling obscene things is illegal. Find him guilty."
The defense counters with "Yes, we sold item X. But item X is not obscene. Thus, no crime ever took place. Find him not guilty."
IOW, the big question before the court isn't whether the defendant is guilty of a crime but whether a crime even took place. Once item X is found obscene, conviction becomes a fait accompli.
So pornographers simply don't know and can't reasonably be expected to know at the time of production if their latest video masterpiece is going to be prosecuted or not. It used to be that you could make a fair guess, depending on whether or not certain acts were included in the film. Chldren having sex, fisting, graphic bestiality, and penetrative sex during bondage were pretty much a sure bet to get you prosecuted. Nowadays, though, fisting is pretty much mainstream and easily available. Penetrative sex during bondage is a bit further behind, being a tad more rare. Bestiality is in the same boat. All are easily available in markets outside the U.S. and online. Kid stuff, on the other hand, has gone in the other direction. Merely shoot a 12-year-old in a bikini and market the photos for purposes of sexual stimulation and you get slapped down by the authorities.
So obscenity is a very different animal from most types of crime. It involves speech issues, community standards, and basic disagreements over even the existence of criminality. It can be very difficult to parse out.
I said all that to say this: People who illustrate their non-nuanced stance on the value of free speech with examples of obscentiy are treading on thin ice. Obscenity is just...well...different enough that it's often apropos of nothing and not a useful example to illustrate anything.
I'd take being stabbed over being shot any day of the week. There is a reason that UK murder rates are much lower than in the US, and it's not because we're nicer, more peaceful people.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Mostly white cities in the US are as safe as Europe.
Probably not for the blecks, though, eh?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well, there you go. You have no right to defend yourself in the United Kingdom. In fact I believe they sent some poor sod up the river a few years ago for having the nerve to shoot the kids that were breaking into his house. Even the most liberal/left-wing American states still give you the right to defend your home with deadly force. Hell, even Canada still lets you do that.
Don't talk bollocks, you have a perfectly clear right to self defence in the UK, you can even kill someone if your life is in imminent danger and it's not pre-meditated (i.e. you didn't go tooled up to a fight)
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar and shoot him as he's running out your front door, as I believe is the custom in the US.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So why didn't the freedom loving people of American rise up in armed rebellion against George W Bush then?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
On both sides of the pond, there is an unspoken social contract in place, if at any time it gets too unbalanced in someone's favour, a correction is made. You just have a different view of the process.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Exactly what does that mean anyway?
Troll or not, I must respond...
I must admit, I am completely stymied by anyone who is willing to dispose of rights, liberties, and/or freedoms without so much as an afterthought. Even if you do not own guns, do you want some politician telling you, that you are not trustworthy enough to have that right? Or the right to say whatever you want? Or to adopt whatever religion you want? The Brits are so proud of their gun control and has that eliminated violence? No, those who commit violence use knives instead.
I actually feel sorry for you. You are cut from the same cloth as those who would jail people for preaching the wrong religion. Or jailing those for "insulting the monarchy." You are so fixated of telling others what they should and should not do, you are willing to give up your own freedoms. On the other hand, I believe you should be permitted by default to do and say what you want as long as it does not harm anyone else.
And it is the harm that should be regulated, not the tools used to do it.
"there always is some idiot who takes
any freedom to the offensive level."
'Offensive' is subjective. Normal things do not need to be protected, 'offensive' things, however, do.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The problem is that we Brits understand neither sarcasm nor irony, unlike you smooth-tongued Yanks with your Farcebooks and baseball hoops.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
+1
Your right to be able to defend your very own life and limb is a 'natural right'; you have it automatically by virtue of existing as a human on Earth. Governments can do one of two things only: Either immorally infringe this right, or rightfully allow you to exercise it.
http://bostonreview.net/BR24.2/waldron.html
"Inalienable is not just a pretty word, inserted by Thomas Jefferson into the Declaration of Independence for rhetorical effect. It means rights that may not be given away by those who have them, and therefore that no system of absolute power may ever be defended on the ground that reasonable people would have found it prudent, in certain circumstances, to alienate these rights. Meares and Kahan say that "we ordinarily think of rights as belonging to individuals," with the implication that of course they can be sold or bargained away like any other form of property. In fact, there was a century or two of controversy in early modern rights theory about that very point. Some sixteenth century theorists defended slavery, for example, on what we would recognize as Hobbesian grounds: it would be rational for a person or a whole people to sell themselves into subjection in order to better preserve their life and security. Insistence on the inalienability of rights was a way of opposing such contracts, and it was this opposing conception-the idea of rights held in trust and the right-bearer as steward rather than owner of his rights-that triumphed in works of John Locke and the formulations of Jefferson"
This distinction is also why I love the US, because only one country in the world seems to 'get it' and has codified this distinction into the most core documents forming the foundation of its legal system, and even after 230+ years, no other country has 'gotten' this and emulated it, in spite of its success on so many levels, even if the implementation is imperfect.
There's no question that the UK was a major power 60 years ago.
No, Britain after the endof the Second World War had neither the stomach nor capacity for continuing as a major imperial power. We extricated ourselves from our various overseas entanglements as quickly as we could, out of a combination of post-War weariness and genuine belief in self-determination for Africa and the rest.
By the time of the Suez Crisis in 1956 it was pretty obvious that Britain (and France) were not in the same league as the US or USSR.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wow, this has gone even further than I thought... the UK doesn't seek to quash independent thought, it simply believes that independent thought does not even exist!
Twinstiq, game news
n/t
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Over 80% of all people being shot from a handgun survive as well. Guns are not some kind of magic weapon where you point it at people, pull the trigger, and they drop dead. It's still the same old concept of a sharp pointy thing tearing up flesh. Since, in the history of human evolution, there was no shortage of sharp pointy things determined to do just that (known as claws, fangs etc), the human body is quite resilient towards such attacks.
In fact, since bullet is smaller than a knife, you're generally more likely to die from a knife stab - first, because the larger impactor is more likely to touch a vital organ, and second, because a larger wound causes stronger bleeding, and bleeding is the most frequent cause of death for both knife and bullet wounds.
Now larger-caliber rifles (those typically used for hunting medium-sized game and above) are quite a bit more effective. And shotguns are devastating at the right range (which, with slugs, can be quite far out in fact). But, ironically, it's precisely the kinds of weapons that are not normally banned or strongly regulated even in countries preaching gun control.
Don't talk bollocks, you have a perfectly clear right to self defence in the UK
If you are forbidden from owning the effective means of defending yourself, then, for all practical purposes, you don't have a right. It's like cutting one's tongue out, then saying that they still have the right to free speech.
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar and shoot him as he's running out your front door, as I believe is the custom in the US.
You know, for all the accusations of Americans being ignorant, you've just demonstrated that Europeans are not any better. No, it's not the custom in the US.
That would be "had the nerve to shoot the person who was fleeing his property, in the back"
Tough shit, they were in his house and he was alone with nobody else to protect him. Who the hell are you to Judge him for defending himself?
In the United States he would have gotten a pat on the back and a "job well done" from the responding police officers, even in our most liberal of jurisdictions.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
as I believe is the custom in the US.
You believe wrong. In the State of New York (generally regarded as one of the more left-wing states in our union) I have the right to use deadly force against you if you decide to commit burglary or arson against my home. Other American jurisdictions go even further than this.
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar
You can't "ambush" a burglar until they decide to break into your home and whether or not they are armed is immaterial. In fact, whether or not somebody is "armed" has zero bearing on determining if a shoot was justifiable or not. The standard is whether or not they had the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to cause you grievous bodily injury. An 80 year old man is not expected nor required to enter into fisticuffs with an 18 year old man just because the 18 year old is unarmed. If he fears for his life then he can use deadly force.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You forget that your country has the benefit of being "new to the game" as it were - by being so young. The laws of the UK have been evolving for more than a thousand years in one form or another (with our major keystone event that is loosely equivalent to the US Constitution being the Magna Carta, signed in 1215). By the founding of the US, the founding fathers could almost start from scratch and lay things out the way they wanted.
The modified Magna Carta, which was signed in about 1300 is still on the statute books here in the UK - at least in England and Wales.
We "get it", but we also have a thousand year old legal system that is still a work in progress.
See, the problem is exactly this. If you're a 5'2 100 lb female, you almost certainly don't stand a chance if you get attacked in the streets by a potential rapist, murderer, or robber. If you are a big muscular guy, maybe. Guns are great for self defense because they serve as an equalizer where suddenly, no matter how big or small you are, or no matter how well trained in martial arts, you can effectively prevent a rape (or whatever) from occurring.
I live in the US in a state where it is difficult to get a handgun. I was jumped by a gang and stabbed several times for my wallet, which contained no money because I was broke. I had just moved to this state. If I were back in my home state, I would have had my gun (they would not -- these were highschool kids) and could have saved myself a trip to the ER, lung surgery, and years of chronic pain. By the way, they never caught those kids.
You Brits have a very strange sort of logic.
We will have to alert the troops to carry video cameras with them so that they can deflect the bullets of common criminals and various other low lifes.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Seriously, is it a wiki? How else to explain this bit of SCOTUS trivia:
Recent broadcast indecency cases involving the brief display of Janet Jackson’s breast at the Super Bowl and the use of the F-word by Sonny Bono and Nicole Richie at the Billboard Music awards ...
Sonny Bono? Really?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography
They are in the same boat as we are fighting against Islamic radicals.
Stairs are more deadly than Islamic radicals. They kill over 1000 Americans a year.
How have Islamic radicals influenced your life? And I mean the radicals themselves, not the overzealous response to them. Get a sense of perspective on things - we're supposed to be intelligent here.
I personally know people who have died from cancer. I personally know people whose lives have been destroyed by drugs and (separately) by drug enforcement. I personally know people who have died in car accidents. I'm sure it's the same for many others.
Islamic radicals? Yeah I see something on the international news every couple of years.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Because the majority supported him.
Hell I didn't but I would trade in Obama for Bush in a heartbeat.
1) They were no longer in his house. So "tough shit" doesnt really apply, does it?
2) Because "we" already have, and found him guilty of using UNREASONABLE force.
Do you understand the difference between shooting someone wwho is an immediate, palpable threat to you (which they werent) and shooting someone who is running directly away from you? If you dont then you are a sociopath.
I really doubt that he would have recieved a "pat on teh back" for shooting people runnning away from you.