Readit Newsdoesn't seem to fit with:
"INTENDED AUDIENCE This is not an introduction to LISP."
on page 10.
Or asking if you want to pay to remove false information that they generate which makes you look bad.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-ident...
Also you can have people who develop to look like completely normal adult females, but are actually biologically male.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm
It's complicated.
* people can say vile racist/sexist/homophobic things.
* where the state censors what you can say.
But you pretty much have to pick one or the other. The US took the maximalist free speech approach. Europe didn't. Due to differences in culture and history. I think both are defensible on various grounds.
However successive UK governments also seem keen to restrict the right to peaceful protest. I would say that is a different thing and I'm not sure it is helpful to conflate the two.
In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage (looting, burning cars, etc.), physical assault or pose an immediate danger to people or things in their immediate vicinity.
Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people. If they become physically violent or threatening, then sure, arrest them. "Shitposting" on X/Twitter, etc., should not get you arrested.
People in China know the consequences of not being able to say vile and disgusting things about their own government when they crush dissent.
Of course. It is applied by humans, with all the failings that implies.
>In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage ... Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people.
That may be your viewpoint, but UK law says otherwise.
She urged people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.