Should people saying things that annoy you be illegal in the rest of the world just like it is in the UK?
>The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.
>In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37 per cent increase since 2010.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
>>132220544
The UK has always (as far back as I can remember, and I am 50) had legislation to prevent the mail and phone networks being used for harassment (which has nothing to do with "hate speech"). The original laws were to prevent things like death threats, nuisance callers, heavy breathers, wierdos sending porn to your house, and suchlike. I imagine most other civlilsed nations have similar legislation.
But "hate speech" laws are the work of Satan, and must be destroyed.
No, of course not you fucking freak. Once they can control the language, they can shut down all our counter-attacks because they would be (((national security))) threats.
get your head out of your ass man.
>>132220544
>cause annoyance
I'm constantly annoyed by the guardian, can we put their writers in jail.
>UK has free speech
T. Bong who thinks he lives in a first world country
>>132223134
Well we dont have it either though our situation is better than them
>>132220544
>go to exile for offensive/annoying banter?
>>132223335
No Finns think this is a first world country with free speech, except for the very dumbest Finns