Trump sent US officials to meet UK pro-life activists over concerns their freedom of speech

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yeah because religous zealots often picket chiropodists and proctologists, shouting, screeming and antagonising anyone who enters. 

 

Now where's that eye-roll emoji?

WHy should that matter, if it is just a medical procedure like any other? This should not upset the woman who is getting the abortion at all, any more than if there were a protest outside her dentist's office about people getting root canal procedures. 

[Hanaguma]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No but the Bible does, it goes as far as to liken the woman’s praying in the street to the behaviour of hypocrites. 

At the very least she doesn’t seem to have much faith in the power of the god she says she’s praying to; surely he can answer prayers from anywhere, they need not be delivered in the street, the Bible goes as far as to say they should not be.

 

Mathew 6:5-6

 

“5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

She WAS praying in secret. Nobody knew until the police bothered her. Was she carrying a sign saying, "I am praying SILENTLY!"? 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

A fascist dictator taking another country to task over their banning free speech? Are we sure this freedom fighter is really a fascist dictator?

 

Yeah we are absolutely certain. He shows us this on a daily basis.

 

And isn't it slightly convenient that the 'causes' he seems to choose are often aligned with pampering to his religous backers and/or right-wing politics?

 

And whilst we are it, this bastion of free speach is doing his utmost to ban speach that HE doesn't like (supporting the Palestinians for example) by putting illegal pressure on the likes of Harvard and other educational institutions. Freedom fighter my backside.  

[Wrwest]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Not sure when killing a baby became a "health choice". Care to enlighten?

Threat to the Mother's life?

[johnnybangkok]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

WHy should that matter, if it is just a medical procedure like any other? This should not upset the woman who is getting the abortion at all, any more than if there were a protest outside her dentist's office about people getting root canal procedures. 

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

I'm doubting that there are too many women left with major emotional and psychological distress after a root canal. An abortion is not an easy thing for the VAST majority of women and what they definately don't need is some religous nutter screaming in their face that they are murdering a child and 'sinning before God'.

 

The law is there for a reason and like all laws, if you break it then you face the consequences. And more importantly, UK law has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

[Baht Simpson]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

No, I think that the right to peaceful protest and the freedom of speech are cornerstones of our Democracy. 

 

It appears that is now dependent upon what you are protesting/talking about.

The right to free speech is still there, 201 m from the clinic. The police routinely re-direct demonstrations where they believe they might cause intimidation. And make no bones about it, that's what it is, intimidation in the guise of "silent prayer." 

[johnnybangkok]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

She WAS praying in secret. Nobody knew until the police bothered her. Was she carrying a sign saying, "I am praying SILENTLY!"? 

Within 200m of the clinic. What part of this are you not getting?

 

Go pray wherever you want with your anti-abortion views. Just make sure it's over 200m from an abortion clinic.

 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

The right to free speech is still there, 201 yards from the clinic. The police routinely re-direct demonstrations where they believe they might cause intimidation. And make no bones about it, that's what it is, intimidation in the guise of "silent prayer." 

 

So let me get this right...

 

Intimidating - illegal.

 

 

Totally not intimidating and 100% legal.

 

 

Got it. Seems totally consistent and not 2 tier whatsoever. 😃

 

 

[Baht Simpson]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So let me get this right...

 

Intimidating - illegal.

 

 

Totally not intimidating and 100% legal.

 

 

Got it. Seems totally consistent and not 2 tier whatsoever. 😃

 

 

Yes, two tier. One's legal, one's breaking the law. Is the penny dropping?

[mikeymike100]

Its getting worse.

The the UK’s trending in a troubling direction. The evidence backs this up: 12,183 arrests in 2023 for social media posts (33 daily, per The Times), cases like Lucy Connolly’s 31-month sentence for a tweet inciting racial hatred, and Julian Foulkes’ arrest over a sarcastic post seen by 26 people. The Online Safety Act 2023’s vague “harmful content” rules, slammed by critics like Elon Musk as “Orwellian,” plus laws like the Communications Act 2003 targeting “offensive” or “annoying” posts, create a chilling effect. Polls show 62% of Brits feel free speech is threatened, and 57% self-censor online. X posts railing against “thought police” and U.S. scrutiny in 2025, including State Department meetings with UK officials, highlight global alarm.

The UK’s not 1984 yet—open debate persists, media criticize freely, and lawsuits like Foulkes’ show resistance is possible. But the trajectory’s grim: mass arrests for subjective speech, heavy-handed policing, and broad laws risk normalizing state overreach. It’s not totalitarianism, but it’s sliding toward a system where dissent feels policed, and that’s close enough to Orwell’s shadow.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Yes, two tier. One's legal, one's breaking the law. Is the penny dropping?

 

Pro Palestine is typically a left wing position.

 

Pro Life is typically a right wing position.

 

I understand the how the 2 tiers work perfectly well thanks. 

[Baht Simpson]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Pro Palestine is typically a left wing position.

 

Pro Life is typically a right wing position.

 

I understand the how the 2 tiers work perfectly well thanks. 

Not in this case, clearly. We're talking about the law, not opinions or positions.  

[VocalNeal]

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

The law is an ass, obviously!

 

You mean it is an arse - meaning when the the rigid application of the letter of the law is seen to be contrary to common sense- or that the law is a donkey and Democrat. Please be concise.🧐

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

Not in this case, clearly. We're talking about the law, not opinions or positions.  

 

It's about how the law is enforced.

 

For example, the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots compared to the Patriots march. 

 

The now jailed anti immigrant posters compared to Labour's "slit their throats" Ricky Jones who still walks free. 

 

Too many examples to mention. Keep up the gaslighting though... It's in your favour - for now. 

[VocalNeal]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Pro Life is typically a right wing position.

 

Isn't "pro-life" a religious or moral position that resulted from a missionary position?

[Baht Simpson]

26 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

. Keep up the gaslighting though... 

Gaslighting?

[RuamRudy]

Of course, Trump couldn't care less about foetuses or babies which aren't his - he just wants the votes and the cash that the religious nutters in the US seem to love to lavish on coagulating cells, but hate to spend on actual children. 

[JonnyF]

20 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Gaslighting?

 

Yes, pretending that there isn't a 2 tier system in place, because it is currently weighted in your favour.

 

Gaslighting.  

[Baht Simpson]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, pretending that there isn't a 2 tier system in place, because it is currently weighted in your favour.

 

Gaslighting.  

I wasn't pretending anything.  I have no interest in left/right tribalism.  How is stating correctly that one example is lawful and the other not, pretending anything? It's just your skewed interpretation. It's just  what you like to think I meant.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Not true. The law considers killing an unborn baby after 28 weeks'  gestation as the crime of "child destruction", which is punishable by up to life in prison.

 

This website says it's 24 weeks.  It was passed as 28 weeks in 1958, but shortened to 24 weeks (another source).

 

Basically, when the fetus becomes viable if it were to be born prematurely at that point.  Not "full term".  Viable.  Though I don't know if the word "viable" is in the law.

 

If You Kill An Unborn Child You Cannot Be Charged - Welcome to Mums Advice

 

https://mumsadvice.co.uk/ 

 

Which contradicts Chomper's contention that fetuses get human rights only when they're born.  It's at 24 weeks.

 

[Jonnapat]

The USA might do better to mind its own damned business. 

I'm sick and tired of reading about Trump's interference in other countries affairs nearly every day.

America does NOT rule the world even if Trump thinks it does.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

So let me get this right...

 

Intimidating - illegal.

 

 

Totally not intimidating and 100% legal.

 

 

Got it. Seems totally consistent and not 2 tier whatsoever. 😃

 

 

Jonny’s off on his Whataboutary again.

 

 

[Hamus Yaigh]

These Connolly tweets were made during a period of rioting? Is the context lost on these pro MAGA American free speechers?

 

This was during a period of intense rioting in the UK following the Southport attacks on July 29, 2024, where three young girls were killed. The riots, fueled by misinformation about the suspect’s identity, involved widespread anti-immigrant violence, including attacks on mosques, police, and migrant accommodations. Her tweet, calling for mass deportations and arson against hotels housing migrants, was seen by UK authorities as inciting further violence under the Public Order Act 1986, given the already volatile situation.

 

Some American free speech advocates, like Charlie Kirk and Michael Shellenberger, argue the 31-month sentence is excessive, emphasizing First Amendment principles that protect even offensive speech unless it directly incites imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). They may overlook or downplay the UK context—where no equivalent absolute free speech protection exists, and **public order laws prioritize preventing harm during crises**. What if difficult to understand about that?

[Hanaguma]

8 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

These Connolly tweets were made during a period of rioting? Is the context lost on these pro MAGA American free speechers?

 

This was during a period of intense rioting in the UK following the Southport attacks on July 29, 2024, where three young girls were killed. The riots, fueled by misinformation about the suspect’s identity, involved widespread anti-immigrant violence, including attacks on mosques, police, and migrant accommodations. Her tweet, calling for mass deportations and arson against hotels housing migrants, was seen by UK authorities as inciting further violence under the Public Order Act 1986, given the already volatile situation.

 

Some American free speech advocates, like Charlie Kirk and Michael Shellenberger, argue the 31-month sentence is excessive, emphasizing First Amendment principles that protect even offensive speech unless it directly incites imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). They may overlook or downplay the UK context—where no equivalent absolute free speech protection exists, and **public order laws prioritize preventing harm during crises**. What if difficult to understand about that?

It isn't difficult to understand. The government of the UK prioritizes feelings over freedoms.  And defines "harm" very loosely.  It is a game that the left play very well, and the right needs to learn, sadly. 

 

And the Brandenburg case is not about "absolute free speech protection", it merely states that there must be a direct link between speech and lawless action.  Not a nebulous "harm reduction" strategy.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It isn't difficult to understand. The government of the UK prioritizes feelings over freedoms.  And defines "harm" very loosely.  It is a game that the left play very well, and the right needs to learn, sadly. 

 

And the Brandenburg case is not about "absolute free speech protection", it merely states that there must be a direct link between speech and lawless action.  Not a nebulous "harm reduction" strategy.

It’s obviously less difficult to completely ignore the context that was just explained to you.
 

[Hanaguma]

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s obviously less difficult to completely ignore the context that was just explained to you.
 

Similar to you ignoring being wrong about pregnant women and crime...

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

And defines "harm" very loosely.  It is a game that the left play very well, and the right needs to learn, sadly. 

 

Yup.  When misgendering someone is treated as "harm", it's gone off the rails. 

 

I remember when my PE teacher used to refer to our boy's class as "okay, girls" and he still kept his job.  I doubt he'd last a week nowadays. 

 

But the lefties are perfectly fine with referring to us as Hitler and Nazis and worse.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Yup.  When misgendering someone is treated as "harm", it's gone off the rails. 

 

I remember when my PE teacher used to refer to our boy's class as "okay, girls" and he still kept his job.  I doubt he'd last a week nowadays. 

 

But the lefties are perfectly fine with referring to us as Hitler and Nazis and worse.

 

So your PE teacher used to refer to you as a girl and you thought that’s something we should all know about.

 

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So your PE teacher used to refer to you as a girl and you thought that’s something we should all know about.

 

He called us all girls.  Even the captain of the football team and that year's state heavyweight wrestling champion.  We developed thicker skins than the snowflakes nowadays.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

He called us all girls.  Even the captain of the football team and that year's state heavyweight wrestling champion.  We developed thicker skins than the snowflakes nowadays.

 

Thank you for sharing.