Sadiq, the Khan Man of London, encourages his tax enablers to protest Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to England. Says the Khan Man, “He will also no doubt see that Londoners hold their liberal values of freedom of speech very dear.”
That’s just not entirely true. Londoners may hold those values dear but, if they express them, they can be prosecuted. Feel the Wrath of Khan so to speak. Wrath of Scotland Yard rather.
I’ll encourage Londoners to protest but to refrain from making any comments deriding Trump’s color, race, religion, disability, ethnicity, nationality, or sexual orientation. Refrain from discussing his being American. No talk about “orange,” or “tangerine,” or even “white.” Refrain from mentioning his relations with Melania, Stormy, or who-knows-who-else. For God’s sake, no ridicule of his (real or imagined) disabled hair or hands.
Refrain or risk seven years in prison; see: The Public Order Act of 1986, § 3 (the NO MORE FREE SPEECH ACT OF 1986, as amended several times). Of course, I think the law is rather selectively applied, maybe not so much what your say as who you are.
What were we talking about again? Ah, yes – liberal values and free speech. The concepts seem a tad mutually exclusive, across the Pond, now don’t they?
Fear not! It’s not just spoliated across the Atlantic in the Old Country. That aged Anglo-American bond still holds in places and at certain times. Places like Berkeley (THAT Berkeley, the “free speech” place). Times like when Ann Coulter tries to visit THAT Berkeley.
A federal judge rejected the University of California at Berkeley’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit claiming it discriminated against conservative speakers like Ann Coulter by imposing unreasonable restrictions and fees on their appearances.
In a decision late Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney in San Francisco said two conservative groups could pursue claims that the school applied its policy for handling “major events” and an earlier policy for “high-profile speakers” in a manner that unfairly suppressed conservative speech.
But the judge also said she was “unpersuaded” by claims by the plaintiffs that the school engaged in intentional viewpoint discrimination, and that the major events policy was too vague. She said the plaintiffs could not seek punitive damages.
Judge Chesney has to know that invidious doesn’t necessarily have to mean “intentional.” The Ninth Circuit surely knows as much.
Anyway, the speech at UCB – if allowed at all by the hordes of violent antifa shock morons – has gotten downright expensive. I think it’s $9,000 now to speak freely in the land where free speech was once actually free. (The flower children had little money and that little they spent on weed…).
I found no such similar fees attached to speaking at London colleges – not that I looked very hard. London College of the Arts, I think.
Interesting. A dichotomy? One could freely stand around Berkeley and call Trump the Marmalade President and do it for free, really free. One in Berkeley could also stand around and call Khan the Paki Mayor, so long as a fee was paid. In London, one could probably get away with the Trump slur, also for free. The Khan comment in London would likely see one off to HMPS Belmarsh or somewhere similar.
What was that about free speech again?