It's not...ya know legal but

You can

then it wouldnt be interrogating, it would be torture

What about the 2018 situation where he was outside the court house and convicted of breaching the peace for live streaming outside. It is all ridiculous. He wasn't interrogating them and, even if he was, outrage from the crimes people were on trial for is understandable. Furthermore, going to prison for three months because of contempt of court doesn't meet the "crime" with a fair punishment, ie, cruel and unusual punishment, another US inalienable right that Britain must not have.

Torture would be for the amusement of the torturer
Innterogating with agrresive acts are both torture and innterogating .
The two can go hand and hand

Ask the CIA when messing with terrorists

Here in the UK we have a judicial system which involves not creating mobs to decide guilt or not

We too have that

In theory at least

But we have spineless rioters right now so idk

He was outside the courthouse interrogating defedanta without permission and livestreaming the footage online for people, that is interference in the judicial process and thats what he was charged with

Lol I got muted in the brcc discord for calling myself retarded.

Either way, the entire purpose of the Constitution isn't to grant rights. They are inalienable rights that are granted to us by a higher power that the government can not touch. Trying to codify or modify these inalienable rights does nothing because the government has no say whether we have freedom of speech, freedom of press, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms and so on and so forth.

And livestreaming outside the courthouse has no bearing on the court process, unless your country is full of dimwits that can't think for themselves. That is where we have (1) open courtrooms and (2) freedom of the press. Saying that he can't livestream outside the courthouse would be a violation of the first amendment freedom of the press here in the US, which is considered an inalienable right.

Froski is killin it

Froski is a pig champ

Piog*

<a:blobwoo:525225958064783361>

Team froski

A little history lesson, research the Bill Of Rights, not the American one, the British one of 1689, many of the rights which Americans claim only they have and the British dont have such as the aforementioned freedom from "cruel and unusual punishments" were outright taken from the British Bill of Rights, another right would be the right to bear arms, a part of the British Bill of Rights however decided that this old law should apply to arms of the time, thats why its very easy to own a musket or crossbow in Britain

I've had three coffees today, my asshole is gonna hate me.

How are you going to take down a tyrannical government like China with muskets and crossbows <:KEKWait:780472182387376130>

so your bill of rights in briain is only meant for that time period? Ours protects our rights ion any time period no matter what excuses.

Exactly. They were taken away or "taken out". But the men that kicked the British asses and formed the U.S. Bill of Rights understood the importance of the rights that your country took out.

So are you saying that we shouldn't have that right?

The UK has a constitution, it however isnt codified like the U.S, the British constitution consists of numerous statute laws such as the aforementioned Bill Of Rights, the Magna Carta and even the 1998 Human Rights Act

@Froski no no... the rights still exist

may as well call it "Bill of Rights as long as they only apply to technology hundreds of years ago"

So you can go buy a gun? Or better yet, you have no hate speech laws?

Yes we can buy a gun

What about the infringement on freedom of speech known as hate speech?

No we dont have no hate speech laws, and thankgod, hate speech isnt free speech

Lmfaoooooo

Hate speech is free speech.

Free speech but only for stuff the gubment likes <:KEK:726877368601411624>

Guns but only guns from the 1600s <:KEK:726877368601411624> <:KEK:726877368601411624> <:KEK:726877368601411624>

I do not believe that someone calling another person the n word and telling them to kill themselves should personally be allowed in a free modern society

By all legal definitions, and the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court of the highest country, hate speech is free speech.

free speech includes all speeches. because who determines what exactly is "hate speech"? the government? the big tech? they will just expand more and more

any speech is free speech. Free speech means all not cherry picking certain parts of it

Commie countries start with calling it "hate speech" than eventually criticism towards the government mysteriously becomes "hate speech" too and it gets worse and worse

Telling someone to kill themselves is a call to action. The N-word, no matter how awful it's history, is simply a word.