Illegal as applied by the Regime for deportations.

Which 5?

Fed District Judge

Actually, UK does recognize a right to expression under the Human Rights Act, Article 10.

Like, our 1st Amendment some regulation is permitted.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Actually, UK does recognize a right to expression under the Human Rights Act, Article 10.

Like, our 1st Amendment some regulation is permitted.

wrong thread?

Yes.
Should be in the biscuits thread. The YK right is not as strong as our fundamental and incorporated 1st Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yes.
Should be in the biscuits thread. The YK right is not as strong as our fundamental and incorporated 1st Amendment.

literally that's why we have the 1st and why it's first - SUBJECTs don't have free speech, as men could be jailed for simply asking questions or talking about their lived experience

UK still recognizes a right to speech. Also, the order of the Bill of Rights means nothing.

Some subjects do have rights. It depends on the regime.

Technically, the UK has a Constitution that defines and restricts government. It is the English Common law.

It is why, when a military coupe that deposed a revolution brought King Charles I to “trial” King Charles asked, “ What authority am I brought here.”

The Court could never answer that question. They finally held King Charles I in contempt. That permitted him to be excluded, tried, and convicted. However, that fundamental question was never answered. Well, it was de facto answered.

It certainly was not Parliament.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yes.
Should be in the biscuits thread. The YK right is not as strong as our fundamental and incorporated 1st Amendment.

literally that's why we have the 1st and why it's first - SUBJECTs don't have free speech, as men could be jailed for simply asking questions or talking about their lived experience

Jeff? Do think he even knows the point he is trying to make? I dont think he does.....but that's just me....

If one can get ARESSTED for a meme.....they don't have freedom of speech....

Re subjects of the crown. Subjects of the crown were abolished throughout the commonwealth from 1931- ending with the abolishment in the UK in 1983.

Pretty much all citizens in all commonwealth countries including the UK are just plain old citizens like anywhere else in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yes.
Should be in the biscuits thread. The YK right is not as strong as our fundamental and incorporated 1st Amendment.

literally that's why we have the 1st and why it's first - SUBJECTs don't have free speech, as men could be jailed for simply asking questions or talking about their lived experience

Jeff? Do think he even knows the point he is trying to make? I dont think he does.....but that's just me....

If one can get ARESSTED for a meme.....they don't have freedom of speech....

The point is simple. There is a right to speech/expression on the UK despite the ignorance shown by the Texas contingent. It is codified and found in the English Constitution.

Jeff is simply and legally wrong.

Nah, I am not.
1 they are subjects
2 they have privileges not rights
3 the monarch LEGALLY COULD revoke any act of parliament they choose. Yes, I understand that there would be repercussions

The 1A isn't there to protect generally accepted "words".. think why former subjects put it first.

It is codified in law. Law that you will never read. It is a right. Mainly because as strong as you like, but what you like matters not. What matters is your assertion is legally and factually wrong. The UK through a codified law and the English Constitution recognizes a right to speech and expression.

I have given you the codification. You can read the precedents that address the right.

You can be convicted of crimes in the U.S. for some expressions/speech.

You can't be arrested in the US for a meme. You can't be arrested for saying a crime is a crime. You can't arrested in the US for stating your clear opinion on a non violent idea

Subjects have privileges not rights, no matter the label you try to put on it.

Oh, in the us you can arrested for directly inciting violence or commission of a crime.

I get your point, Jeffe, but technically they did change to citizens and no longer subjects, and while they do have some laws protecting speech they are not a recognition of inherent rights (like the US constitution is) but rather rights the government grants them.

Of course, what government grants it can also take away.

Same with taxing. The power to tax is the power to control.

What the law recognizes and protects cannot be arbitrary and capriciously removed. That is what the rule of law means.

You do not know that the English Constitution does not recognize a right to speech as fundamental. That idea we codified in the 1st Amendment and S. Cr., precedent came from somewhere.

Scalia was clear in Heller the old common law ridge o self defense from English common law was the fundamental right that required the 2nd Amendment to be incorporated.

The crown can vacate anyplace passed by parliament. Why in the F are you argu I no against this reality and fact. De jure and de lai aren't the same thing.

Dude, you can't even understand the Texas INDEPENT school districts, why are you pretending to be an expert on UK law? Are you now a barrister?

Our 1A is first for a reason... because subjects don't have RIGHTS.

Your "arguements" are in variance with observed facts. This is where you stfu

Here you go -- tell me how this is a "right to free speech"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr548zdmz3jo

you can't, it's not a right, it's a privilege

Yawn, The Crown can not care the English Constitution. It cannot and has not vacated a right to speech codified by law and found in the English Constitution.

You have joined the ranks of the spiraling fools.

The Crown can reject a Prime Minster too. If the Crown wanted to create a constitutional crisis, it would reject 2 or 3 on a row. Thst has not happened in decades.

You are just wrong. uk recognizes a right both ins the precedents that make up the English Constitution, a codified law that has not been repealed, and the UK has abolished the concept of subjects.