Free Speech (in the UK) an Oxymoron?

[Jasandjules]

otolith said:

It's easy to be on the side of freedom of expression when you don't object to what's being said. Hard cases are the test of whether you really mean it.

Not to me. Both are easy, see my reply on the other thread about death to soldiers when my family is a military one.

Freedom of speech is simple, it means the right to say things I like as well as things I do not.

[otolith]

Jasandjules said:

otolith said:

It's easy to be on the side of freedom of expression when you don't object to what's being said. Hard cases are the test of whether you really mean it.

Not to me. Both are easy, see my reply on the other thread about death to soldiers when my family is a military one.

Freedom of speech is simple, it means the right to say things I like as well as things I do not.

Exactly my point - if you really are in favour of it (and I am) you have to be willing to defend the right of disgusting people to say appalling things.

[anonymous-user]

I agree, and I do.

[oyster]

Jasandjules said:

otolith said:

It's easy to be on the side of freedom of expression when you don't object to what's being said. Hard cases are the test of whether you really mean it.

Not to me. Both are easy, see my reply on the other thread about death to soldiers when my family is a military one.

Freedom of speech is simple, it means the right to say things I like as well as things I do not.

You're ok with people shouting obscenities at WWII war veterans during rememberance Sunday parades?
Or ok with football fans chanting homophobic messages in front of children?

[otolith]

oyster said:

You're ok with people shouting obscenities at WWII war veterans during rememberance Sunday parades?
Or ok with football fans chanting homophobic messages in front of children?

The objections one might raise to those are not to do with freedom of expression. While you are on a roll, perhaps you might also imply that an objection to censoring the written word amounts to being in favour of graffiti.

[Jasandjules]

oyster said:

You're ok with people shouting obscenities at WWII war veterans during rememberance Sunday parades?
Or ok with football fans chanting homophobic messages in front of children?

I am not OK with it, I think the people who do it are a**eholes. BUT that does not mean they should be jailed for it. That is the thing about freedom of speech, it should apply to all equally.

[10 Pence Short]

Jasandjules said:

I am not OK with it, I think the people who do it are a**eholes. BUT that does not mean they should be jailed for it. That is the thing about freedom of speech, it should apply to all equally.

There should be lines in the sand where the behaviour crosses the line into criminality, and there are. The debate is about where that line should be, rather than should there be a line at all.

There comes a point where the detriment to society in someone behaving as they do outweighes their right to do so. That should include the intent and effects of communications, without unfairly impacting on freedom of expression.

Personally I think the law is not applied consistently enough in this area and the balance should be in favour of freedom wherever possible.

[anonymous-user]

Article 10 ECHR encapsulates the principle:-

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[oyster]

Breadvan72 said:

Article 10 ECHR encapsulates the principle:-

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So if we take the bit I've put in bold above, even the namby-pamby, liberal-left ECHR suggests that what the Facebook idiot did can be deemed illegal and punished?

I think that satisfies me. I thought for a moment I was losing my liberal approach to life.

[anonymous-user]

i would argue that the conviction was not necessary to protect morals, or anything else. BTW, the mostly ECHR was mostly drafted by a dryish Tory Brit.

[technogogo]

Protection of morals. There's a strange concept. Is the assumption that people's morals are easily changed by expose to some sick jokes? Like de-sensitisation?

But protection of health? So all those anti-vaccination website authors could end up in the slammer for a few weeks?
Maybe I'd be all for that?

[anonymous-user]

I think the protection of morals bit reflects the age of the text (1940s). Remember that at that time some novels were still banned on morality grounds.

[Aretnap]

Flicking through my local newspaper newspapers and comparing a few cases...

Drunk bloke racially abuses man outside pub - £215 fine

Drunk bloke racially abuses railway worker for 5 minutes causing fear and distress - 12 month alcohol treatment order

Drunk woman racially abuses takeaway staff and throws bottles at them - 100 hours unpaid work and £100 compensation

TV presenter wages campaign of abuse and harassment against partner, causing her fear of violence - 140 hours unpaid work

Drunk bloke posts playground level sick jokes on Facebook - driven out of home by angry mob (none of whom seem to be being prosecuted) followed by 3 months in prison

It seems that posting offensive bks on Facebook is now deemed far more serious than real life harassment causing genuine distress and even fear of violence. Funny old world.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Aretnap said:

It seems that posting offensive bks on Facebook is now deemed far more serious than real life harassment causing genuine distress and even fear of violence.

If I have understood correctly what he did could be seen as the equivalent of going to where this ghastly event took place, finding the town and street where the family live and walking around shouting out his drivel. What penalty would you give for that?

The internet is part of reality, not some alternative universe where the rules don't apply.

[otolith]

Ozzie Osmond said:

If I have understood correctly what he did could be seen as the equivalent of going to where this ghastly event took place, finding the town and street where the family live and walking around shouting out his drivel. What penalty would you give for that?

The internet is part of reality, not some alternative universe where the rules don't apply.

Should writing this on Pistonheads:

Ozzie Osmond said:

They want us to think they are normal, that's why.

Perhaps a new class of "real marriage of one man and one woman" is needed.

Be treated in the same way as turning up to a gay wedding and shouting your opinion in the registry office?

I don't think it should. I think the context is important.

[Zeeky]

ECHR said:

Article 10 ECHR encapsulates the principle:-

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, ...for the prevention of disorder or crime, ...

When someone demands the right to say what they want, implicit within this demand is the expectation that the State will protect them through the use of the criminal law from the consequences of what they say.

The State needs to keep the peace and freedom of expression is not the same as saying what you want to whom you want.

The problem is that many people do not know how to express themselves or their opinions without using language that may make what they say criminal.

[icetea]

From what I understand the guy posted the joke on his own page, then someone else took a screenshot of it and posted it on a page specifically set up about the hunt for the kid..... if thats the case surely the 2nd person should have been in the dock alongside the first one, or even in place of him?

I'd post a sick joke where it was only likely to be seen by close friends/family but I'd never dream of deliberately placing it in front the family/friends of the people involved.

[mercfunder]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Aretnap said:

It seems that posting offensive bks on Facebook is now deemed far more serious than real life harassment causing genuine distress and even fear of violence.

If I have understood correctly what he did could be seen as the equivalent of going to where this ghastly event took place, finding the town and street where the family live and walking around shouting out his drivel. What penalty would you give for that?

The internet is part of reality, not some alternative universe where the rules don't apply.

Tell me, when did you have an epiphany?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[RtdRacer]

10 Pence Short said:

Personally I think the law is not applied consistently enough in this area and the balance should be in favour of freedom wherever possible.

THis.

And I hope this is what Keir Starmer is trying to do when he said he would issue national guidance on social networks, and that there would be a 'very high bar to prosecutions'.

I'm quite impressed so far with Keir Starmer.

[anonymous-user]

Keir is OK, I reckon. I think that Magistrate who sentenced the tweeter to 12 weeks in jail was a, thankfully rare nowadays, example of a magistrate adopting a ludicrous standard of moral judgment. I hope the tweeter appeals. He was foolish, but he should not be in jail.