Free Speech (in the UK) an Oxymoron?
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
But why do you feel it acceptable to curtail free speech in that way? What would you say if "disagreeing with AGW" became a criminal offence?
In what way?Where have I tried to curtail free speech? Speak all you like, but don't do it in a way that intentionally harms others. Seems fair enough to me. In fact I'd go further. Don't do anything that harms others intentionally. That seems a reasonable way to conduct oneself.
If 'disagreeing with AGW became an offence' I would campaign to have the law changed. But I would not intentionally set out to commit a public order act offence in order to make a point.
XCP said:
Where have I tried to curtail free speech? Speak all you like, but don't do it in a way that intentionally harms others. Seems fair enough to me.
Free speech means being allowed to cause offence or saying things which potentially offend (like Frankie Boyle for example)..... That is why it should be free speech. Any infringment on that is curtailing. XCP said:
...There has to be intent to cause harassment alarm or distress. You seem to be conveniently overlooking that fact.
On what basis do you assert intent is needed?5.— Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
XCP said:
In what way?
Where have I tried to curtail free speech? Speak all you like, but don't do it in a way that intentionally harms others. Seems fair enough to me. In fact I'd go further. Don't do anything that harms others intentionally. That seems a reasonable way to conduct oneself.
If 'disagreeing with AGW became an offence' I would campaign to have the law changed. But I would not intentionally set out to commit a public order act offence in order to make a point.
You keep talking about intent. Why?Where have I tried to curtail free speech? Speak all you like, but don't do it in a way that intentionally harms others. Seems fair enough to me. In fact I'd go further. Don't do anything that harms others intentionally. That seems a reasonable way to conduct oneself.
If 'disagreeing with AGW became an offence' I would campaign to have the law changed. But I would not intentionally set out to commit a public order act offence in order to make a point.
Part of the issue is that we now live in such a wrapped-in-cotton-wool, sweeties for all society that the definition of "harrassment, alarm or distress" is now pathetically narrow.
We need to be careful about this as a society or we will throw 900 years of progress toward freedom of expression down the loo in the next 25 years.
We need to be careful about this as a society or we will throw 900 years of progress toward freedom of expression down the loo in the next 25 years.
Zeeky said:
On what basis do you assert intent is needed?
5.— Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Read CPS charging standards.5.— Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Jasandjules said:
Free speech means being allowed to cause offence or saying things which potentially offend (like Frankie Boyle for example)..... That is why it should be free speech. Any infringment on that is curtailing.
Fine. Cause offence. Just don't break the Public Order Act. That seems a reasonable way to behave to me. 
Zeeky said:
XCP said:
...There has to be intent to cause harassment alarm or distress. You seem to be conveniently overlooking that fact.
On what basis do you assert intent is needed?5.— Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Jasandjules said:
Well, to me S5 should be restricted to actions. Speech is too close to thought for my liking....
If we're not careful, we'll sleepwalk into the state where anyone who says anything that anyone else deems unkind is considered to be commiting an offenceThough the protections do appear to be somewhat skewed, as shown by the facebook "let's hang some fellow accused of a crime and beat him to death etc" pages which doesn't seem to "offend" those who make these biased decisions...
ClaphamGT3 said:
Part of the issue is that we now live in such a wrapped-in-cotton-wool, sweeties for all society that the definition of "harrassment, alarm or distress" is now pathetically narrow.
We need to be careful about this as a society or we will throw 900 years of progress toward freedom of expression down the loo in the next 25 years.
I rather thought the interpretation is now too broad.We need to be careful about this as a society or we will throw 900 years of progress toward freedom of expression down the loo in the next 25 years.
Streaky
Milky Joe said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
If we're not careful, we'll sleepwalk into the state where anyone who says anything that anyone else deems unkind is considered to be commiting an offence
Don't be so dramatic.Why do you think we have freedoms? Its because people stand up for them when the manipulative, the controlling and the ill-intentioned try to erode them and the witless, the lazy and the credulous let them.
I bet you are part of the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" brigade
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff