Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1
3 4 ... 10 11
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

LeoSayer

4,687 posts

129 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
What if someone in the US had made posted the comment about Maddie and April? Could we extradite them?

Breadvan72

19,059 posts

48 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
No, because of the protection of free speech given by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Cyrus1971

819 posts

124 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
There is a disturbing trend towards criminalising speech.
Not so. The trend is of people being daft enough to do it in writing or when someone else has got their camera-phone at the ready.

Or to put it another way, the criminals are now getting caught.

Hopefully it will bring and end to the idiocy of the "you can say what you like on the internet" approach.
Ozzie, I agree with the first poster. Free speech (and in my mind I am thinking of totally free speech) is a foundation for democracy. Without totally free speech and the confidence to say what you like to who you like about what you like it is a short journey to fascism and control. Preaching "hate" is for me a subjective matter and criminalizing it is a shame because as a society we are better off I feel countering it with sound arguments rather than banning the hearing of it. The other point is that tolerance is also a foundation for our democracy. We are one of the most, if not the most, multicultural societies in the world. It is a real credit to the UK that it has achieved this and something to be proud of IMHO. For that integration to flourish we also have to have tolerance of each other. So insane as hate preaching is to me and as anti-tolerance it is. The matter of paramount interest to the UK is the right to be say and be heard and then defeat it if it is viewed by the majority as wrong. Someone once described hell as the impossibility of reason. Without the initial remarks hateful remarks there is no debate in the first place, just festering anger leading to who know what.

daz3210

5,000 posts

125 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
No, because of the protection of free speech given by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Ah, so its one rule for American's, but another one for everyone else now?

As I understand it from media reports, we have just extradited a number of individuals to USA for alleged offences carried out (amongst others) in London. (not that I don't agree that we wanted rid of them)

Ozzie Osmond

16,140 posts

131 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
mercfunder said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Hopefully it will bring and end to the idiocy of the "you can say what you like on the internet" approach.
Why would that be a good thing?
In the early days paedophiles thought they were safe on the uncensored internet. I wouldn't want a return to that era even if they might consider it to be some kind of freedom of expression. Same goes for Abu Hamza and his terrorist ilk.

If our society makes something illegal then it must be illegal everywhere.
Advertisement

daz3210

5,000 posts

125 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
If our society makes something illegal then it must be illegal everywhere.
That doesn't follow though. There are many things illegal in Britain that are permitted elsewhere.

I'll be back later I'm just popping over the water to Amsterdam for a quick spliff....


Breadvan72

19,059 posts

48 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Breadvan72 said:
No, because of the protection of free speech given by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Ah, so its one rule for American's, but another one for everyone else now?

As I understand it from media reports, we have just extradited a number of individuals to USA for alleged offences carried out (amongst others) in London. (not that I don't agree that we wanted rid of them)
The principe of double criminality is applied. Many of the offences were alleged to have occurred in the USA. Those people could not have been extradited if the offences alleges were incapable of being criminal here. The US would not criminalise free speech as we do, so would not extradite for dodgy tweets.

Under the new extradition treaty, by the way, the US has refused no request for extradition made by the UK. The UK has refused seven US requests.

Ozzie Osmond

16,140 posts

131 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
If our society makes something illegal then it must be illegal throughout the UK including online and that also includes in many instances stuff on the internet which is considered unacceptable in most civilisations on earth.
That doesn't follow though. There are many things illegal in Britain that are permitted elsewhere.
Happier?

ewenm

27,006 posts

130 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
If we want the right to Freedom of Speech, we also have to accept responsibility for what we say. If what I say is deemed (by the courts) sufficiently offensive/threatening/etc then I can be held responsible for the results.

Many people seem to want the right without the responsibility.

Breadvan72

19,059 posts

48 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
What is sufficiently offensive? Why should we not have the right to offend? Threats are different.

streaky

19,311 posts

134 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
blindswelledrat said:
daz3210 said:
randlemarcus said:
The law sees this as exactly the same as their inane FacePokeTweetings, even though they are demonstrably not the same.
And the manner of clearing it up is different. Something printed and distributed has to be collected etc. On the net there is a button that is of use - its called 'delete'.
What's your point? There is also a bin to put leaflets in.
The point is that once distributed, leaflets are out of control, and can end up anywhere. On the other hand, if I put something entirely offensive, say on this site, it takes one person about five seconds to destroy what I put such that it no longer exists, and cannot be further distributed.
Unless it has been already ... which is typical of Twitter, Facebook, etc. And your "five seconds" implies constant monitoring by a mod. Good luck with that!

Streaky

daz3210

5,000 posts

125 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
The principe of double criminality is applied. Many of the offences were alleged to have occurred in the USA. Those people could not have been extradited if the offences alleges were incapable of being criminal here. The US would not criminalise free speech as we do, so would not extradite for dodgy tweets.

Under the new extradition treaty, by the way, the US has refused no request for extradition made by the UK. The UK has refused seven US requests.
One of the reported 'offences' for one of the five was being an al-quaida representative IN LONDON. Another was arranging a kidnap in Africa (Kenya?). Those were not offences that occurred on US soil, so I find it hard to understand how the US can have jurisdiction (although I still agree that such accusations should be answered).



onomatopoeia

3,288 posts

102 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
No, because of the protection of free speech given by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Even the Americans have laws on defamation, copyright and military secrets, all of which restrict it. I'm sure there are other restrictions as well, those are just the ones I can think of from the top of my head.

I hear Americans talk about "protected speech" as some subset of "speech" even though their first amendment makes no mention of limiting its own scope.

Jasandjules

51,022 posts

114 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
There is a disturbing trend towards criminalising speech.

A democracy should be able to cope with hate speech without criminalising it.
Absolutely.

It is shocking and worrying. A matter made worse when you consider that there are those advocating the torture and murder of the accused in a criminal matter, who appear to be permitted to incite hatred/violence without prosecution.

Freedom of speech should be held in significantly higher esteem than it is.

ewenm

27,006 posts

130 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
What is sufficiently offensive? Why should we not have the right to offend? Threats are different.
Like I said, for the courts to decide (not the police, or the daily mail or a Facebook campaign).

Why should you have the right to offend WITHOUT any responsibility for the offence you cause? Rights AND responsibility.

mercfunder

3,597 posts

58 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
ewenm said:
Breadvan72 said:
What is sufficiently offensive? Why should we not have the right to offend? Threats are different.
Like I said, for the courts to decide (not the police, or the daily mail or a Facebook campaign).

Why should you have the right to offend WITHOUT any responsibility for the offence you cause? Rights AND responsibility.
But how does the court decide on a global level, who would police the internet?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

Sort of sums up to me how the internet should work.

mercfunder

3,597 posts

58 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
ewenm said:
Breadvan72 said:
What is sufficiently offensive? Why should we not have the right to offend? Threats are different.
Like I said, for the courts to decide (not the police, or the daily mail or a Facebook campaign).

Why should you have the right to offend WITHOUT any responsibility for the offence you cause? Rights AND responsibility.
But how does the court decide on a global level, who would police the internet?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

Sort of sums up to me how the internet should work.

ewenm

27,006 posts

130 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
mercfunder said:
But how does the court decide on a global level, who would police the internet?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

Sort of sums up to me how the internet should work.
I don't know. It's a difficult area that the courts are only just beginning to tackle and will inevitably make some mistakes.

Given the amount of rubbish posted online everyday, it doesn't seem like people's freedom of speech is being impinged much at all. People are free to make idiots of themselves through any number of online portals. wink


daz3210

5,000 posts

125 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
onomatopoeia said:
Even the Americans have laws on defamation, copyright and military secrets, all of which restrict it.
But there is a bit of a difference between voicing your opinions or beliefs and distributing information that has come into you possession either legally or illegally.

streaky

19,311 posts

134 months

[news] 
Tuesday 9th October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Breadvan72 said:
The principe of double criminality is applied. Many of the offences were alleged to have occurred in the USA. Those people could not have been extradited if the offences alleges were incapable of being criminal here. The US would not criminalise free speech as we do, so would not extradite for dodgy tweets.

Under the new extradition treaty, by the way, the US has refused no request for extradition made by the UK. The UK has refused seven US requests.
One of the reported 'offences' for one of the five was being an al-quaida representative IN LONDON. Another was arranging a kidnap in Africa (Kenya?). Those were not offences that occurred on US soil, so I find it hard to understand how the US can have jurisdiction (although I still agree that such accusations should be answered).
You must have missed the edict that American law applies wherever they want it too.

And, truly, many Americans think it does. Some of them are in law-enforcement.

Streaky
1
3 4 ... 10 11
Reply to Topic