Free Speech (in the UK) an Oxymoron?
Discussion
I was taught "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." When did we become such pussies that we need the police to protect us from hurtful words?
Freedom of speech should be universal, it's the corner stone of a free society.
It's a very short road from insults are offensive and criminal to criticising the government is offensive and criminal...
Freedom of speech should be universal, it's the corner stone of a free society.
It's a very short road from insults are offensive and criminal to criticising the government is offensive and criminal...
mercfunder said:
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.
"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.
We're talking about someone in the UK posting something deemed as offensive enough to warrant arrest/conviction by the UK authorities.
And are you suggesting people should be allowed to air racist opinions on the web?
Breadvan72 said:
What is sufficiently offensive? Why should we not have the right to offend?
In sensible circumstances it is OK to offend. This was the outcome of the trial of Ken Livingstone some years ago. Ken Livingstone made remarks to an Evening Standard reporter, comparing him to a Nazi concentration camp guard. The reporter, Oliver Finegold, was Jewish and said he took offence at the remarks, but Livingstone refused to withdraw the remark and was subsequently accused of antisemitism. The High Court ruled in favour of Livingstone because although the comment was was offensive he had a right to free speech, which 'does extend to abuse'.
However, the situation would be very different if someone posted remarks which were gratuitously abusive of Jews in general. For instance, watch out for the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which made such incitement of hatred a specific criminal offence.
I was at a conference in Cambridge on hate speech a few years ago. Lord Goldsnith, then still in Government, accepted that the 2006 Act was likely to be largely unenforceable because of amendments inserted by the House of Lords.
The book of the conference is very good:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extreme-Speech-Democracy-I...
The book of the conference is very good:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extreme-Speech-Democracy-I...
First guy was charged with "inciting racial hatred" which is against the law so not under freedom of speech.
Sencond guy was pretty much arrested firstly to protect him! He was probably about to get the kicking of his life.
Clearly had they emailed a mate the same jokes they would not be in jail, similarly if they had told a joke to a mate its different to walking into town and shouting racial abuse at the top of your voice.
Should they be jailed, no not really. But lets be clear they weren't exercising their freedom of speech as there are still laws bound up within that...i.e. "inciting racial hatred"..
Sencond guy was pretty much arrested firstly to protect him! He was probably about to get the kicking of his life.
Clearly had they emailed a mate the same jokes they would not be in jail, similarly if they had told a joke to a mate its different to walking into town and shouting racial abuse at the top of your voice.
Should they be jailed, no not really. But lets be clear they weren't exercising their freedom of speech as there are still laws bound up within that...i.e. "inciting racial hatred"..
Just saying "it's against the law" doesn't knock down the freedom of speech argument. The issue is whether the law should criminalise speech, even offensive or hateful speech.
I favour the minimum possible restrictions on free speech. Such limitations should be justified on narrow grounds of national security, business secrecy, and the avoidance of violence.
I think it a mistake to criminalise, for example, Holocaust deniers. It lends spurious status to their rantings.
I favour the minimum possible restrictions on free speech. Such limitations should be justified on narrow grounds of national security, business secrecy, and the avoidance of violence.
I think it a mistake to criminalise, for example, Holocaust deniers. It lends spurious status to their rantings.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 9th October 20:58
decadence said:
First guy was charged with "inciting racial hatred" which is against the law so not under freedom of speech.
.
Tell me how you reconcile inciting racial hatred with not being free speech? .
If I say "go kill all the X, Y or Z" then I am still speaking am I not? Now, should I be free to say that? If not, why not? If not, why should you be able to tell me that I can not say that? Why should in fact you be free to say that I am not free to say such things?
The Today show on radio 4 had an interview with an Islamist talking about free speech. I think it was on Sat 22nd September. The interviewer made a point about lack of free speech in some countries and how this can be used to maintain vested interest under the guise of blasphemy law. Or something to that effect. The Islamist made the point that in the UK a number of people had been jailed so, in effect, we can't talk!
I have never been so utterly ashamed of my own country as at that moment.
Of course the Islamist was correct. If we criminalise any form of free expression then we provide cover to nations who oppress and jail any form of political or religious (same thing really) dissent. Which is truly shameful.
I have never been so utterly ashamed of my own country as at that moment.
Of course the Islamist was correct. If we criminalise any form of free expression then we provide cover to nations who oppress and jail any form of political or religious (same thing really) dissent. Which is truly shameful.
technogogo said:
If we criminalise any form of free expression then we provide cover to nations who oppress and jail any form of political or religious (same thing really) dissent. Which is truly shameful.
There is no restriction on freedom of speech in this country. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to point a finger at the useless clowns wedged in Buckingham Palace, for instance. Equally Richard Dawkins is allowed to say that the supernatural aspects of any religion are pure fiction - with Muhammad's particular branch being no exception. People of Abu Hamza's ilk go a lot further than "freedom of expression" and that's what gets them into trouble.
Ozzie Osmond said:
There is no restriction on freedom of speech in this country. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to point a finger at the useless clowns wedged in Buckingham Palace, for instance. Equally Richard Dawkins is allowed to say that the supernatural aspects of any religion are pure fiction - with Muhammad's particular branch being no exception.
People of Abu Hamza's ilk go a lot further than "freedom of expression" and that's what gets them into trouble.
Wrong. You cannot communicate certain things, regardless of what definition you give it, there is no freedom of speech in this country. Only freedom to speak things that are vetted by government.People of Abu Hamza's ilk go a lot further than "freedom of expression" and that's what gets them into trouble.
John145 said:
Wrong. You cannot communicate certain things, regardless of what definition you give it, there is no freedom of speech in this country. Only freedom to speak things that are vetted by government.
You can communicate them, you just have to accept that there are certain consequences. For some, the threat of prosecution is a price worth paying to get their message across. For many, the subsequent arrest does little but project their message to a much wider audience through the media that are only interested because of the "controversy".You could argue that our laws do more to promote extreme views to a wide audience than true "freedom of speech" would do.
Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 9th October 21:57
ewenm said:
John145 said:
Wrong. You cannot communicate certain things, regardless of what definition you give it, there is no freedom of speech in this country. Only freedom to speak things that are vetted by government.
You can communicate them, you just have to accept that there are certain consequences. For some, the threat of prosecution is a price worth paying to get their message across. For many, the subsequent arrest does little but project their message to a much wider audience through the media that are only interested because of the "controversy".Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff