Free Speech (in the UK) an Oxymoron?
Discussion
John145 said:
So the examples you two think of have nothing to do with the reason this thread was started?
The reason these people were convicted as criminals was because they said something that hurt someone else's feelings. This, in my opinion, is not criminality.
No, you said that all speech is ok. We disagreed, citing a couple of examples. You relentlessly argued that all speech is ok. We showed you the error of the ways.The reason these people were convicted as criminals was because they said something that hurt someone else's feelings. This, in my opinion, is not criminality.
If you wish to enter into a debate about where to "draw the line" of acceptable speech, we'll be here for a while
John145 said:
So the examples you two think of have nothing to do with the reason this thread was started?
The reason these people were convicted as criminals was because they said something that hurt someone else's feelings. This, in my opinion, is not criminality.
And your "shooting in the face" example was so very much on-topic? The reason these people were convicted as criminals was because they said something that hurt someone else's feelings. This, in my opinion, is not criminality.
IMO the criminality of it would be whether it was targeted or not - did the person target their comments at someone or just make a general point someone found offensive? If it's targeted, it seems more like harassment, not free speech. The people in the OP appear to have targeted their comments at specific people - sounds like directed harassment/abuse to me.
technogogo said:
We boil down to a contest between the right to possibly offend versus the right to not be offended.
This cuts right to the heart of the matter. It is subjective and depends on the individual hearing/reading the words. It is entirely their choice whether to be offended. Or not.I am reminded of a passage in a book I read several years ago. When we awake each morning, it is entirely up to us whether we choose to be happy or miserable that day. If you let negative outside influences control your thoughts and feelings you will forever have a cloud hanging over you.
John145 said:
It's a very short road from insults are offensive and criminal to criticising the government is offensive and criminal.
Those who criticised BLiar's government over immigration were labelled 'racists'. It was highly effective ... as it carried the potential to be criminal.The man who 'criticised' Prescott was criminalised.
Streaky
oyster said:
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?
If the UK govt want to control what it's citizens are allowed to post, how can you consider it free speech?
People already do air racist opinions on the web, it would be naive to think not, however they are not something I would go looking for.
As I stated I may not agree with what people post, but I would object to anybody stopping them posting it.
This is how to do it:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
"The [US Supreme] Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."
More recently, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist hate group to picket the funerals of US service peronnel as part of the group's insane anti-gay campaign. Their actions are deeply offensive, but free speech prevailed. That issue was right on the borderline for me, and I am pretty much a First Amendment purist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
"The [US Supreme] Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."
More recently, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist hate group to picket the funerals of US service peronnel as part of the group's insane anti-gay campaign. Their actions are deeply offensive, but free speech prevailed. That issue was right on the borderline for me, and I am pretty much a First Amendment purist.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 10th October 09:05
randlemarcus said:
Its just a matter of the law catching up with social change. The law was written, and has been enforced based on print distribution. Consider your opinion if either of the above had written, printed and distributed their utterings in the High Street. In mine, they would deserve a bit of chokey for being so vile. The law sees this as exactly the same as their inane FacePokeTweetings, even though they are demonstrably not the same.
As I understand it, the DPP had a conference about exactly this yesterday, to try and clarify the treatment of idiots like this. Perhaps if we had a blanket law regarding idiocy, it might help solve a umber of social problems?
Keir Starmer has said that the DPP will issue new guidelines for this sort of offence using Social Media, and that the bar for prosecution will be set very high. It will take into consideration the disparity between saying something like that in a pub to 20 mates and doing similar on Facebook. The problem is that FB/Twitter etc can disseminate a message very quickly and easy to a *large* number of people. As I understand it, the DPP had a conference about exactly this yesterday, to try and clarify the treatment of idiots like this. Perhaps if we had a blanket law regarding idiocy, it might help solve a umber of social problems?
Imagine someone at, say, a wedding or a council meeting or some other forum with 500+ people there and shouting that stuff about April Jones. Worth prosecuting? I'd say so...
Why? It is offensive, but why create a legal right not to be offended? Why limit speech which does not threaten or cause violence or other harm? Harm can include mental harm, which is one reason why we protect the identities of children involved in legal disputes, but offensiveness is not in itself, I suggest, enough to warrant limiting speech.
We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about four years in jail for possessing a pro Al Queda magazine.
We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about four years in jail for possessing a pro Al Queda magazine.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 10th October 09:40
Breadvan72 said:
Why? It is offensive, but why create a legal right not to be offended? Why limit speech which does not threaten or cause violence or other harm? Harm can include mental harm, which is one reason why we protect the identities of children involved in legal disputes, but offensiveness is not in itself, I suggest, enough to warrant limiting speech.
We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about for years in jail for possessing a pro Al Qeda magazine.
It's a good point - I am strongly anti-censorship in general, but saying something purely intended to cause mental anguish and distress to someone in such an extreme manner seems to be very wrong indeed. Just my opinion.We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about for years in jail for possessing a pro Al Qeda magazine.
Hmm - maybe you have convinced me.
Breadvan72 said:
More recently, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist hate group to picket the funerals of US service peronnel as part of the group's insane anti-gay campaign. Their actions are deeply offensive, but free speech prevailed. That issue was right on the borderline for me, and I am pretty much a First Amendment purist.
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.Personally, I don't see any difference between those who think making offensive jokes about missing children should be illegal and those who think the same about making offensive jokes about Muhammad.
John145 said:
simoid said:
John145 said:
simoid said:
Do I have a right not to hear certain things?
Well you control where your eyes are pointing, what room you're in, who you associate with. Should the police be required to make sure you don't put yourself into situations that make you uncomfortable?I have been on the bus with complete nutters who are spouting all sorts of random s
t, I'm quite happy to sit there and let them get on with it. Have you ever listened to someone that has been?
Do you think that it is ok to hurl racist, homophobic, ageist or sexist abuse at someone, just because it is free speech?
Breadvan72 said:
Why? It is offensive, but why create a legal right not to be offended? Why limit speech which does not threaten or cause violence or other harm? Harm can include mental harm, which is one reason why we protect the identities of children involved in legal disputes, but offensiveness is not in itself, I suggest, enough to warrant limiting speech.
We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about four years in jail for possessing a pro Al Queda magazine.
Would you not say posting a highly offensive joke about small girls (perhaps even mentioning April Jones by name or reference) in the same week that she has gone missing, presumed abducted and murdered, is likely to cause mental harm.We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about four years in jail for possessing a pro Al Queda magazine.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 10th October 09:40
Especially so when that 'joke' is not aimed at a few friends in the pub, but by electronic media allowing a far wider spread.
AND by all accounts it wasn't 1 joke, but perhaps a concerted series of them.
12 weeks in jail is too much, but I certainly think it's worthy of criminal conviction.
redback911 said:
Ok, slightly contentious I suppose but is anyone else slightly perturbed by the UK's attitude to "Free Speech"? The jailing of various individuals over the last couple of years for social media comments, made me question if free speech actually exists in the UK. This year the courts have jailed:
Fabrice Muamba: Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
April Jones: Matthew Woods jailed for Facebook posts for 12 weeks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19...
I am in no way justifying what these individuals said, but did they really deserved to be jailed? It smacks of hypocrisy when I see/hear MPs bemoan the lack of democracy and freedom of expression in other countries, yet in the UK we seem barely better than those we try to impose democracy on.
Free speech is one thing, being a complete prick is another. I think it's good that in some cases people are getting a slap on the wrist of being a complete tFabrice Muamba: Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
April Jones: Matthew Woods jailed for Facebook posts for 12 weeks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19...
I am in no way justifying what these individuals said, but did they really deserved to be jailed? It smacks of hypocrisy when I see/hear MPs bemoan the lack of democracy and freedom of expression in other countries, yet in the UK we seem barely better than those we try to impose democracy on.
Edited by redback911 on Tuesday 9th October 12:23
t.Lets face it, if your where at school you'd get told off. Just because you become an adult doesn't mean you should then be able to act like prat and bully people without some form of recourse.
And at the end of the day free speech still exists, you are entitled to say exactly what you like, however somethings may well come with consequences.
oyster said:
Breadvan72 said:
Why? It is offensive, but why create a legal right not to be offended? Why limit speech which does not threaten or cause violence or other harm? Harm can include mental harm, which is one reason why we protect the identities of children involved in legal disputes, but offensiveness is not in itself, I suggest, enough to warrant limiting speech.
We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about four years in jail for possessing a pro Al Queda magazine.
Would you not say posting a highly offensive joke about small girls (perhaps even mentioning April Jones by name or reference) in the same week that she has gone missing, presumed abducted and murdered, is likely to cause mental harm.We used to have censorship of films and plays, but that was rolled back. Now we are censoring bad taste jokes and drunken ranting. We are also censoring ideas. Recently a man was sentenced to about four years in jail for possessing a pro Al Queda magazine.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 10th October 09:40
Especially so when that 'joke' is not aimed at a few friends in the pub, but by electronic media allowing a far wider spread.
AND by all accounts it wasn't 1 joke, but perhaps a concerted series of them.
12 weeks in jail is too much, but I certainly think it's worthy of criminal conviction.
Some people get upset when someone else ridicules their ideas or beliefs, as PH threads show, quite apart from Prophet cartoons and dodgy youtube films. The problem is that once you start limiting speech because it is upsetting, you end up drawing the line lower and lower.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff