Free Speech (in the UK) an Oxymoron?
Discussion
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.
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)
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?If our society makes something illegal then it must be illegal everywhere.
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)
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.
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.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.
Many people seem to want the right without the responsibility.
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'.Streaky
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).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.
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.
Breadvan72 said:
There is a disturbing trend towards criminalising speech.
A democracy should be able to cope with hate speech without criminalising it.
Absolutely.A democracy should be able to cope with hate speech without criminalising it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."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.
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.
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.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).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.
And, truly, many Americans think it does. Some of them are in law-enforcement.
Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff