So it's come to my attention through posts such as this one that you guys have some pretty interesting laws. Several people have said that there is no such thing as "free speech" in the UK.
How are you guys okay with this? Wouldn't you demand the right to speak your mind freely? Am I misinformed?
Posted Sep 18, 2012, 5:23 AM UTC
What I'm finding is a lot of people seem to conflate different things that seem similar but are in fact quite different.
One is freedom of speech vs freedom from consequences. Next is opinion vs insults/abuse. And finally there's legislation for something vs not legislating for something else.
I can say what I want. No one can physically stop me. What I can't do is expect to not be criticised, expect to be listened to or agreed with, and to be able to be heard in and on any venue I choose without first owning that venue myself.
What some people want is the ability to express their views and opinions without then facing the sack from their job. Your employer isn't going to stop you having your opinion...keep having them, but they do have the right to tell you you're no longer employed. You have no right to any given job. You have no right to have your neighbours like you or for any business to serve you. People realise that to carry on the lives they lead they may have to keep certain opinions to themselves. They mistake this choice to not express their views as someone stopping them from expressing said views. No one is stopping you, you've chosen the easy way out. You've chosen your cushy life over your own convictions.
I have no right to be heard or seen on a privately owned forum or on private property. You see people make this mistake when a comment or post is removed for whatever reason here on Reddit. You don't own Reddit and it's not publicly held...it's a private venture owned by a corporation and they can delete your posts or even your account whenever they want, US citizen or not.
US freedom of speech is there to stop the Government from snatching away your newspaper or arresting you for saying you oppose them on the radio. It isn't there to protect the guy saying nigger in the Youtube comments. You've simply just not got hate speech legislation like some other countries. That's not the same as that speech being protected by your freedom speech laws. Too many Americans assume that because they can run down the street screaming "Go home wet-backs" it's all due to the freedom of speech laws that do exists rather than hate speech laws that don't.
That misconception is why you're in here assuming a position of superiority when you see some Twitter troll get picked up.
I can't say "cunt" on US daytime TV. No manner of freedom of speech will protect that. There are laws against it. You simply can't say whatever you want wherever you want even in the US.
An incomplete list of exceptions to the right of free speech in the US: slander, libel, defamation, perjury, inciting a riot, obscenity, threatening behaviour, contempt of court, profanity, incitement to violence, noise pollution, copyright infringement, passing trade secrets, espionage, conspiracy, shouting "Fire!" in a cinema, treason, sedition, providing expert advice to terrorists.
I wish more Americans realised this.
In a practical sense, we have far more freedom of speech than they do. Try being an atheist politician over there.
Try being an atheist politician over there.
That's nothing to do with freedom of speech - that's people not liking what you say. There's a huge difference.
The point that the cultural climate over there is not transparent and honest: if you can't even exercise your own right to free speech without it causing you harm, then what is the point?
And when it comes to race relations, or the "Israel issue", you can barely say anything in the US without causing a meltdown. In the UK (and Australia - where I currently reside) you can easily discuss either issue, even with strong opinion, without losing your friends/job/social respect.
The point that the cultural climate over there is not transparent and honest: if you can't even exercise your own right to free speech without it causing you harm, then what is the point?
Sorry but you're only confusing the issue. Someone further down has explained it very well - there's a huge difference between freedom of speech, and freedom of the consequences of speech. Unless your atheist politician is getting arrested or harassed by the government in some other way the comparison you have made is invalid as you're not talking about freedom of speech.
We have laws against hate speech in the UK. Perhaps if we had 'hate speech zones' like you have 'free speech zones' it wouldn't be a problem ;)
Wetherspoons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom
Free speech was never legislated for in the UK. We get most of our rights via the human rights act which mirrors european law.
Surely there's a boundary between free speech and being told off for being a terrible human being. I don't think there's an attitude of censorship in the UK; you can say what you want, but you're going to get a slap on the wrist if it's defamatory... the right to say what you want doesn't negate the state's responsibility to enforce justice with such disgusting remarks. Of course, his sentencing will determine whether justice is being over-done or not.
Frankly I don't think the right to defame or threaten whoever you like with zero accountability would be a benefit to our society.
I guess I'm fine with it as for political purposes, there is pretty much free speech. The amount of handwringing that occurred over Nick Griffin (a far-right politician who had some pretty distasteful views on the holocaust in the eighties) over whether or not he should be given a platform on the BBC (never mind being censored) was colossal.
Basically, there's a programme on the BBC called Question Time, where members of the public ask a broadly representative panel of politicians and activists questions about the issues of the day. The BBC, despite its fairly liberal (different to left-wing, subtly) identity decided of its own accord it had to let Griffin on this programme, though only after a whole week of argument and back-and-forth in the papers and in other sections of the media. Again, that wasn't over censorship, that was over whether there was a duty to provide a platform for the views of a fairly small proportion of the population.
The nature of the laws are quite interesting as well. Griffin has been convicted of incitement of racial hatred in the past, not because he is a racist (that's not illegal) but because he tried to convince other people to be racist too, in public. I'm fine with that argument not being made in public, personally.
tl;dr: the stuff that you're not allowed to say usually has a context, (just like how you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre in the USA anyway) and has no place in the public discourse.
All I can say from a personal point of view, is that I feel free to say what I like, where I like and If I get to the point where I'm worried about getting in to trouble for it, chances are it's because I'm being an arse.
It feels about right in terms of balance really, even if free speech isn't directly legislated for, the bits that are legislated against aren't too far wrong in most people's eyes.
I guess that's why there's no outcry about it, it doesn't feel like a problem.
(We do have some screwed up libel and slander laws though that can be abused horribly)
Where is the prosecution for hateful individuals making facebook sites such as this one?
I have seen people calling for his death and worse. I don't think there were laws allowing prosecution against anti-soldier comments until recently. Its hard to know what the law is - it changes so fast.
The police can only act if someone lodges a complaint.
The John Terry case being a good example.
Personally, I'm fine with "free speech" being limited in cases where it could cause harm. Not so much offence, because there are a lot of people who suffer from acute offencisensitivity (including myself at times!), but I legitimately have no problem with the Phelps family not being allowed entry into the country or anti-discrimination laws.
I don't agree with complete and unopposed free speech.
However I do agree with free speech that comes with a fair use policy. Common sense should prevail.
If he was inciting violence I would oppose his message. I don't think he was. He didn't say British soldiers. Looking at it in [context] (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/15/1331808705001/freespeech.jpg) he is against killing and angry at the outrage over the death of soldiers compared to the lack of outrage at the death of civilians.
This was his message:
“People gassin about the deaths of Soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have.been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmful familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soldiers grave & wish him hell because thats where he is going..”
I think the main issue is that Americans often mistake 'Freedom of Speech' as the right to say whatever you like, which simply isn't the case. Freedom of Speech is designed to allow the free discussion and presentation of data and information, not so that you can go around inciting hatred and threatening people. The first is perfectly fine in the UK, the second isn't.
A big difference between the US and the UK is that our 'bill of rights'/constitution is 'partly written and wholly uncodified' .
I think this sometimes leads people from countries with a formal, written constitution, such as the US, to believe we somehow have a lot less rights.
The issue that concerns me is the gray area around expressing criticism about some behaviour or belief that is deemed an essential part of a particular religious or ethnic identity, and that being taken as inciting hatred.
Also "offence" - there doesn't seem to be any objective way to determine whether if or how much offence is reasonable. You get the impression that the offended person is allowed to set the bar, rather than society requiring that individual to be tolerant for the common good / preservation of free expression.
To quote Stphen Fry on 'offence':
"It's now very common to hear people say "i'm rather offended by that" as if it gives them certain rights, it's actually nothing more....it's simply a whine, it's no more than a whine "i find that offensive" it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase "i'm offended by that" .........
"WELL SO FUCKING WHAT"
I think this is a valid point, that offence is very personal, very subjective and therefore can't truly be legistalted and/or catered for/against.
We don't have a constitutional guarantee of free speech. However, we do consider it important. we also feel other things are important, such as freedom of privacy, freedom from harassment and so on. Free speech should be balanced against these.
Ensuring freedom of speech is seen as one of the responsibilities of government. The effect of any legislation on this principle is considered important, much more so than in the US because we can't rely on the supreme court to neuter the too aggressive laws.
Personally I feel that we've shifted too far away from freedom of speech in favour of other rights that are seen as important. The article you linked to is a prime example.
It does seem an inappropriate use of the law though. the law seems to be one to prevent direct messages along the lines of "ha ha I'm glad your relative is dead". I'm not sure whether the law was badly worded, or the judge just didn't understand how facebook works, but it does seem an example of the system failing to balance this adequately.
There is a mix and attempted balence of freedom of expression and human rights based on different anti discrimination laws.
1998 Human Rights Act covers both 'freedom of expression' and 'the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms'. Heard it is debated this act is closest we have to Bill of Rights or a Constitution (sorry if they are the same thing hah), plus from the title it gets amended over the years. Conservatives want it scrapped and re written completely, but that is due to it being legally tied to the EU's European Court of Human Rights overall decision.
I think Labour extended law futher with the Equality Act 2010 think the aim was based more towards employment laws.
Big debate is over freedom of the press, on one side you have people using libel laws and super injunctions to prevent the press from printing public interest stories or knowledge of corruption. On the other you have press breaking laws on privacy and bribing police officers to gain tabloid stories about private lives.
Like alot of countries heard sometimes we practise in pre emtive arrests with protests or stict laws on where you can protest. Think for royal wedding anti monachists were arrested before they started to protest. I would argue if this did happen, it was a breach of human rights and expression. wouldn;t be suprised if US practised this too and you also have strict laws on unions.
We have it, we just don't shout about it as much as you do. :P
You do realise we don't even have a right to think freely, right? Imagining the death of a monarch is still considered treason in this country.
Worth noting that one of the things in the proposed constitution of an independent Scotland is a right to free speech. I feel that's an improvement.
By the way, it's 06:40 here right now so don't expect many more answers.
This fuckin' guy...
In your context, which relates specifically to the Treason Act 1351, "imagining" relates more to the prosecution proving that you were actively planning the deposition of the monarch.
Does voting for any candidate that has republican leanings count as planning the deposition of the monarch?
No.
Mr Early-Morning... unless you can present a case which was tried, in which an individual was prosecuted for thought-treason, then your point is void.
I find this quite impressive and comforting, personally. Our government could technically prosecute for thought crimes, and no-one suggests it at all because we can, as a nation, understand that that would be fucking stupid.
You don't have free speech in the USA. Don't believe me? Stand on a soapbox in Washington DC and announce your plan to assassinate your president.
Try flashing a nipple on TV or say "fuck" a dozen times in a single episode of a TV show.
Or using the word "niggardly".
That's a little different, that's a threat to the president. You can, however, stand on a soapbox and shout about how the president a cock-munching thundercunt if you wish.
And you can do the same about the prime minister over here.
A lot of us do.