|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11253562)
It seems he was charged with a very specific offence, of sending a grossly offensive message, under the Communications Act 2003. This is an example of statute law taking precedence over any woolly notion of free speech under Common Law. I always understood that the UK does not, in fact, have any guarantees of free speech; there are numerous instances where what you say, whether in person, on the phone, in print or via electronic media, can be per se in breach of the law.
The CPS public website has some pretty clear guidance on what constitutes an offence under this law, how prosecutions should be handles, and what penalties (including imprisonment) can be sought. The law itself is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 and the CPS guidance is here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/c...offences/#an12 |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11253389)
Okay, the full tweet has now been published (as opposed to the snippet in the DM).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-9339314.html On reading the full tweet and see that it is simply offensive language and not a threat (in the DM he appeared to me to be saying he would "kill all the black teachers"). That being the case, the judge seems to have overstepped the mark in applying a custodial sentence. Nevertheless, it's not something I will lose any sleep over as it will probably do him some good. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Free speech is guaranteed in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 which implements the ECHR you hear so much about in the DM. It does come with a fairly hefty caveat however so it's not an absolute right as the one guarantees by the US Constitution.
Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11252567)
A man has been jailed for sending offensive tweets about the murdered British RE teacher. Obviously distasteful, offensive and stupid but in a free society should we be criminalizing such behaviour? The police let him get away with a history of racist and anti-religious ramblings before this incident but posting tweets about a teacher's murder was deemed so offensive to the public that they decided to act and the local magistrate thought that his comments was so egregious that an eight week custodial sentence needed to be imposed.
Is this the just behaviour of a free democratic society? Should the majority regulate the speech of others if they disagree with them? Do you have the right to not to be offended? If so, how far can society take this? Personally I find this all very troubling, its reason the UK should have a written Bill of Rights where the freedom of speech, given the obvious caveats, should be absolute. The UK worries me, they did away with the right of self-incrimination and now they're looking at double jeopardy. Its the over reaching of the state in the name of public protection that is becoming concerning. Why aren't the British people protesting vigorously about this? Is it just complacency? Will they only come out on the streets to protest about tax increases? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ght-weeks.html But was reading today that there's a major shortage of psychology expertise in court/justice system in the UK. Even worse in USA. So, the court falls back on rules too firmly and never examines deeply enough. For e.g. if you're judged to have an IQ of less than 70 your conviction or sentence is less than if you have an IQ of 70+. That means, a big difference between someone with an IQ of 69 and 72 ... but what about childhood issues, background, other psychological factors from assessment? Rarely are these factors brought to bear in sentencing. Then there's the general issue of incarceration and making an example of someone anyway which is the American model. Stupid. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
A recent article on this from Canadas perspective
Both courts endorsed the same principle: Canada values free speech but also freedom from hate, especially to protect vulnerable minorities who are as worthy of equal respect and dignity as the majority. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme..._siddiqui.html |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
The threat element in this takes it out of the realm of free speech. That being said, there have been other instances of people being jailed for offensive tweets (the guy who made racial comments about that poor soccer player who collapsed on the pitch) and comments (the woman who went on a racist rant on the Tube). While their actions are pathetic and ignorant, they should not be considered criminal especially when people who commit real crimes are not jailed (ie. two guys who beat one of their fathers into a coma with baseball bats, the burglar who was spared jail while being praised as brave by the judge, etc.). The British justice system seems to have its priorities severely screwed up these days.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Jericho79
(Post 11252669)
We either have free speech or we dont. You cannot say "free speech as long as you dont offend the majority".
Causing offense is not sufficient reason to restrict the right to free speech ("true" free speech) in my opinion. I agree in principle, but the guy referenced in the OP went beyond causing offense and made actual threats which is a different matter altogether. Making threats (ie. I want to kill those teachers) should be criminal, being ignorant (ie. making an offensive or racist comment) should not. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11252707)
There was no specific and immediate threat. As the magistrate said, his so-called crime was that, "'The offensive messages outraged the public. You had complete disregard for the tragic death of Ann Maguire."
If that is what happened (the article made it sound as if he had made actual threats) then no, he should not have been jailed and jailing people for causing offense is idiotic. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11253562)
It seems he was charged with a very specific offence, of sending a grossly offensive message, under the Communications Act 2003. This is an example of statute law taking precedence over any woolly notion of free speech under Common Law. I always understood that the UK does not, in fact, have any guarantees of free speech; there are numerous instances where what you say, whether in person, on the phone, in print or via electronic media, can be per se in breach of the law.
The CPS public website has some pretty clear guidance on what constitutes an offence under this law, how prosecutions should be handles, and what penalties (including imprisonment) can be sought. The law itself is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 and the CPS guidance is here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/c...offences/#an12 According to that it is a criminal offense to cause "annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety." How utterly pathetic! It is things like that which make me realize that, as much as I think I might like to, I could never return to Britain to live. It isn't because I plan to go on racist rants or anything like that, it is just that Britain's society and legal system have got their priorities completely screwed up, are criminalizing things that should not be criminalized, and are infantilizing people.
Originally Posted by BritInParis
(Post 11254269)
Free speech is guaranteed in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 which implements the ECHR you hear so much about in the DM. It does come with a fairly hefty caveat however so it's not an absolute right as the one guarantees by the US Constitution.
It is not an absolute right in the US either (ie. one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater). |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian
(Post 11254364)
A recent article on this from Canadas perspective
Both courts endorsed the same principle: Canada values free speech but also freedom from hate, especially to protect vulnerable minorities who are as worthy of equal respect and dignity as the majority. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme..._siddiqui.html The argument for US-First-Amendment-style preference for free speech above any other right is, frankly, puerile - like so much of American judicial politics, not least the stupid arguments over the Second Amendment. The US First Amendment, of course, espouses freedom to exercise religion (any religion) before it mentions freedom of speech. Nowhere does it suggest that freedom of speech should trump all other rights. The Ninth Amendment ought to be used more by those against whom hate speech is directed: this preserves rights under common law not expressly protected in other clauses, so the right to live peaceably and be free from abuse or invective, for example, might be defended under the 9th amendment. For some reason, though, lawyers are apparently reluctant to use it, and courts reluctant to hear arguments based on it. Even in the US, freedom of speech is not absolute, nor should it be, but to my mind it's held in too high a regard by the courts at the expense of other rights. I think the UK has gone too far in the other direction with its erosion of rights for accused awaiting trial (removal of right to silence; restriction of provisions against double jeopardy) and some of the law used in the case in the OP (which I wasn't aware of until I looked them up up-thread). Canada used to tread a reasonably sane path between these two; Harper's government seems determined to undo much of the work that has been done in the past. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11257183)
Haroon Siddiqui: The Voice of Reason. Not a series of words that naturally live together in the same sentence, but that piece seems a (surprisingly?) well presented article.
The argument for US-First-Amendment-style preference for free speech above any other right is, frankly, puerile - like so much of American judicial politics, not least the stupid arguments over the Second Amendment. The US First Amendment, of course, espouses freedom to exercise religion (any religion) before it mentions freedom of speech. Nowhere does it suggest that freedom of speech should trump all other rights. The Ninth Amendment ought to be used more by those against whom hate speech is directed: this preserves rights under common law not expressly protected in other clauses, so the right to live peaceably and be free from abuse or invective, for example, might be defended under the 9th amendment. For some reason, though, lawyers are apparently reluctant to use it, and courts reluctant to hear arguments based on it. Even in the US, freedom of speech is not absolute, nor should it be, but to my mind it's held in too high a regard by the courts at the expense of other rights. I think the UK has gone too far in the other direction with its erosion of rights for accused awaiting trial (removal of right to silence; restriction of provisions against double jeopardy) and some of the law used in the case in the OP (which I wasn't aware of until I looked them up up-thread). Canada used to tread a reasonably sane path between these two; Harper's government seems determined to undo much of the work that has been done in the past. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
I'm no expert on the American constitution, and have to admit after looking up the Ninth Amendment (even post coffee) am none the wiser. :(
Broadly, however, I think the idea of limiting "hate speech" is a dangerous one, as it pushes it underground, but more worryingly, inhibits criticism where criticism is warranted (i.e. religion). As long as no threats are being made, people should be free and encouraged to say what they want. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11258376)
I'm no expert on the American constitution, and have to admit after looking up the Ninth Amendment (even post coffee) am none the wiser. :(
Broadly, however, I think the idea of limiting "hate speech" is a dangerous one, as it pushes it underground, but more worryingly, inhibits criticism where criticism is warranted (i.e. religion). As long as no threats are being made, people should be free and encouraged to say what they want. I think there's an interesting illustration of the difficulties in reconciling a legal position with public opinion, in the case of the racist basketball man. I suppose you could argue that he has a right to say to his mistress that he doesn't want her to associate with black people. But equally, the NBA council has a right to decide that his position is damaging to their organisation, and use his utterances as grounds to ban him. Neither side has broken any laws; it's a difficult circle to square between one's right to hold an unpleasant view, one's right to express that view, and one's right to impose that view on others. Limiting the first would smack of Orwellian thought-police; failing to limit the third would allow totalitarianism to grow unchecked. Exactly where the pendulum stops in the middle seems to be the crux of the debate here. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11258653)
I only knew about the ninth amendment because I saw a reference to it in relation to an article on this subject a couple of days ago... ;)
I think there's an interesting illustration of the difficulties in reconciling a legal position with public opinion, in the case of the racist basketball man. I suppose you could argue that he has a right to say to his mistress that he doesn't want her to associate with black people. But equally, the NBA council has a right to decide that his position is damaging to their organisation, and use his utterances as grounds to ban him. Neither side has broken any laws; it's a difficult circle to square between one's right to hold an unpleasant view, one's right to express that view, and one's right to impose that view on others. Limiting the first would smack of Orwellian thought-police; failing to limit the third would allow totalitarianism to grow unchecked. Exactly where the pendulum stops in the middle seems to be the crux of the debate here. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11258727)
Yes. Although in that case he didn't do any serious imposing. He is now cleverly (possibly honestly) back peddling on his remarks by saying they were a result of jealousy. Anyway, I suppose that's an occupational hazard when having a mistress 50 years junior to oneself. ;)
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11258732)
That, I simply don't believe. I heard a snippet from his TV interview replayed on the radio. What a snivelling, simpering, odious performance. He makes Oscar Pistorius look like a credible witness.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11258653)
I only knew about the ninth amendment because I saw a reference to it in relation to an article on this subject a couple of days ago... ;)
I think there's an interesting illustration of the difficulties in reconciling a legal position with public opinion, in the case of the racist basketball man. I suppose you could argue that he has a right to say to his mistress that he doesn't want her to associate with black people. But equally, the NBA council has a right to decide that his position is damaging to their organisation, and use his utterances as grounds to ban him. Neither side has broken any laws; it's a difficult circle to square between one's right to hold an unpleasant view, one's right to express that view, and one's right to impose that view on others. Limiting the first would smack of Orwellian thought-police; failing to limit the third would allow totalitarianism to grow unchecked. Exactly where the pendulum stops in the middle seems to be the crux of the debate here. |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11258829)
Precisely, its why censorship should never be imposed. In fact, as John Stuart Mill suggested, even in a society where everybody agreed on the truth, beauty and value except one person, that they not only have the right to express such country view but its to our benefit to listen toe such appalling and offensive views. Take climate change, we're all now taught that man is destroying the earth, reeking havoc on our ecosystem and causing the ice caps to melt and the seas to rise, but unless we listen to those who oppose these views, how sure are we in our views? Unless we listen to the dissenters we run the risk of falling into the false security of consensus. Unfortunately in a free society we have to put up with opposing views however unpleasant they are otherwise limiting speech and sending people to prison is a slippery slope, plus, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Speech should be absolutely free from censorship if we want to be free.
And anyway, who could trust the opinions of a man who, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11258861)
Oh good Lord, if you're going to bring John Stuart Mill into it we're only half a step away from invoking Ayn Rand on the subject, and that would be extremely distasteful. Sure, one of the reasons the US constitution includes the provisions of the Bill of Rights is to protect against Mill's Tyrrany of the Majority (and yes, i know the timelines don't match. Adams and de Tocqueville had said their piece by then, though hadn't they?). But even Mill put limits on freedoms through the principle of harm. If the consequences of the annoying Welshman's tweets, or of the basketball owner's admonitions to his mistress, are harmful to society, then they should not be tolerated. Defining what is harmful to society is the job of the legislature. Single-issue lobby groups (orten minority-interest groups) have been shown to have undue influence in the framing of such laws, so in fact the tyrrany of the majority is, to all intents and purposes, a 19th century myth which has no place in a modern Western democracy.
And anyway, who could trust the opinions of a man who, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11258829)
Precisely, its why censorship should never be imposed. In fact, as John Stuart Mill suggested, even in a society where everybody agreed on the truth, beauty and value except one person, that they not only have the right to express such country view but its to our benefit to listen toe such appalling and offensive views. Take climate change, we're all now taught that man is destroying the earth, reeking havoc on our ecosystem and causing the ice caps to melt and the seas to rise, but unless we listen to those who oppose these views, how sure are we in our views? Unless we listen to the dissenters we run the risk of falling into the false security of consensus. Unfortunately in a free society we have to put up with opposing views however unpleasant they are otherwise limiting speech and sending people to prison is a slippery slope, plus, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Speech should be absolutely free from censorship if we want to be free.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11259091)
Getting some learned commentary here from you two. :thumbup: So what is to be done when censorship already exists within a society? Say blasphemy laws?
If god's not bothered enough to do anything about it, who are we mere mortals to argue? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11259107)
Toss the lot of them, and if god is offended he can smite the miscreants down with thunderbolts rather than let petty humans decide in such things.
If god's not bothered enough to do anything about it, who are we mere mortals to argue? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11258871)
Brilliant. :rofl:
for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection. I agree with you that listening to the loons denying climate change helps to illustrate and enlighten the debate, if only be enabling sensible people to point out the idiocy and hypocrisy of the deniers' position. But that's a different matter from saying you don't want your girlfriend to hang out with black people, or saying you'd like to have killed all the teachers. Is it harmful to society to poison the minds of impressionable young people by spouting white-supremacist invective? Is is harmful to society if you suggest that holders of a particular religious belief are inferior to the rest of humanity and ought to be destroyed? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11259091)
Getting some learned commentary here from you two. :thumbup: So what is to be done when censorship already exists within a society? Say blasphemy laws?
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11259144)
By definition, a society that has blasphemy laws is not free.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11259118)
why the rofl? This is Mill's own position
"Society" elects the legislature. The legislature reflects society's opnion, supposedly. I've never studied moral philosophy formally beyond a short course in high school, but from an interested layman's perspective, the modern interpretation of hands-off libertarianism does not square with Mill's own reflections on the principle of harm. Where this runs into moral fudging is where the line between "offensive" and "harmful" is drawn. Overstepping that line brings you into conflict with the law. Where that line is drawn is a function of the legal framework of whatever country you're in, whether you think that's a risible idea or not. I agree with you that listening to the loons denying climate change helps to illustrate and enlighten the debate, if only be enabling sensible people to point out the idiocy and hypocrisy of the deniers' position. But that's a different matter from saying you don't want your girlfriend to hang out with black people, or saying you'd like to have killed all the teachers. Is it harmful to society to poison the minds of impressionable young people by spouting white-supremacist invective? Is is harmful to society if you suggest that holders of a particular religious belief are inferior to the rest of humanity and ought to be destroyed? |
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 11259186)
I laughed as I've never seen anyone try and use Mill as a justification to the suppression of free speech as it appears you were doing. But, the notion of harm and it is the only limitation on free speech Mill places that I can see, is obviously a direct harm, as in a immediate threat, libel or slander or as Mills states "a positive instigation to some mischievous act." What I believe is clear about Mill’s position is that he does not think it proper to prevent words being spoken because people will be offended by them.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11259212)
I obviously need to read some Mill, then :) The snippets I looked up at lunchtime today lead me to suspect it's not exactly the easiest prose to get through, but I see nothing to disagree with in what you've said here. I guess it's all about where the line is between being offended and being in genuine fear of harm. That is probably necessarily a somewhat subjective thing. As in, I am mildly miffed, you are deeply offended, he is running for his life... :)
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian
(Post 11259184)
Jesus effin Christ can't we all agree that there is no such thing as true free speech regardless if we agree or not.
|
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
Oink this one is right up your street so to speak. Should this book be banned the Kamloops School District says No.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...over-1.2641622 |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:55 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.