Free speech or hate speech?
May 8th 2014 | 9:29 am
#31
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
I think it's all quite alarming.
We are now deemed capable of being offended by people we may never have met posting things we may never have read.
Don't get me wrong, only a fool would put into print some of the more outrageous comments we all make from time to time, but showing yourself up to be a fool should not be a criminal offence.
We are now deemed capable of being offended by people we may never have met posting things we may never have read.
Don't get me wrong, only a fool would put into print some of the more outrageous comments we all make from time to time, but showing yourself up to be a fool should not be a criminal offence.
May 8th 2014 | 9:34 am
#32
Lowering the tone
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,154
From: Here and there
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
One prime example of that is this American basketball owner who is now being vilified for his alleged racist comments made in private. I disagree with what he said/thought, but it's a bit scary how the NBA and US media suddenly start acting like Orwellian thought police and crush the guy.
The law is quite different. Sterling, as far as I am aware, has not been charged or convicted of any criminal offence in relation to his comments.
May 8th 2014 | 9:41 am
#33
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
I disagree, the NBA and the media are private organisations who deal with the guy (Donald Sterling). He has to face the public and commercial response to his opinions, whether intended or not.
The law is quite different. Sterling, as far as I am aware, has not been charged or convicted of any criminal offence in relation to his comments.
The law is quite different. Sterling, as far as I am aware, has not been charged or convicted of any criminal offence in relation to his comments.
May 8th 2014 | 9:50 am
#35
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
May 8th 2014 | 9:57 am
#36
Thread Starter
.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 20,188
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
May 8th 2014 | 11:32 am
#38
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 466
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
This thread reminds me of one of my favourite quotes:
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
May 8th 2014 | 9:27 pm
#39
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
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.
May 9th 2014 | 12:57 am
#40
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,908
From: Oakville, ON
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
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.
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.
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
May 9th 2014 | 1:24 am
#41
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
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
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
May 9th 2014 | 2:05 am
#42
Thread Starter
.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 20,188
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
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.
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.
May 9th 2014 | 10:29 am
#43
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 18,800
From: Not in Paris
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.
(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.
Last edited by BritInParis; May 9th 2014 at 10:32 am.
May 9th 2014 | 11:37 am
#44
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,244
From: Toronto, ON
Re: Free speech or hate speech?
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
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.
May 9th 2014 | 12:28 pm
#45
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,578
From: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
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
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
