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.

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.

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.

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.






It is not an absolute right in the US either (ie. one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater).

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

I haven't heard him, but he does look a bit of a lizard, so I will take your word on it. Probably could afford a good PR man.

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.

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?

Brilliant.

Getting some learned commentary here from you two. So what is to be done when censorship already exists within a society? Say blasphemy laws?