Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Orwell warned us about the dangers of criminalizing ideas.

The state should regulate action, not thought. If you want to lynch me, that's fine, just so long as you don't attempt to turn your dream into a reality. You can believe whatever you like; doing it is another matter.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

I could not agree more.

*goes to lie down*

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

The effects of speech can be actionable. Fraud, assault, abuse, lying, stirring up trouble, harassment, doing someone out of a job, ruining a reputation, those are the things that can be identified. But someone saying, for example, "Oh, all Hungarian-American women are nothing but worthless thieving lazy baggage" doesn't injure me unless they cause someone to take action harming me. If, as is more likely to happen in the circles in which I move, they get dirty looks and comments like "that was a shitty thing to say, asshole", they had their free speech, they said what they said, they're not criminals, but they get a clear message that their ideas are disapproved of.

That's how it's supposed to work. Good people doing something to get it across to bad people that they'd better wise up, thanks, we want a good society around here.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

And barring the public expression of that speech doesn't make the ideas go away, it just drives them underground.

I can see limited, exceptional cases where targeted speech bans might be justified, such as banning the Nazis and Nazi symbolism in Germany. (They obviously didn't cope so well with those, and we certainly don't want to make it easier for them to band together and get back into the governance business.) But I can't see why that would be necessary in the US or, for that matter, in the UK.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Sorry, I'm sceptical. I don't see that those people (your examples of words) would have committed an offence, and whether there would be a prosecution. I find that there is a lot of loose talk about people being prosecuted for using offensive language, but not that many actual cases where the police decided to pursue a prosecution, and actually succeeded in obtaining a conviction. And for obvious reasons, the police are reluctant to prosecute unless they have a good chance of a conviction.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

However, speech and publication is a form of action. The legislation in the UK, though not perfect .. apparently, it was first introduced in 1986 and amended on several occasions since ... is very limited in intent, and cannot be said to criminalise any thought or ideas.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Only in limited circumstances.

If I say that I hate you and hope that your future is an unpleasant one, then that's fine.

If I try to encourage others to kill you and provide my minions with details that would aid them in hastening your demise, then that would probably be conspiracy, which is a crime.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

The line gets fuzzy with things like a diet of bile against 'scrounging foreigners' in tabloids, for example, which can incite violence in practice.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

I wonder if it does. Mostly these things are caused by people with such room temperature IQs that I doubt they read tabloids.

Steve

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

"A state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges"

Oxford and Cambridge has had it's fair share of scrutiny regarding the level of equality, based on social demographics in regards to their admissions. It's been publicized on numerous occasions.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Even that is real tricky. There has now been two deaths of children in the US because of parents using the book “To Train Up a Child” and the author has never been charged and probably never will be even if more children are killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/us...king.html?_r=0

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...dge-race-class

Not really...... Ok a little exaggerated, but pretty close.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

It's dangerous, and it's fueling an extremely irrational consensus.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

So what, your "fact" is beyond tosh, whatever the publicity that its received. The point is that although only 10% of kids in the UK are privately educated, as MANY as 42% of Oxbridge candidates are from those institutions.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

But if students with a private school education are better prepared for an Oxford or Cambridge education, shouldn't they get the places?