Is it time to revisit the concept of freedom of speech? - Page 7 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

@john21. I have to make the small point that Scottish law and English law are not the same thing. Afaik everything we're discussing here is going to be much the same apart possibly from process.

That aside. Yes it's very clear which groups and this site looks pretty good if you want more info: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...10/index2.html

So it cannot be political affiliation and intent/motivation is very important.

I get that in regard to hate crimes. What I’m referring to is the charge he was convicted of:

Communications Act 2003 section 127
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

That doesn’t appear to restrict the charge to only hate crimes. My take is that it could be applied to anyone so long as “the message is liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates.” And as I said, I didn't run across anything that legally restricted the "whom" in question to "race, religion, sexual orientation, etc."

Quote

05-06-2019 , 04:58 PM

#152

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,846

Interesting. it appears you're correct and it is only related to recent hate speech laws.

It's the law we have had for ages on offensive material via telecommunications. Updated to to take account of new tech and hate speech in 2013 "whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003

as I my have mentioned we don't have a right to free speech in the UK. I seriously doubt the nazi cat thing would have come remotely close to the bar for prosecution without the 'aggravating' revision mentioned above.

Quote

05-06-2019 , 05:08 PM

#153

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,846

The whole section on malicious communications is interesting

Quote:

Malicious communications
Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[9] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[10] The section has been used controversially to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[11]

On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[12][13][14]

Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[15] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.

Quote

05-06-2019 , 06:02 PM

#154

OmgGlutten!

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 5,273

The issue is that social media was too slow to reign in the false prophets and now 25% of the population thinks 911 was a conspiracy and that vaccines cause autism. previously, these people would largely be exposed when you showed up to their meeting and realized they lived in a van down by the river.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 12:17 AM

#155

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

The whole section on malicious communications is interesting

That’s what I ran across as well, hence my reference to “prosecutorial discretion” and “guidelines.” So is it fair to say that within your system if 51% are okay with prosecuting the “grossly offensive” in regard to political messaging there aren’t any legal restrictions in doing so? I'm sure you can guess my position, so I'm not arguing, just curious.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 02:27 AM

#156

Shandrax

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,818

History of free speech:

In the beginning there was no speech, just voices.
Then someone invented speech.
Then someone invented rules.
Then speech got restricted, because someone wanted to make certain people shut up.
Then there was a revolution by those who were supposed to shut up.
Then the concept of free speech got (re)introduced by them.
Now free speech gets restricted, because someone wants to make certain people shut up.

Who is that someone and who are those certain people?

Quote

05-07-2019 , 12:01 PM

#157

jjjou812

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,601

The people in power have normally been the advocates for restricting the dissenter's speech. Today, what is interesting is the people who want speech restrictions are the dissenters not in power.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 12:43 PM

#158

Slighted

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 16,758

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjou812

The people in power have normally been the advocates for restricting the dissenter's speech. Today, what is interesting is the people who want speech restrictions are the dissenters not in power.

you have a president trying to suppress the free expression of the press and anyone he disagrees with. He has routinely pleaded for stricter libel/slander laws to restrict free speech further. he dismissively labels everything he disagrees with as "fake" and tries to not let those people ask questions..

and he's ACTUALLY under the first amendment, because he's the government.

but yeah its the left that "want(s) speech restrictions"..

Quote

05-07-2019 , 01:27 PM

#159

Kurn, son of Mogh

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 16,231

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slighted

It's not like both sides don't try to restrict speech:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama...r-on_b_3635370

Quote

05-07-2019 , 01:57 PM

#160

Slighted

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 16,758

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurn, son of Mogh

It's not like both sides don't try to restrict speech:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama...r-on_b_3635370

this article is about the criminal prosecution of a source.

your own link says, "obama touts introducing a shield law to protect journalists" but wanted a national security exception.

this is clearly analogous to what trump has done...not at all..

whataboutism failed..

Quote

05-07-2019 , 02:13 PM

#161

Kurn, son of Mogh

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 16,231

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slighted

My point is they all try to restrict freedom somehow. Trump may be worse, but any restriction leads to a slippery slope.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 02:14 PM

#162

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,846

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Sorry I wasn't clear here, by "polis" I meant the body of citizens of a country, not the police.

opps ok, sorry. I'm still not at all sure that is true.I belive it's better to focus on the good qualities of people than most seem to but it's not because I don't recognise the bad.

Quote:

I've been influenced in my thinking here by the argument in Why Nations Fail that strong institutions that are inclusive rather than extractive are a major component in the long-term success of a nation. A strong rule of law that protects the minority rights of citizens is one of the most prominent examples of such an institution, so I'm very leery of weakening it by making exceptions to benefit specific groups. I tend to think that such exceptions over time will be taken advantage by elites or used as an excuse by elites to make other exceptions that do so.

I think we're always going to come back to our fundamental disagreement which is on how much constitutional rights help as opposed to English law type systems. Note I'm not opposed to rights in themselves - I very much don't want the UK to leave the European Court of Human Rights.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 02:34 PM

#163

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,846

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

On the legal side I don't think there's a 51% test at all. If 51% object greatly (far less in practice if it's an objection to prosecution) then you can expect the law to be changed but that's very different to a poll of what people think.

I appreciate you don't like this approach but it's at least useful/interesting to see how it works for me as well (for me as well - this is largely new). We have another possible case breaking in the news today. And if this isn't good fodder for a forum then ...

Quote:

Police are looking into remarks by UKIP candidate Carl Benjamin after Labour MP Jess Phillips accused him of malicious communications.

Mr Benjamin, who is standing in the European elections, tweeted that he "wouldn't even rape" Ms Phillips.

He has refused to apologise for the remark made in 2016, arguing that "any subject can be the subject of a joke."

Ms Phillips told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme she "cried in the street" after hearing a video by him.

She said that until then she "had been putting a brave face on it and pretending that it was all fine and that I could cope".

The Birmingham MP has called for people who "promote rape and sexual violence" to have a lifetime ban from running for elected office.

After the interview, UKIP's official Twitter feed posted: "The year is 2019, jokes you'd hear down the pub are now worthy of police investigation."

...

The MP for Birmingham Yardley told Victoria Derbyshire she did not fear for her physical safety, but worried for her mental health after thousands of messages from Twitter users attacking her in the last year alone.

"Sometimes I would rather someone punch me in the face than the constant degradation you suffer as a woman in the public eye," she said. "It is constant, it constantly belittles you, it makes you blame yourself."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48185348
I suspect it wont be prosecuted (or will fail) we will see. I'm as certain as I can be that it wouldn't have even been considered before the hate speech changes.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 03:09 PM

#164

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjou812

The people in power have normally been the advocates for restricting the dissenter's speech. Today, what is interesting is the people who want speech restrictions are the dissenters not in power.

Disrupting dehumanizing influences and suppressing dissent are rather divergent impetuses. When the dehumanizing influence is in authority, it seems a matter of limiting authority.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 03:20 PM

#165

jjjou812

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,601

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slighted

Good point about the idiot in charge but the the government institutions are not, as far as I know, following through on his attempts. Assange is another example of the government hammering someone's speech.
I
I still think its a valid point that the requests to suppress speech are also coming from those not in power, through public pressure, hate speech laws and stopping others from public speaking.

Last edited by jjjou812; 05-07-2019 at 03:25 PM.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 07:13 PM

#166

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

I appreciate you don't like this approach but it's at least useful/interesting to see how it works for me as well (for me as well - this is largely new). We have another possible case breaking in the news today. And if this isn't good fodder for a forum then ...

Well I'm kind of the "rules are for the fools to obey and the wise to interpret" mentality, so I do appreciate it in that sense

For me maintaining free speech as a right is more of a hedge against what could go wrong than because I believe things inevitably will if repealed. The tenets of liberalism along with their self-corrective systems seem well enough established that the likelihood of tyranny (whether of the individual or mob variety) rearing its ugly head is extremely unlikely with the major long-established Western democracies.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 07:34 PM

#167

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,846

As always i think you're wrong about how much the constitution protects you and wrong about the risks of a parliamentary democracy instead. But I suppose we just have to agree to disagree on that.

More concretely we can observe that the UK has progressed from things like blasphemy laws (yeah we had that until 2008) to trying to protect people from hate on the base of race etc etc. From the bad use of the lack of right to free speech to a good one.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 08:43 PM

#168

turtletom

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 1,749

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

Well I'm kind of the "rules are for the fools to obey and the wise to interpret" mentality, so I do appreciate it in that sense

For me maintaining free speech as a right is more of a hedge against what could go wrong than because I believe things inevitably will if repealed. The tenets of liberalism along with their self-corrective systems seem well enough established that the likelihood of tyranny (whether of the individual or mob variety) rearing its ugly head is extremely unlikely with the major long-established Western democracies.

Its only been 100 years since democracy has been in Western Europe...

Quote

05-07-2019 , 10:08 PM

#169

glenrice1

grinder

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 653

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

From the bad use of the lack of right to free speech to a good one.

It is just swell to arrest people who sing that Kung Fu fighting song with such bigoted and hateful lyrics as that "funky Chinaman from Funky Chinatown"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...sing-plot.html

Nothing ever goes wrong with free speech bans. It is only those hateful Nazis who go to jail or get fined, or people who speak out against radical Islam in Canada. https://torontosun.com/2013/10/11/pr...a-30324748d003 https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/...peech-was-won/

Strangely Communists are never banned under hate speech laws. Though Communists do seem eager to ban free speech. https://www.cpusa.org/interact_cpusa...and-socialism/ Though they generously will let you use the term "snowflake" but within reason.

Last edited by glenrice1; 05-07-2019 at 10:17 PM.

Quote

05-08-2019 , 12:51 AM

#170

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Like they say, “You can’t legislate morality.” Obviously that’s false in a literal sense. But to your point, freedom of speech as a right does protect some from others imposing their morality on them. And I do think it's a good thing that we can’t when it’s 51/49 over important and highly contested issues like 2A for example; not so good when we're trying to hush up the idiots.

Quote

05-08-2019 , 12:56 AM

#171

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtletom

Its only been 100 years since democracy has been in Western Europe...

That sounds about right to me. Once a few generations are born into a new system and the old guard dies off, I think they’re way more likely to want to improve the way the system is dealing with the inevitable challenges that crop up than adopt a new one. For example I recall a poll/article that 50% of Russians born after the fall of the USSR thought the collapse was a bad thing compared to 80% who were born before. So I think if their republic makes its 100th anniversary, they’re good to go.

Quote

05-08-2019 , 06:18 PM

#172

pokerodox

The Situation

Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 4,889

I want to add this quote from AppleCrumble from another thread, because I think it is brilliant.

"[Free speech] is, quite straightforwardly, the cornerstone of civilisation, the right upon which other rights are built, and frankly the thing most worth fighting for.

...

Always needs defending though, and that naturally involves defending unpopular views.

Some people obviously try and asset that defence of someone's right to free speech constitutes an endorsement of what they're saying, but meh, most people see through that as a rhetorical tactic."

Quote

05-08-2019 , 06:19 PM

#173

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

It's a nice quote but it seems distinctly a-historical to say that free speech is straightforwardly the cornerstone of civilization.

Quote

05-08-2019 , 06:26 PM

#174

pokerodox

The Situation

Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 4,889

Agreed. You could add "free" or "modern" if you wanted. Probably "any free society" replacing "civilization" would be best.

Quote

05-09-2019 , 02:15 AM

#175

dzikijohnny

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,216

I am not sure how this works into the debate but the rest of the story about the McCarthy Era was that "yes, the people investigated were in fact almost all communists sympathetic if not outright controlled by the Soviet Union. Not sure if that supports ending free speech or keeping it.

Quote

Page 7 of 18

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 7 of 18

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17

Last