Free Speech in the UK

[Pontifex Maximus]

So then hypersensitivity regarding race is seen as a necessary evil to stave off the bad old days of racially motivated labor disputes? It's easy to recognize that this sort of blatant racism (hating people because of the color of their skin) is entirely ridiculous. As an American I believe this doesn't forfeit the racist's right to engage in racist speech. The correct thing is to then exercise your own speech in opposition to it. It's how we defeated Jim Crow. It seems the British extend the line from classic racism all the way to disparaging a culture based on their beliefs. This falls even more outside the line of classic racism which chills the free exchange of speech and ideas, and is absolutely reprehensible to me as an American. What makes it worse is the double standard, we can use comedy related to Christianity and Islam as an example. Comedy directed towards Islam is generally met with outright violence at the worst and silencing or finger wagging at the best. Mainstream criticism of Christianity meets with finger wagging at worst and well...that's it really and it doesn't happen very often at that. Now, I'm not advocating that we silence comedy related to christianity the same way we tend to with Islam. I'm saying treat them both the same; both should be fair game.

The logic is flawed. This is what I see:

1. Dog owner teaches a dog to lift its paw in what looks like a Nazi salute
2. Nazi salutes are bad because it reminds us of the Nazis
3. Seeing a Nazi salute (from a dog???) appears to normalize Nazism in the mainstream culture and will make Nazi ideas more appealing
4. The dog owner must be punished
5. Society is made better by having fewer references to a Nazi salute in it.

If this isn't Orwellian I don't know what is. Also one of the few times I agree with a CNN editorial oddly enough. If you can be prosecuted under British law for teaching your dog a trick, even if it is in poor taste (which I don't think it is), then it makes complete sense to me they would just arbitrarily ban people from entering the country based upon their views, past lunch companions, or even if they have been known to teach their dogs how to point to a sign reading "arbeit macht frei" and barking withe approval. Furthermore, I don't consider any of this to be good policy.

[Love Mountain]

Both are fair game. The issue is that Christianity is not equated with being socially and economically backward. Whereas the main vector of attack against Islam is that it promotes the kind of social backwardness we see in the Middle East. Hence the constant insinuation that Christian countries are superior to Islam on the basis of religion. Similarly, the constant promotion that Islam is incompatible with Christianity. The main criticism of Christianity in America stems from the fact that religion is often used as an argument against gay marriage, abortion, etc. I.e. it is used to promote social backwardness. Otherwise, "liberals" and "progressives" are just as likely to criticize Islam for doing basically the same thing if not worse. The difference is, Christianity is a major demographic group and therefore has significant political power, Islam does not. This is part of the reason why Christianity is targeted "more" by liberal elements than Islam.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Both are fair game. The issue is that Christianity is not equated with being socially and economically backward. Whereas the main vector of attack against Islam is that it promotes the kind of social backwardness we see in the Middle East. Hence the constant insinuation that Christian countries are superior to Islam on the basis of religion. Similarly, the constant promotion that Islam is incompatible with Christianity. The main criticism of Christianity in America stems from the fact that religion is often used as an argument against gay marriage, abortion, etc. I.e. it is used to promote social backwardness. Otherwise, "liberals" and "progressives" are just as likely to criticize Islam for doing basically the same thing if not worse. The difference is, Christianity is a major demographic group and therefore has significant political power, Islam does not. This is part of the reason why Christianity is targeted "more" by liberal elements than Islam.

I can meet you halfway here. Certainly Islam does have a target on its back. However, is that target justified in terms of the creation of policy which leads to tighter discrimination of immigrants from Muslim majority countries? Likely it does. The legal standard in the US for discrimination on the basis of race, religion or any other protected class is the strict scrutiny test: Congress must have promulgated the law to advance a compelling governmental interest, and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. This is sort of opening up a can of worms though which might threaten to veer us off topic so maybe this is a debate saved for another time. I think it is valuable to recognize some basic guidelines that does allow the governemnt to discriminate, however.

I will also add that Christianity is often equated with being socially backwards in certain contexts and I would argue that where Christianity might be considered backwards Islam might be considered fundamentally dangerous. Let's take the LGBT issue. In America I cannot marry another man in a Catholic church. This is seen as an example of inherent homophobia in the Catholic church (in fact it is not, they don't hate homosexuals they just have a different way of defining marriage in their own religious context. Don't agree? Then convert to something that does and leave them alone). Now, if I come out of the closet in Iran, I can and will likely be executed. In the sense that in a Muslim country I would be executed and in a Christian country I would merely be denied the ability to marry someone in the church of my choice (why someone would want to be married...or have a cake made for them...in a place where they aren't recognized is beyond me). Some societies have better ideas than others. Not executing gays is probably a better idea than executing them. So when we allow these sorts of mass migrations which threaten to undermine western values in the face of ideas which are not only worse but don't work, we should take issue with it and exercise our rights to fight against changing society for the worse. Do we want to return to an era where Homosexuality is a crime? Of course not. This is why I don't understand the Left's obsession with protecting all these disparate groups (well I do, it's to foment fear of the evil WASPs in Congress and cobble together a minority coalition) because the Muslim contingent can't really totally get on board with the LGBT contingent from an ideological standpoint.

Christians are a majority religious faction in western politics, yes, but there is scant evidence they ever truly try to legislate their morality or that they are successful in doing so. One might expect a religious majority like that of christians that, if they had the collective desire and will to do so, could advance sweeping changes to the legal landscape in a short period of time. Their continual loss of the abortion battles in courts all over the country are evidence that they really aren't as powerful as all that, and this is the flagship issue for Christians in the United States.

[Love Mountain]

Oh it most certainly is. Islam is far more backwards than Christianity if we are to compare them side by side as they are practiced in their "home" region. This is precisely why you will often find me supporting authoritarians like Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam, and Mubarak over "democratic" Islamic regimes. Authoritarians tend to keep religious elements in check if not outright deny them a political platform. We can certainly agree there, I am no friend of Islamic regimes like Iran, nor am I a friend of promoting Islamic values anywhere in the West and I think that siding with Islamic democracies is especially dangerous in the Middle East. A secular future should be a top priority if we are intent on re-organizing the Middle East to our liking. For all of the criticism that Saudi Arabia gets and deserves, (especially the role of Saudi money in indirectly promoting Wahhabism) they are largely a secular country that maintain a regime based on royal succession lines and keep the power of religion firmly outside the power structure. We should strive to promote similar regimes in surrounding countries like Syria. Only when these countries are civilized enough to understand the value of secularism, can they transition towards a more democratic structure.

In contrast, I find Islam to be fairly non-existent as a threat to Western democracies. I don't mean in terms of terrorism, I mean in terms of cultural shifts. Islam is not particularly popular among anyone in the West. While you can make a substantial argument that defending Islam has become fashionable among college graduates, in politics, etc, I have never seen any sort of movement that would promote embracing Islamic values or even outright converting to Islam. I think the main debate today is whether Islam should be allowed in the West which is I think is not a conversation people should be having. The answer should be Yes, of course people should be free to practice what they believe in as long as they obey the law. The law should also respect religious rights of religions that we might not even agree with. Let's take the burqa ban for example. It is perfectly understandable if they are banned in confidential areas like say... government work, or anywhere where identification is a key part of the process. Like driving for example, where seeing your face is kind of necessary if you get pulled over. However, there should absolutely not be laws that regulate private behavior in public or private spaces where these procedures are not necessary. To that end, Islamic elements are not weakening Western values by insisting on practicing their culture where possible, instead we weaken our own values by not applying them equally to all religions.

I think, to develop on this further, the question of just how much "accommodation" should be afforded to different religions is a debate very much worth having. For example, should Turbans be allowed in picture IDs? In this case the answer is yes, since most turbans are pretty much life-long "attire". It's acceptable for the practice of identification. Should Burqas be allowed in schools? I would argue that no, they are not, because identification is necessary for basic things like making sure the student is not cheating on tests. In other words, places where Islam clashes with everyday procedures should be examined on practical criteria rather than cultural ones. I also think its completely fair for the right to criticize Islamic schools in the West. It's perfectly fair that they should meet minimum education criteria that we expect in all schools. I also think its acceptable for these Islamic schools to also be focused on cultural indoctrination as long as it's not discriminatory. Gender issues for example, if the curriculum emphasizes inferiority of women or restricts them in some way, that provides sufficient grounds for investigating that school and demanding changes. However, a focus on the historical aspect of Burqas and giving an opt-out option for those in an Islamic school for female students? Why not. So long as it's not forced permanently or for domination. Protecting the rights of these groups to practice and promote their culture within Western society is perfectly acceptable as long as these cultural groups agree to work within the parameters of Western laws.

Finally, on the topic of Christianity in politics, I don't think they are as big of a political bloc in Europe as they are in America. I am also not suggesting that they are the primary power behind the Republican party or that they are a homogeneous group. No, of course not. However, various religious factions in America do wield significant influence, and they are capable of pushing their agenda onto the political arena. The long battle of gay marriage is a powerful example of that. They are a powerful political bloc, but they obviously do not have the power to single-handedly change the law, nor is that what I am suggesting. I think a lot of flak that Christianity gets is fairly warranted. I'd also like to emphasize that while a lot of this anti-Christian rhetoric seems excessive, Christian institutions are nevertheless allowed to operate Christian schools that push curriculum that I think most of us would not agree with. Creationism and anti-Science rhetoric should be carefully taught and I fear that many Christians would rather teach these topics in a manner that's harmful to kids' education. Criticizing the existence of such schools and similar failings of Christianity in the West I think is fair, just as the rather tired narrative of "protecting" Islam in the West from Western oppression is also fair. Muslims are a minority in our societies and we must be careful about how we govern their religion because there are things in Islam that are unacceptable, but we must forbid these things strictly on pragmatic reasons rather than cultural ones.

[swabian]

Oh it most certainly is. Islam is far more backwards than Christianity if we are to compare them side by side as they are practiced in their "home" region. This is precisely why you will often find me supporting authoritarians like Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam, and Mubarak over "democratic" Islamic regimes.

But woe if some Europeans make you understand something. Can't but look down on dread Europe... Despicable.

[mongrel]

So then hypersensitivity regarding race is seen as a necessary evil to stave off the bad old days of racially motivated labor disputes? It's easy to recognize that this sort of blatant racism (hating people because of the color of their skin) is entirely ridiculous. As an American I believe this doesn't forfeit the racist's right to engage in racist speech. The correct thing is to then exercise your own speech in opposition to it. It's how we defeated Jim Crow. It seems the British extend the line from classic racism all the way to disparaging a culture based on their beliefs. This falls even more outside the line of classic racism which chills the free exchange of speech and ideas, and is absolutely reprehensible to me as an American. What makes it worse is the double standard, we can use comedy related to Christianity and Islam as an example. Comedy directed towards Islam is generally met with outright violence at the worst and silencing or finger wagging at the best. Mainstream criticism of Christianity meets with finger wagging at worst and well...that's it really and it doesn't happen very often at that. Now, I'm not advocating that we silence comedy related to christianity the same way we tend to with Islam. I'm saying treat them both the same; both should be fair game.

The logic is flawed. This is what I see:

1. Dog owner teaches a dog to lift its paw in what looks like a Nazi salute
2. Nazi salutes are bad because it reminds us of the Nazis
3. Seeing a Nazi salute (from a dog???) appears to normalize Nazism in the mainstream culture and will make Nazi ideas more appealing
4. The dog owner must be punished
5. Society is made better by having fewer references to a Nazi salute in it.

If this isn't Orwellian I don't know what is. Also one of the few times I agree with a CNN editorial oddly enough. If you can be prosecuted under British law for teaching your dog a trick, even if it is in poor taste (which I don't think it is), then it makes complete sense to me they would just arbitrarily ban people from entering the country based upon their views, past lunch companions, or even if they have been known to teach their dogs how to point to a sign reading "arbeit macht frei" and barking withe approval. Furthermore, I don't consider any of this to be good policy.

"Speech" as you call it wasn't the problem. as evidenced by the willingness of TV and radio at the time to use racist language. It was the effect of the mindset of privileged working class white people, and they were , lets face it, who thought that regardless of worth or talent, they could demand the best pay or jobs, simply because they they were white men and were willing to hold their employers or indeed the country to ransom to maintain that. I don't describe maintaining equal pay and fair job application procedures as "hypersensitivity". It is commonsense. This kind of racism and sexism was defeated by a mixture of new laws and direct action. The unions has over a century to treat all workers properly, they had their chance.Any further "talk" would have been needless pandering. America has a history of considering of boasting of freedom, but actively denying basic rights to many of their own citizens, particular black ones, killing many who resisted..I can imagine why black people had done talking by the 1960s.

On the issue of religion again wrong. When Britain has blasphemy laws Gay News was done for imagining a gay Christ and Life of Brian was banned in some areas. What violent Muslamic reactions to stuff in the UK? Iran issued the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. It was French Muslims who reacted to Charlie Hebdo. The closest you will find is Anjem Choudury and the beheading placards. He's behind bars so.....Thing is that the Gay News article and the Satanic Verses were legitimate examples of artistic impression. Mobs of drunken racists shouting Allah is a paedo in the vicinity of a Hindhu Temple, does not fit in that c ategory.

As far as Nazibabe is concerned, if she was a genuine LGBT activist or just a regular Islamophobe of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali variety ,she would not be on the radar. But mix with extremists hovering around the fringe of proscribed groups, then all bets are off. Thi sapproach is far more proportionate and targeted than Trump's flight bans.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Oh it most certainly is. Islam is far more backwards than Christianity if we are to compare them side by side as they are practiced in their "home" region. This is precisely why you will often find me supporting authoritarians like Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam, and Mubarak over "democratic" Islamic regimes. Authoritarians tend to keep religious elements in check if not outright deny them a political platform. We can certainly agree there, I am no friend of Islamic regimes like Iran, nor am I a friend of promoting Islamic values anywhere in the West and I think that siding with Islamic democracies is especially dangerous in the Middle East. A secular future should be a top priority if we are intent on re-organizing the Middle East to our liking. For all of the criticism that Saudi Arabia gets and deserves, (especially the role of Saudi money in indirectly promoting Wahhabism) they are largely a secular country that maintain a regime based on royal succession lines and keep the power of religion firmly outside the power structure. We should strive to promote similar regimes in surrounding countries like Syria. Only when these countries are civilized enough to understand the value of secularism, can they transition towards a more democratic structure.

Then we agree at least on these points.

In contrast, I find Islam to be fairly non-existent as a threat to Western democracies. I don't mean in terms of terrorism, I mean in terms of cultural shifts. Islam is not particularly popular among anyone in the West. While you can make a substantial argument that defending Islam has become fashionable among college graduates, in politics, etc, I have never seen any sort of movement that would promote embracing Islamic values or even outright converting to Islam. I think the main debate today is whether Islam should be allowed in the West which is I think is not a conversation people should be having. The answer should be Yes, of course people should be free to practice what they believe in as long as they obey the law. The law should also respect religious rights of religions that we might not even agree with. Let's take the burqa ban for example. It is perfectly understandable if they are banned in confidential areas like say... government work, or anywhere where identification is a key part of the process. Like driving for example, where seeing your face is kind of necessary if you get pulled over. However, there should absolutely not be laws that regulate private behavior in public or private spaces where these procedures are not necessary. To that end, Islamic elements are not weakening Western values by insisting on practicing their culture where possible, instead we weaken our own values by not applying them equally to all religions.

This is where we will part ways in our agreement I think. I don't fear a shift in values, but I am concerned about a clash of values which will lead to higher crime rates. Criminal behavior as dictated by a society is an outward reflection of that society's values. One society which may have laws significantly restricting the autonomy of women, for example, may lead jurors selected from that cultural background to discount the testimony of any female witnesses at a trial for example, or may erroneously lead to thinking that honor killings are acceptable in their new country. We've already seen a rise in violent crimes in Europe because of this. It appears that many immigrants from the Islamic world, maybe because of their religion or maybe because of some other factor, have some difficulty conforming to western values. This problem is exacerbated by their seeming unwillingness to assimilate (this statement should not be read as a sweeping generalization, of course there will be another portion more that willing to integrate into society and cause no harm whatsoever). Even if those who fail to assimilate are a minority, the data is on full display what kind of impacts that can have on a western nation.

We're on the same page with religious freedoms.

I think, to develop on this further, the question of just how much "accommodation" should be afforded to different religions is a debate very much worth having. For example, should Turbans be allowed in picture IDs? In this case the answer is yes, since most turbans are pretty much life-long "attire". It's acceptable for the practice of identification. Should Burqas be allowed in schools? I would argue that no, they are not, because identification is necessary for basic things like making sure the student is not cheating on tests. In other words, places where Islam clashes with everyday procedures should be examined on practical criteria rather than cultural ones. I also think its completely fair for the right to criticize Islamic schools in the West. It's perfectly fair that they should meet minimum education criteria that we expect in all schools. I also think its acceptable for these Islamic schools to also be focused on cultural indoctrination as long as it's not discriminatory. Gender issues for example, if the curriculum emphasizes inferiority of women or restricts them in some way, that provides sufficient grounds for investigating that school and demanding changes. However, a focus on the historical aspect of Burqas and giving an opt-out option for those in an Islamic school for female students? Why not. So long as it's not forced permanently or for domination. Protecting the rights of these groups to practice and promote their culture within Western society is perfectly acceptable as long as these cultural groups agree to work within the parameters of Western laws.

I agree with you up to the point of controlling religious curriculum. Unless the schools advocate for breaking the law with regards to guaranteed rights such as organizing an effort to deny women (inside or outside the school) the right to vote, I think there will be little to alter their teaching of women as inferior should that be something they wished to teach. As always, a private school is in most ways out of bounds of the government so long as the school can be accredited. I think an Islamic school would likely prevail in court if they could prove the state was attempting to control its religious curriculum under the three part Lemon test.

I'd also like to emphasize that while a lot of this anti-Christian rhetoric seems excessive, Christian institutions are nevertheless allowed to operate Christian schools that push curriculum that I think most of us would not agree with. Creationism and anti-Science rhetoric should be carefully taught and I fear that many Christians would rather teach these topics in a manner that's harmful to kids' education. Criticizing the existence of such schools and similar failings of Christianity in the West I think is fair, just as the rather tired narrative of "protecting" Islam in the West from Western oppression is also fair. Muslims are a minority in our societies and we must be careful about how we govern their religion because there are things in Islam that are unacceptable, but we must forbid these things strictly on pragmatic reasons rather than cultural ones.

I'm a product of 12 years of Catholic schooling which left me more or less hostile towards but now ambivalent towards religion. In the internet age information not taught in school is highly accessible to most anyone even in extremely sheltered environments. As far as governing them they should be treated no differently than anyone else. If a radical Christian right-wing militia was planning an attack on political targets I would want the government to investigate and take appropriate measures just as I would expect the same in the case of radicalization in a Mosque. There are a couple issues at play here namely that Muslims are more likely to engage in radicalized attacks of this nature and there's a trust issue. First generation immigrants, even their children and grandchildren, will almost inevitably face some level of suspicion. We've seen this in every era of American history whether the immigrants are Germans, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Chinese or what have you. There's a sense they haven't earned the trust of "native born" Americans. I'm not saying I think this is a healthy mentality but it in an inevitable mentality. It will get better with time. It is inconceivable that we would't elect someone to political office because he is a Catholic now, for example, but in 1964 it was a big deal.

"Speech" as you call it wasn't the problem. as evidenced by the willingness of TV and radio at the time to use racist language. It was the effect of the mindset of privileged working class white people, and they were , lets face it, who thought that regardless of worth or talent, they could demand the best pay or jobs, simply because they they were white men and were willing to hold their employers or indeed the country to ransom to maintain that. I don't describe maintaining equal pay and fair job application procedures as "hypersensitivity". It is commonsense. This kind of racism and sexism was defeated by a mixture of new laws and direct action. The unions has over a century to treat all workers properly, they had their chance.Any further "talk" would have been needless pandering. America has a history of considering of boasting of freedom, but actively denying basic rights to many of their own citizens, particular black ones, killing many who resisted..I can imagine why black people had done talking by the 1960s.

On the issue of religion again wrong. When Britain has blasphemy laws Gay News was done for imagining a gay Christ and Life of Brian was banned in some areas. What violent Muslamic reactions to stuff in the UK? Iran issued the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. It was French Muslims who reacted to Charlie Hebdo. The closest you will find is Anjem Choudury and the beheading placards. He's behind bars so.....Thing is that the Gay News article and the Satanic Verses were legitimate examples of artistic impression. Mobs of drunken racists shouting Allah is a paedo in the vicinity of a Hindhu Temple, does not fit in that c ategory.

As far as Nazibabe is concerned, if she was a genuine LGBT activist or just a regular Islamophobe of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali variety ,she would not be on the radar. But mix with extremists hovering around the fringe of proscribed groups, then all bets are off. Thi sapproach is far more proportionate and targeted than Trump's flight bans.

I'm not really contesting anything you're saying here but at what point, forty, fifty, sixty years on from these events, are we going to learn from mistakes and move on? Blasphemy laws are ridiculous and the UK was right to do away with them (If they have...). Nothing good comes from restricting speech and as for institutional laws promoting one race over another in any affirmative action or Jim Crow sense, I will oppose this. Equal treatment under the law is the only way to maintain a truly free society. Personal biases and racism does not factor into this equation until it runs up against a political agenda. Once it does, I'm confident that Big L Liberal safeguards and checks and balances can remove that person from becoming a threat to anyone's life or livelihood. These checks do not include banning someone from a country for a supposed racist remark or convicting them for a supposedly racist dog trick. This is political correctness at its worst.

[mongrel]

Nothing good came from unrestricted speech. Britain learned thids the hard way when it allowed various Islamist extremists to create havoc and bombs for the best part of the Blair years, and allowed some dubious outsiders to organise Britain's football hooligan network into organised neo-Nazi crusaders for an imaginary race war. It required a lot of effort to break up these people. If these restrictions were available earlier, scores of lives would have been saved for sure.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I'm not in favor of unrestricted speech. Even Justice White recanted his support of that in the wake of obvious problems.

Would you agree there is a qualitative difference between saying "All members of x race are genetically inferior" and "All members of x race should be killed" or "All members of x race should be denied the right to vote."

[mongrel]

I'm not in favor of unrestricted speech. Even Justice White recanted his support of that in the wake of obvious problems.

Would you agree there is a qualitative difference between saying "All members of x race are genetically inferior" and "All members of x race should be killed" or "All members of x race should be denied the right to vote."

What is said is less important as who is saying it and how it is applied. Take Islam 4 UK. On the surface, just a bunch of nutters holding placards saying 'behead those who defy Islam",their version of excercising 'free speech' . In practice, its leader was a facilitator for terrorism. We should never have indulged him for so long.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/16/who-is-anjem-choudary-the-firebrand-cleric-linked-to-a-string-of/.

The issue with Nazibabe isn't necessarily her politics, I could image a legitimate hard right politician like Wilders would get a hall pass. It is definitely who she mixes with. Any contact with Britain First is toxic, beasring in mind a recent terrorist event.

[Love Mountain]

This is where we will part ways in our agreement I think. I don't fear a shift in values, but I am concerned about a clash of values which will lead to higher crime rates. Criminal behavior as dictated by a society is an outward reflection of that society's values. One society which may have laws significantly restricting the autonomy of women, for example, may lead jurors selected from that cultural background to discount the testimony of any female witnesses at a trial for example, or may erroneously lead to thinking that honor killings are acceptable in their new country. We've already seen a rise in violent crimes in Europe because of this. It appears that many immigrants from the Islamic world, maybe because of their religion or maybe because of some other factor, have some difficulty conforming to western values. This problem is exacerbated by their seeming unwillingness to assimilate (this statement should not be read as a sweeping generalization, of course there will be another portion more that willing to integrate into society and cause no harm whatsoever). Even if those who fail to assimilate are a minority, the data is on full display what kind of impacts that can have on a western nation.

Like you said, it's a fairly natural phenomena. Any clash in cultures, nationalities, religions, etc will result in some unrest. How far that unrest goes is obviously... challenging to predict. There's too many factors involved, but a lot of these factors are within society's control. I've said this before, but I think the open border that Germany forced upon her members was a mistake, but not because of the unrest that followed. Government services clearly were not ready to handle such a large number of refugees. A lot of the violence, unrest, and crime that follow is preventable imo. A much larger effort should've been placed on both integrating and isolating the people who came.

Aside from the refugee problem, there were discussion of how poorly Turks and similar Muslim minorities integrate into German/European society. Again, I don't think that's a positive thing. There's always a reasonable compromise between family values and modern society to be found provided the people want it. It's a question of effort. However, I think that criticism of affirmative action on their effectiveness, while warranted, goes in the wrong direction. Often times the poor integration of minorities leads to people wanting to either cut these programs off because they're a waste of money in their eyes, or to kick out the minorities in question. As you mentioned in the early 20th century, we had a similar problem.



I think history has shown us that even if we do pretty much nothing about the problem, things will eventually get better. The wealth of experience and the sheer fact that we are far more educated and equipped on how to handle immigrants can allows us to devise affirmative action that will encourage people to integrate into society. In terms of how to punish refugee crime, I think the question should be whether the crime in question was committed out of desperation, such as stealing food, or maliciousness. I think the questions of how to punish crime shouldn't be all that complicated. People should be treated equally, regardless of their refugee status or ethnicity. On other compounding issues, like refugees lying about their age, I have no answer. The entire refugee/immigrant question is a complicated situation that requires a fairly complicated, multi part solution.

To summarize, affirmative action, patience, and equal treatment is the only way to deal with foreign cultures. There are exceptions of course, especially somewhere like Israel who will be a minority in their own country if they follow similar "liberal" policies in regards to Palestinians. The reality on the ground there has to contend with cold pragmatism. However, Western countries do not face that situation. We can afford to be patient and tolerate a marginal increase in crime. Diversity and multiculturalism makes a country stronger in my opinion as "identity" tends to be stronger than ethnicity.
.

I agree with you up to the point of controlling religious curriculum. Unless the schools advocate for breaking the law with regards to guaranteed rights such as organizing an effort to deny women (inside or outside the school) the right to vote, I think there will be little to alter their teaching of women as inferior should that be something they wished to teach. As always, a private school is in most ways out of bounds of the government so long as the school can be accredited. I think an Islamic school would likely prevail in court if they could prove the state was attempting to control its religious curriculum under the three part Lemon test.

I think laws regarding private schooling have to be stronger. The question of education is about equipping children for the real world. It's meant to give them the fundamentals of skills they will be using the rest of their lives. American education as a whole needs a major reform anyhow, but its a little off topic. Students attending private school should meet all standardized testing minimums. Imo, where religion clashes with basic curriculum, like evolution, US History, etc, education first, religion second. Imo, the simple solution here is to have schools send their curriculum and materials to Dept. of Education for approval. I don't think that culture/religion should get in the way of their duty to children.

I'm a product of 12 years of Catholic schooling which left me more or less hostile towards but now ambivalent towards religion. In the internet age information not taught in school is highly accessible to most anyone even in extremely sheltered environments. As far as governing them they should be treated no differently than anyone else. If a radical Christian right-wing militia was planning an attack on political targets I would want the government to investigate and take appropriate measures just as I would expect the same in the case of radicalization in a Mosque. There are a couple issues at play here namely that Muslims are more likely to engage in radicalized attacks of this nature and there's a trust issue. First generation immigrants, even their children and grandchildren, will almost inevitably face some level of suspicion. We've seen this in every era of American history whether the immigrants are Germans, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Chinese or what have you. There's a sense they haven't earned the trust of "native born" Americans. I'm not saying I think this is a healthy mentality but it in an inevitable mentality. It will get better with time. It is inconceivable that we would't elect someone to political office because he is a Catholic now, for example, but in 1964 it was a big deal.

I think you're being perfectly here, but I don't think that the fact that information is highly accessible now means that we shouldn't focus on improving K-12 and regulate private school curriculum. I think as stewards of the next generation, its a duty to make sure kids are educated properly first.

[Alwyn]

This is what I see:

1. Dog owner teaches a dog to lift its paw in what looks like a Nazi salute
2. Nazi salutes are bad because it reminds us of the Nazis
3. Seeing a Nazi salute (from a dog???) appears to normalize Nazism in the mainstream culture and will make Nazi ideas more appealing
4. The dog owner must be punished
5. Society is made better by having fewer references to a Nazi salute in it.

You have knocked the stuffing out of that scarecrow, sure enough! From the BBC report, linked from your CNN story:

[The lawyer for the defendant] told the court it was wrong to focus on the phrase "gas the Jews" when it had been taken out of context of the whole video. - BBC News

I suggested earlier that this wasn't about 'teaching a dog a trick' - lots of people make videos like that and don't end up in court. This quote suggests that the court was focusing on the phrase 'gas the Jews' - if it hadn't, then the defence lawyer wouldn't have tried to persuade the court to stop focusing on 'gas the Jews'. 'Gas the Jews' could be threatening or intimidating to a Jewish person like Ephraim Borowski who lost family in the Holocaust.

People might want to point to the 'context of the whole video' and remind me 'but it was a joke!'. "But I and my friends were just joking!" is what bullies say when they're caught. It's not an excuse. The issue is whether it was threatening or intimidating, not whether the person saying 'gas the Jews' thought it was funny.

There’s a better argument which you could use, which responds to my argument instead of knocking the stuffing out of a scarecrow. The conviction was reportedly based on the video being ‘grossly offensive’. I'm defending the idea of having laws against ‘threats and intimidation’. Depending on how ‘grossly offensive’ is interpreted, it might go beyond threatening and intimidating behaviour. This law could go too far. If you’d made that argument, I’d have agreed with you. We can have a reasoned discussion, or you could continue mocking a scarecrow, it’s up to you.

If this isn't Orwellian I don't know what is.

You're not the only person here to say such things:

Britons need to realize that their own government at this point is becoming their own biggest enemy, while its laws are nothing short of such in an authoritarian dictatorship.

Earlier, you said:

I really don't understand the mentality of "we'll show them how bad the Nazis were by behaving like fascists ourselves"

While the UK has plenty of problems, including many shameful episodes in our history and a far from perfect democracy, accusations that we live in an 'authoritarian dictatorship' or are 'behaving like fascists' are over the top. On this thread, this point seems often to be linked to a comparison between the US and the UK, for example:

Yet another day I'm thankful for being an American citizen, born into a country that explicitly granted rights the British nation/ empire wouldn't. Our constitution is a literal critique on the failure of the British system and it's a beautiful document.

Someone might want to use my agreement above, that the UK law applies to ‘grossly offensive’ behaviour, as evidence that the UK really is fascist, unlike the US. The argument would be that the US doesn’t have laws against threatening, intimidating or offensive behaviour - and, even if such laws were passed, they'd be struck down by judges because of the First Amendment right to free speech.

Does the US had such laws? I said earlier that:

Doesn't the US have laws on threats and intimidation, like the UK does? It seems like you do:

Under the federal cyberstalking statute, “cyberstalking” includes any course of conduct or series of acts taken by the perpetrator on the Internet that place the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, or causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the victim or the victim’s immediate family. 18 U.S.C. § 2261A - US Department of Justice

I might have misunderstood this - however, if so, no-one has explained how. This law seems to cover conduct causing 'substantial emotional distress' even if it doesn't 'place the victim in fear of death or serious bodily injury'.

Are such laws struck down by the US Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment? Sometimes they are, no doubt, but not always. A law prohibiting “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place” was challenged in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire when Mr Chaplinsky was prosecuted for calling somone a 'damned Fascist'. The Supreme Court didn't strike it down.

You might argue that the law considered in this case went too far; I'd agree. People might object that, since then, judges have said that this only applies to offensive words which could cause immediate violence. That's true; this seems broadly in line with my view that the law should be allowed to limit ‘threats and intimidation’, not simply ‘offensive behaviour’. People might say that this case goes back to the 1940s, it's not relevant in 2018. However, more recently, the Supreme Court said in Virginia v. Black that someone who burns a cross as a threat can be punished without violating the First Amendment, as long as the court doesn’t assume without evidence that intimidation occurred. It seems that the Supreme Court are drawing the line in a good place: while the law shouldn’t stop people from simply offending others, laws against threats and intimidation are okay.

While the US has a well-earned reputation for valuing liberty, the crude comparison which some seem to be making here (‘US good, UK dictatorship’) doesn’t fit the facts.

[Diocle]

For the current situation in UK I like the concept of "Anarcho-Tyranny", an upside down state, where the victims are persecuted and the actual criminals are protected.

This video is the best description of the tragic (but also laughable, under many respects) situation of human rights and free speech on the island:



Consider that when Karl Marx was asked about the reason he had taken refuge in Britain he explained it was the only place in Europe where a man didn't run the risk of being persecuted and imprisoned by police for his beliefs. Now, I understand many years are passed and the situation is deeply changed in UK and Europe, but I find strange that the same political part to which Karl Marx belonged, the Left I mean, is now the first promoter of the most harsh (and laughable) repression of free speech ever seen in Europe from the times of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini!

[Dante Von Hespburg]

For the current situation in UK I like the concept of "Anarcho-Tyranny", an upside down state, where the victims are persecuted and the actual criminals are protected.

This video is the best description of the tragic (but also laughable, under many respects) situation of human rights and free speech on the island:



Consider that when Karl Marx was asked about the reason he had taken refuge in Britain he explained it was the only place in Europe where a man didn't run the risk of being persecuted and imprisoned by police for his beliefs. Now, I understand many years are passed and the situation is deeply changed in UK and Europe, but I find strange that the same political part to which Karl Marx belonged, the Left I mean, is now the first promoter of the most harsh (and laughable) repression of free speech ever seen in Europe from the times of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini!

The issue here being the use of 'left' doesn't fit in the UK context. The Conservatives are currently the 'furthest right' (Both socially and economically) they have been in decades and that they are the ones directly responsible for the increasing clamp-down on 'free speech' as well as the invasion of citizens private lives through Snoopers Charter etc. The 'Left' and 'Centrists' of Labour and the Liberal-Democrats are typically more opposed to this than the Conservatives (Hence my mention a few pages back of opposition by Labour and Lib-dems to the Snoopers charter to varying degrees).

Now you could argue of course that the Conservatives are not a 'real' or 'traditional' right- but for purposes of the argument you are trying to make- there is still the fact that even if this is the case, the parties 'further left' than the Conservatives are not supportive of the restrictions such as Snoopers et al in a general sense.

So at worst case, the left-right lens of viewing contemporary issues such as this is defunct in regards to at least the UK context. It doesn't make sense. Better might be as discussed to look at the contemporary context of a historical institutional aim of social and political stability that the UK has always strove for through the make-up of its political structures, or more recently the fallout from the 'War on Terror' which has steadily changed British (and 'western') society in a move away from a 'free....ish' model of the early 2000s, to one that is increasingly invasive and authoritarian as laws designed to stem 'Islamic hate speech' also have a knock on effect in other areas as the 'West' does not make laws as i explained earlier that specifically target just 'one group' as that is innately against the structures of democracy. Another key factor is the growth in power of private business and corporate enterprise at a rate which has meant the 'traditional' production tension between State (as representatives of the citizenry) and business has given away to 'business friendly' governments- which is dumb, as data-gathering and the digital invasion of privacy not merely shapes the context of business, but also contributes to the creation of a culture where 'freedoms' are sacrificed in return for commodities (Cambridge Analytical and Facebook highlight this recently) or securities.

[Diocle]

You're right Dante and your post is interesting and largely sharable, but some synthesis sometime is needed.

My synthesis is based on the fact that today in USA, UK and EU, the Left is largely considered the frist promoter of any form of restriction in free speech; in this respect, the fact that parties like the Tories in UK and the CDU in Germany, are now no more right wing parties, but just minor branches of Labour and SPD, doesn't change the fact that the restriction of speech freedom in Western democracies (USA and Europe) is largely based on the implementation of the Fascist (because based on the concept of Ethic State) concept of 'Politically Correctness', fully developed by the Obamites during the reign of the first black President of the USA, 'black' in this case, not only for his skin color, but above all for his political ideology.

In short: to fight what they call the 'Far Right', "they" (Socialists? Leftists? Liberals? Leftists and Paleo-Conservatives? Globalists? Whatever you like!) have implemented and are still implementing a lunatic legislation that is bigoted, illiberal, obscurantist and anti-democratic, Fascist, we may say, and they don't realize that, doing this, they are offering to their enemies, the perfect weapon to annihilate them all, once the Far Right will be in power; that is, they are offering to those they call Fascists, the perfect Fascist legislation .. for free! Is this a smart and wise policy? I doubt.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

You're right Dante and your post is interesting and largely sharable, but some synthesis sometime is needed.

My synthesis is based on the fact that today in USA, UK and EU, the Left is largely considered the frist promoter of any form of restriction in free speech; in this respect, the fact that parties like the Tories in UK and the CDU in Germany, are now no more right wing parties, but just minor branches of Labour and SPD, doesn't change the fact that the restriction of speech freedom in Western democracies (USA and Europe) is largely based on the implementation of the Fascist (because based on the concept of Ethic State) concept of 'Politically Correctness', fully developed by the Obamites during the reign of the first black President of the USA, 'black' in this case, not only for his skin color, but above all for his political ideology.

In short: to fight what they call the 'Far Right', "they" (Socialists? Leftists? Both? Leftists and Conservatives? whatever you like!) have implemented and are still implementing a legislation that is bigoted, illiberal, obscurantist and anti-democratic, Fascist, we may say, and they don't realize that, doing this, they are offering to their enemies, the perfect weapon to annihilate them all, once the Far Right will be in power; that is, they are offering to those they call Fascists, the perfect Fascist legislation .. for free! Is this a smart and wise policy? I doubt.

Appreciated mate, some interesting comments on your part there too.

I get that from a traditional conservative/right perspective the 'Left' and 'PC culture' for want of a better word have become synonymous. But again, the Conservatives (Or more specifically the faction currently dictating the policy of the party- as seen by Boris and Reese-Moggs, who have a huge degree of influence off the back of brexit) are currently what many would consider traditional 'right' in terms of now being 'anti-immigration', purporting nationalism in its traditional sense, a 'Britain first' narrative and a 'kick-back' against what they call the 'Blair years' (Seen most recently in the start-up of the local election here where their has been a very underhand Conservative campaign scaremongering against rival opponents by claiming without foundation that they will 'remove British flags' from public buildings- its a lie, but it shows the basis of current Conservative electoral operation). So i get why you would naturally ere towards 'the left' from your perspective- but here we are talking about a 'traditional right' Conservative government (pre-Thatcher right to boot).

I don't think then we can really claim they are merely an extension of the Labour Party currently, bearing in mind too, Tony Blair was an extension of Thatchers Legacy in the first place, but the only thing in which the current Labour and Conservative parties can agree on is both are supportive of the brexit process from the front benches.

You are right in that the 'alt-right' or 'Far-right' is something that all parties in British politics rile against- though again currently the Conservatives have essentially stolen the platform of UKIP, hence why UKIP collapsed- thus when we talk about the 'alt-right' or 'Far-right' it essentially are those who hold very extreme social ideals (such as wanting specific legislation discriminating a specific group of society)- and its here that naturally the 'free speech' issues come into play. As the same legislation that was brought in to combat the Islamic hate preachers who freely spoke out during the Blair Years, can also be applied to other groups (who originally were supportive of such legislation) such as the 'far right'- its a double edged sword when it comes to free speech and legislation. The Conservative government are doing this, because as a traditional right, and also government they are concerned for the social stability and cohesion of the UK- which has essentially been shattered by brexit as the failure to implement a unifying policy in regards to this. Add to this the issues i spoke about earlier and you have a point where this combined with a culture of creepy authoritarianism- largely due to corporate entities and digital technology and the context set by the 'War on Terror' where the West has given up certain freedoms for 'security' (despite the droning that 'Islamic terrorism will never change us') and you have the issue. The 'Far right' in this regard are basically caught in this crossfire as they legally are thus considered by the government to be a different side of the same coin, taken place alongside those earlier Islamic Imans who publicly preached hatred of the 'west'. Its why whenever currently someone of a right-wing disposition in a UK political debate calls for increased laws against say Muslims or Christians or Atheists or whatever saying disparaging things about their country or society- i now always question them if they really mean what they say here, as there unforeseen consequences to radical expansions of the law in these areas as again some previously supportive of these measures have found.

I think also the point about a 'rise of the far-right' at least to the UK is not the issue, as again we have theoretically the 'umbrella' structure of the two-party system that constrains and overruns 'alternate parties' (This happened in the 1930's when the Conservative party essentially blocked the rise of British fascism, and previously and after with the Labour Party, which was anti-communist and essentially block and subsumed any potential support for that).- If anything currently its not the 'Far-right' that are benefiting for a populist upsurge in the UK- but the Labour Party under Corbyn (Who would have thought he would now despite everything been ahead in the Polls, when just a few months ago he was trailing 20 points behind the Conservatives)- and that is the UK's political system which advocates stability essentially 'doing its job'- but subsuming any kind of populist fervour into one of the 'big two' parties- Its horribly undemocratic and i personally dislike it, but it does theoretically mean the UK cannot slide into Far-left or Far-right territory.

Again though this is the UK context i'm aware in Italy you guys are having shifts of a different kind which is interesting, and likewise there has been the 'rise of the far-right' in other European states. So i can meet you half-way in this respect when we talk about the issues generally of 'traditional' parties trying to deal with the rise of far-right or far-left extremism.

[Copperknickers II]

For the current situation in UK I like the concept of "Anarcho-Tyranny", an upside down state, where the victims are persecuted and the actual criminals are protected.

It's utterly laughable that you would apply that term to the UK, one of the world's most fair and least corrupt major countries. How many nations are there in the world where a small criminal elite rules the roost and anyone else gets trampled underfoot? The UK is not perfect but compared to the developing world and, these days parts of the developed world, we are really pretty good. I really can't understand why there's so much focus on the UK by the alt-right these days, I guess it's just because English is an international language so the US and UK are lightning rods for people from illiberal and corrupt countries to jeer at due to widespread availability of our domestic media. I've seen similar stuff for Sweden and Germany too I guess but the UK seems to be particularly in vogue at the moment.

Funny how so many people who live in Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and the Middle East are so convinced that its our societies which are in a state of decay and collapse, rather than their own. Don't get me wrong, I have friends from these areas and most of them happily admit that their countries are far from perfect even if they have some specific gripes about my country, but there is a vocal minority of people who look at the millions who have fled the stagnant economic deserts of the warmer climes of the world to come and live in prosperous and free Northern Europe, and come to the conclusion that this is apparently certain proof of our inferiority rather than our attractiveness as a more successful country than their own. And of course nobody has more of a chip on their shoulder about this than Southern Europeans, who like to take credit for the economic miracle of Northern Europe on grounds of their race and religion being the same as the people who actually managed to create functioning and working countries and currently pay for the welfare of those who didn't (rather hypocritical of me to say so, as I don't exactly contribute anything to the EU budget as a student, but then I'm not the one who is trying to take credit for other people's work, I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of the logic of those who do).

Consider that when Karl Marx was asked about the reason he had taken refuge in Britain he explained it was the only place in Europe where a man didn't run the risk of being persecuted and imprisoned by police for his beliefs. Now, I understand many years are passed and the situation is deeply changed in UK and Europe, but I find strange that the same political part to which Karl Marx belonged, the Left I mean, is now the first promoter of the most harsh (and laughable) repression of free speech ever seen in Europe from the times of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini!

If only we had persecuted him more, we might have saved the lives of the countless millions of people who died at the hands of his inept and morally bankrupt ideology.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Oh man I have a lot to get to. Sorry in advance for the short replies, I'm on mobile

What is said is less important as who is saying it and how it is applied. Take Islam 4 UK. On the surface, just a bunch of nutters holding placards saying 'behead those who defy Islam",their version of excercising 'free speech' . In practice, its leader was a facilitator for terrorism. We should never have indulged him for so long.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/16/who-is-anjem-choudary-the-firebrand-cleric-linked-to-a-string-of/.

The issue with Nazibabe isn't necessarily her politics, I could image a legitimate hard right politician like Wilders would get a hall pass. It is definitely who she mixes with. Any contact with Britain First is toxic, beasring in mind a recent terrorist event.

Did Britain First launch an attack I'm not aware about?

Like you said, it's a fairly natural phenomena. Any clash in cultures, nationalities, religions, etc will result in some unrest. How far that unrest goes is obviously... challenging to predict. There's too many factors involved, but a lot of these factors are within society's control. I've said this before, but I think the open border that Germany forced upon her members was a mistake, but not because of the unrest that followed. Government services clearly were not ready to handle such a large number of refugees. A lot of the violence, unrest, and crime that follow is preventable imo. A much larger effort should've been placed on both integrating and isolating the people who came.

Aside from the refugee problem, there were discussion of how poorly Turks and similar Muslim minorities integrate into German/European society. Again, I don't think that's a positive thing. There's always a reasonable compromise between family values and modern society to be found provided the people want it. It's a question of effort. However, I think that criticism of affirmative action on their effectiveness, while warranted, goes in the wrong direction. Often times the poor integration of minorities leads to people wanting to either cut these programs off because they're a waste of money in their eyes, or to kick out the minorities in question. As you mentioned in the early 20th century, we had a similar problem.



I think history has shown us that even if we do pretty much nothing about the problem, things will eventually get better. The wealth of experience and the sheer fact that we are far more educated and equipped on how to handle immigrants can allows us to devise affirmative action that will encourage people to integrate into society. In terms of how to punish refugee crime, I think the question should be whether the crime in question was committed out of desperation, such as stealing food, or maliciousness. I think the questions of how to punish crime shouldn't be all that complicated. People should be treated equally, regardless of their refugee status or ethnicity. On other compounding issues, like refugees lying about their age, I have no answer. The entire refugee/immigrant question is a complicated situation that requires a fairly complicated, multi part solution.

To summarize, affirmative action, patience, and equal treatment is the only way to deal with foreign cultures. There are exceptions of course, especially somewhere like Israel who will be a minority in their own country if they follow similar "liberal" policies in regards to Palestinians. The reality on the ground there has to contend with cold pragmatism. However, Western countries do not face that situation. We can afford to be patient and tolerate a marginal increase in crime. Diversity and multiculturalism makes a country stronger in my opinion as "identity" tends to be stronger than ethnicity.
.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here except tolerating the increase in crime. I'm not willing to compromise on that, allowing for crime to increase should not be permitted and I think the solution is increased policing. I would add that we have an advantage now that we didn't have 100 years ago which is unquestioned equality under the law. This gives me hope for a swifter integration process which will benefit everyone involved.

I think laws regarding private schooling have to be stronger. The question of education is about equipping children for the real world. It's meant to give them the fundamentals of skills they will be using the rest of their lives. American education as a whole needs a major reform anyhow, but its a little off topic. Students attending private school should meet all standardized testing minimums. Imo, where religion clashes with basic curriculum, like evolution, US History, etc, education first, religion second. Imo, the simple solution here is to have schools send their curriculum and materials to Dept. of Education for approval. I don't think that culture/religion should get in the way of their duty to children.

I'm pretty ambivalent? No that's not the right word. I'm pretty...uninterested in it. I don't know much about it, and what's worse I've been insulated from it for my entire educational career. Aside from broad principles like public education being a net public good I'm pretty neutral on the whole thing.

There’s a better argument which you could use, which responds to my argument instead of knocking the stuffing out of a scarecrow. The conviction was reportedly based on the video being ‘grossly offensive’. I'm defending the idea of having laws against ‘threats and intimidation’. Depending on how ‘grossly offensive’ is interpreted, it might go beyond threatening and intimidating behaviour. This law could go too far. If you’d made that argument, I’d have agreed with you. We can have a reasoned discussion, or you could continue mocking a scarecrow, it’s up to you.

I think you might be conflating restrictions of free speech which include fighting words. The ruling under Chaplinsky does not mesh with laws in the UK.

I might have misunderstood this - however, if so, no-one has explained how. This law seems to cover conduct causing 'substantial emotional distress' even if it doesn't 'place the victim in fear of death or serious bodily injury'.

Are you referring to civil claims including intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress? I assume from your posts you are not American? I'd be happy to explain how the law regarding claims like that work in my state if you'd like. It is somewhat different from criminal statutes regarding fighting words, though some relationship exists. I can understand how the two could be confusing.

Are such laws struck down by the US Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment? Sometimes they are, no doubt, but not always. A law prohibiting “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place” was challenged in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire when Mr Chaplinsky was prosecuted for calling somone a 'damned Fascist'. The Supreme Court didn't strike it down.

You might argue that the law considered in this case went too far; I'd agree. People might object that, since then, judges have said that this only applies to offensive words which could cause immediate violence. That's true; this seems broadly in line with my view that the law should be allowed to limit ‘threats and intimidation’, not simply ‘offensive behaviour’. People might say that this case goes back to the 1940s, it's not relevant in 2018. However, more recently, the Supreme Court said in Virginia v. Black that someone who burns a cross as a threat can be punished without violating the First Amendment, as long as the court doesn’t assume without evidence that intimidation occurred. It seems that the Supreme Court are drawing the line in a good place: while the law shouldn’t stop people from simply offending others, laws against threats and intimidation are okay.

While the US has a well-earned reputation for valuing liberty, the crude comparison which some seem to be making here (‘US good, UK dictatorship’) doesn’t fit the facts.

The jurisprudence surrounding fighting words and the outdated "true threat" doctrine is in a somewhat inconsistent state. You've pointed out two cases in a line of cases surrounding fighting words that in my opinion came to the wrong outcome. I also won't make the argument that a case from 1940 is irrelevant; if the court has left a case undisturbed then it is absolutely still good law. It does make interpreting the meaning a bit more difficult, and in some instances these cases may be considered either "distinguished from" or "partially reversed" by subsequent rulings. It's been a few years since I took a deep dive in to Chaplinsky, I chose to write a thesis on Native American law. I know, I know. Anyway, without further ado...

First of all two things need to be said right off the bat. In Black, the defendant was shown to have burned the cross with the intent to intimidate. This was later confirmed recently in Elonis with regards to federal statutes covering threats made across interstate lines. I can go burn a cross in my back yard right now and nobody can do squat about it because my burning of the cross was not done with the intent to intimidate anyone. Though I'm not sure my state has such a statute that outlaws cross burning. Secondly, let's state the legal test for fighting words which provides guidelines for state statutes. The legal standard defining fighting words is any speech that constitutes a "clear and present danger" to the peace. This definition from Terminiello v. Chicago abrogated the more liberal Chaplinsky standard.

In Synder v. Phelps (2011) the court ruled that as a matter of law, speech relevant to public discourse cannot form the basis of a tort claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. In other words, offending someone with your speech does not create liability for that speech. Even when the speech is the Westboro Baptist Church protesting the funeral of a marine.

In National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the defendants engaged in a march through a predominantly Jewish town which contained Holocaust survivors while displaying a swastika. This speech was not deemed to constitute fighting words. The decision was issued Per Curiam and therefore isn't binding law, but the overall takeaway is that denying the speech in this case would have been considered a violation of the FA.

I think this line of cases demonstrates that the United States generally is freer with regards to speech than is the UK. Applying American law to the woman in question who was denied entry into the US, unless she intended to engage in speech with the intent to intimidate and this speech poses a clear and present danger to others. I doubt she reaches that standard.

[I_Damian]

Free speech is essentially dead now in the UK. The left have killed it. Jokes, criticism of religion (one religion in particular), facts backed up by statistics can and will get you thrown in jail (if they go against the left-wing ideology, that is).

[Sir Adrian]

It is to what end such thoughts are expressed that's the issue.

Free thinking is its own end (and what made us the top dog for the past 600 years).