Free Speech in the UK

[95thrifleman]

No country in the world has absolute free speech. No one. If i start verbally insult people on the street i will get arrested. There should be a balance between promoting free speech for everyone and protecting the public from fake news and hate speech.

Hate speech, yes, fake news? No.

In regards to fake news, which is basicly lying in public, it is protected under our libel laws. In extreme cases, such as that odious worm David Irving, you can sue for libel or wait till they sue you and detroy them in court as happened to the aforementioned odious worm.

People have the right to lie.

[Papay]

Hate speech, yes, fake news? No.

In regards to fake news, which is basicly lying in public, it is protected under our libel laws. In extreme cases, such as that odious worm David Irving, you can sue for libel or wait till they sue you and detroy them in court as happened to the aforementioned odious worm.

People have the right to lie.

I dont know the exact laws in UK but i do now that in most countries if i start shouting "fire" and cause a stampade and deaths i will get arrested

[swabian]

I dont know the exact laws in UK but i do now that in most countries if i start shouting "fire" and cause a stampade and deaths i will get arrested

Deaths will do the trick.

[Aexodus]

I dont know the exact laws in UK but i do now that in most countries if i start shouting "fire" and cause a stampade and deaths i will get arrested

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not one of the issues of this thread, it is rightfully prohibited.

[Genghis Skahn]

No country in the world has absolute free speech. No one. If i start verbally insult people on the street i will get arrested. There should be a balance between promoting free speech for everyone and protecting the public from fake news and hate speech.

I never argued for that. I just advocated for a position where the government protects opinions which are in the minority and gets involved in the policing of speech as rarely as possible. Threats, shouting "FIRE!" in a theatre, shouting obnoxiously in privately/publicly owned areas or near them(causing measurable public disorder, essentially), incitements to violence and statements advocating genocidal violence etc. all of those aren't considered as protected speech in countries with proper speech laws; we aren't talking about those types of justifiably policed speech.

My above point stands, no country with proper speech laws will have you arrested(but not charged) for calling a horse gay. It just doesn't happen in those countries.

[Bethrezen]

It's just straw picking. Police officers maybe abusing their powers doesn't mean there are laws specifically made against calling horses gay. Besides, the judge clearly stated that there was no evidence the guy broke any laws. But let's pick a few cases perhaps wrongly handled by the police to give ourselves the right to call Muslims "sandn****rs".

[joethepro36]

It's all smoke and mirrors, what is actually happening is in effect a level of censorship that seeks to keep people in a narrow and liberal overton window. The greatest irony is that many hard left types who favour identity politics and laws against different kinds of "isms" also have their more ambitious economic policies sidelined as a consequence of their discussion being so constrained. An overhaul of the economy to have more public ownership is somewhat fringe with the exception of railways. I'm continuously amazed by the amount of people who actively cheer restrictions onwards as if it's some kind of progress to see any opinion be it crude or dissident silenced.

As it stands we have no ability to question the socially liberal policies towards equality and diversity publicly to the point we're almost not allowed to have an opinion. To anyone who disagrees see my post #919 where I discuss the need to hide political views while in the workplace at the risk of losing your job. The situation is broadly similar to America in this regard. Even moderate criticism of the excesses of LGBT culture is beyond the pale. Part of the process of political polarisation has been to push people in this bubble wrapped position where they're just rearing to attack others while claiming offence contrasted with people in the dark making edgy comments. My own observation has been a general shutdown of debate amongst circles in which offensive opinions are so problematic, usually emotionally fuelled arguments springing up when statistics and reasonable discussion arrives. The best example I've seen was recently when I merely asked "why" and "how" to statements about Trump being a racist etc. I got a lot of invective back from said person to my face but also not much in the way of an answer. This is the danger of silencing proper discourse, opinions are then held but not properly questioned resulting in baseless assertions being king. I meet far more people who's opinions are entirely fuelled by media headlines than those who properly read between the lines. I've also seen how damaging not reading around can be and even in close family, some of them will never ever read articles written by people from a different political camp. It's all about trying to keep people in a box with their preferred label where they never tip toe out and have enough independence to leave their comfort zone. A wholesale dumbing down of the general populace, lapped up by the politically and historically ignorant as a form of progress. They look to the left and right and only see smiling faces in full agreement, surely the rest of the world must be like this too? And people wonder why the redpill analogy is used.

The above example of a horse being called gay is one example of the overreach of this thought, where even the potential to offend is to be criminalised. In a nation that invented modern political satire as we know, the irony is not lost.

[Genghis Skahn]

It's just straw picking. Police officers maybe abusing their powers doesn't mean there are laws specifically made against calling horses gay. Besides, the judge clearly stated that there was no evidence the guy broke any laws. But let's pick a few cases perhaps wrongly handled by the police to give ourselves the right to call Muslims "sandn****rs".

That's a straw man son--I never once advocated for the right to call Muslims as such. There was also no "maybe" about abusing their powers in those cases listed--that was abuse, plain and simple, to argue otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. You also seem to not understand that simply being arrested can have a negative impact on your life(never mind the psychological stress he experienced during his unjust detention)--it could affect his future employment, for example. You also haven't refuted my point: that sort of arrest DOES NOT HAPPEN in countries with proper speech laws. Period. No person will get charged for calling a horse gay or saying Scientology is a cult(it is) in a country with proper speech laws.

Scientology's most important strongholds are in the US, to my knowledge, and yet the movie and book "Going Clear", a VERY anti-Scientology piece of art, was successfully released in the US with no real hope of a legal challenge on the part of the Church of Scientology(although they most certainly made a stink about it). Meanwhile, the book's release was successfully blocked in the UK due to their speech/expression laws. Now, what is the difference between these two countries? Right, the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment fully protected the creators of the book and the documentary in the US(and rightfully so, since it was a form of creative expression which shouldn't be censored), but since the 1st Amendment doesn't exist in the UK, no such protection was offered to the book there. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that most people are actually in favor of being able to openly criticize Scientology(it's a ludicrously crazy cul--er, religion I mean). In the US's case, it's proper speech laws ensured that an extremely informative work of art that was critical of a controversial religion was released; in the UK's case, it's lack of speech/expression protection allowed the Church of Scientology to ban the book the documentary was based upon on grounds of libel/defamation. Which country's laws better protected artistic freedom and free expression? You tell me.

There is more than enough evidence in the form of journalistic articles posted upthread to suggest that the UK has problematic speech laws--otherwise "nazi dogs", gay horses and calling scientology a cult wouldn't have resulted in any action whatsoever from the justice system. In fact, the amount of unjust arrests(with or without convictions) related to speech violations posted upthread is astounding--it goes beyond silly statements like "gay horses", to even being arrested for preaching well-known religious beliefs(eg. that Christianity has homophobic elements to it).

[Papay]

Deaths will do the trick.

So what if i create hatred with what i say and cause deaths?

[joethepro36]

Already illegal under inciting to violence. I like how you completely ignore every argument in favour of attacking weak strawmen which are already dealt with under UK law.

[Infidel144]

But let's pick a few cases perhaps wrongly handled by the police to give ourselves the right to call Muslims "sandn****rs".

Do you think calling people should be arrested and subjected to criminal penalties if they "call Muslims "sandn****rs""?

[Bethrezen]

My above point stands, no country with proper speech laws will have you arrested(but not charged) for calling a horse gay.

No person will get charged for calling a horse gay or saying Scientology is a cult(it is) in a country with proper speech laws.

So was he or was he not charged for calling the horse gay? Police abuse is one thing, having bad laws is completely different. Police abuse can happen in regards with any kind of laws, not just speech laws, wouldn't you agree? Should we remove all laws?

Do you think calling people should be arrested and subjected to criminal penalties if they "call Muslims "sandn****rs""?

Depends on the context. If it's used for inciting to violence, then yes. It's good that we finally see what the far-right "civil rights" activists are actually militating for.

[Infidel144]

Depends on the context. If it's used for inciting to violence, then yes. It's good that we finally see what the far-right "civil rights" activists are actually militating for.

Does that mean you should have a "right to call Muslims "sandn****rs"", if you are not inciting violence?

[Diocle]

So what if i create hatred with what i say and cause deaths?

Definition of "hatered " please!

I ask because what is hatered for you may be not hatered for me.

For example, if I say that: "The Muslim culture is a serious threat for civil coexistence in Europe and it must be banned from our continent.", I just expose a political thought shared by millions European citizens which is becoming the prevalent political line in Europe today, but it's still possible that for some minoritary group of leftists and Muslims it may result as an hateful speech.

So, the point is: who is in charge of judging the correctness of the contents of a speech? You? Your political group, whatever it is? Your ethnic group, whatever it is? The political newspapers supporting your part? A selected elite? Who?

[95thrifleman]

Definition of "hatered " please!

I ask because what is hatered for you may be not hatered for me.

For example, if I say that: "The Muslim culture is a serious threat for civil coexistence in Europe and it must be banned from our continent.", I just expose a political thought shared by millions European citizens which is becoming the prevalent political line in Europe today, but it's still possible that for some minoritary group of leftists and Muslims it may result as an hateful speech.

So, the point is: who is in charge of judging the correctness of the contents of a speech? You? Your political group, whatever it is? Your ethnic group, whatever it is? The political newspapers supporting your part? A selected elite? Who?

Under UK law that statement: "The Muslim culture is a serious threat for civil coexistence in Europe and it must be banned from our continent." is protected. This idea that the UK bans people from criticising islam or muslims is a myth, our laws PROTECT the right to criticise islam and even the right tom urge muslims to stop being muslims.

From the racial and religious hatred act 2006: "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

[Genghis Skahn]

So was he or was he not charged for calling the horse gay? Police abuse is one thing, having bad laws is completely different. Police abuse can happen in regards with any kind of laws, not just speech laws, wouldn't you agree? Should we remove all laws?

Oh I agree that police abuse can happen even if the laws are "perfect". I have no idea why you're trying to insinuate that we should remove all laws because of it. He was arrested, but not charged, but you still don't understand that simply being arrested can negatively impact your life and future employment(one of the arrested mentioned upthread, an Anglican preacher, was refused food and water for some 20 hours and even deprived of his medication despite being elderly; he wasn't charged, but an injustice is an injustice). Kek, I'd like to see how you'd react to getting arrested for calling a horse gay--I take it that nobody would be happy about that, but no no! Keep acting like getting arrested means nothing and caused the arrested no psychological distress or worry that they might actually get charged.

Moreover, the police, assuming they're not abusing their power, are still bound by the laws of the country they serve in. If the speech laws of a country are properly designed, like the 1st Amendment is, and if you are a citizen who is fully aware of these laws, then the probability of getting arrested for calling a horse gay is astronomically lower than in a country who's speech laws aren't as protective as the US's are. It's clear from the source posted which discusses the "gay horse" incident, that the police officer felt that he was properly imposing the UK's speech laws upon the young man who got arrested(they stated as such in the article). But please, keep trying to pin this down on police abuse instead of bad speech laws, whilst disregarding the other numerous examples posted in this thread where the UK's poor speech laws were clearly demonstrated.

I'll take your refusal to address my point regarding the UK vs the US's speech laws in reference to the documentary/book "Going Clear" as a sign of tacit agreement that the US's speech laws are clearly better than the UK's at protecting creative freedom/free expression. Unless you, for some reason, actually believe that the Church of Scientology shouldn't be criticized, of course.

[Aexodus]

Under UK law that statement: "The Muslim culture is a serious threat for civil coexistence in Europe and it must be banned from our continent." is protected. This idea that the UK bans people from criticising islam or muslims is a myth, our laws PROTECT the right to criticise islam and even the right tom urge muslims to stop being muslims.

Then explain why a man was banned from entering the UK for saying just this

"It [Islam] is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society ... because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown."

and this was condemned as Islamophobic... not talking about Lauren Southern here btw

Allah is gay

Everyone can see at this point the double standard and tiered policing when it comes to hate speech.

According to the Home Office if you are a non-Muslim and you make the following statement your presence will be deemed ‘not conducive to the public good’ and you will be barred from entering the United Kingdom

‘It [Islam] is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.’

If, on the other hand, you are a Muslim and you say the following then the UK government has no problem with you, and you can come in to the UK to do a speaking tour:
‘Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.’

[Bethrezen]

Then explain why a man was banned from entering the UK for saying just this

Where does it say in the article that they were banned from entering the UK for just saying what you quoted? I even tried to google your quote but can't find anything. Did you translate that from a different language?

Everyone can see at this point the double standard and tiered policing when it comes to hate speech.

Did you try to enter the link to the jihadist website? Also, who is everyone? You are?

Oh I agree that police abuse can happen even if the laws are "perfect". I have no idea why you're trying to insinuate that we should remove all laws because of it. He was arrested, but not charged, but you still don't understand that simply being arrested can negatively impact your life and future employment(one of the arrested mentioned upthread, an Anglican preacher, was refused food and water for some 20 hours and even deprived of his medication despite being elderly; he wasn't charged, but an injustice is an injustice). Kek, I'd like to see how you'd react to getting arrested for calling a horse gay--I take it that nobody would be happy about that, but no no! Keep acting like getting arrested means nothing and caused the arrested no psychological distress or worry that they might actually get charged.

You still don't get it. My point was that police could abusively arrest you regarding any law, not just speech laws. He arrested the guy for calling their horse gay. He could have been very well arrested for littering or cursing, or whatever else. The important thing is that there is no law against calling a horse gay, so he wasn't charged with anything. Because that's what we are arguing about, right?

[95thrifleman]

Then explain why a man was banned from entering the UK for saying just this



and this was condemned as Islamophobic... not talking about Lauren Southern here btw



Everyone can see at this point the double standard and tiered policing when it comes to hate speech.

Did you seriously just post a link referencing Robert Spencer? Oh boy, this is getting fun.

That guy was not coming to the UK to speak at the Oxford union, he was coming to speak at an EDL rally. The freaking EDL, a racist, anti-gay, anti-semetic and anti-islam group of thugs.

That pride article was from a PRIVATE organisation putting rules on their own protest.

[Aexodus]

Where does it say in the article that they were banned from entering the UK for just saying what you quoted? I even tried to google your quote but can't find anything. Did you translate that from a different language?

I originally got it from the wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)

He shows his letter from the home office itself which details that exact quote as the reason for banning him https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UdbAgw...fauxfullscreen

A couple more links http://www.secularnews.org/2013/06/b...slamic-terror/ https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/0...e-rigby-rally/

Did you try to enter the link to the jihadist website? Also, who is everyone? You are?

Well, everyone who’s read that article at any rate should be able to see the double standard, or anyone in Britain following developments like these is fully aware.