Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wherebee

The Death Of Free Speech In The Uk Continues

Recommended Posts

So - going by this report another nail in the coffin of free speech. In court over words.

The death is awful, terrible, and the tweeter is an idiot - but I remember seeing the same sort of show trials in the communist states. Making people scared to say anything, in case they say the wrong thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty tricky subject IMO which hasn't been handled spectacularly well by the law so far.

I'm not sure I want an internet or any form of media where anyone can say anything they like, equally I don't want what you can say to be controlled purely by the strength of reaction as appears to be the case now, this acts against the more tolerant majority.

If I don't really know what I want the law to be, I can't imagine I'm alone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I want an internet or any form of media where anyone can say anything they like

Why not? What's the worst that can happen by saying something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't tweet or facebook ....simples

While legally that may be a bit simplistic in practice that is almost certainly true.

Otherwise the legal system would have collapsed years ago under the weight of cases arising from all the offensive, libelous or malicious comments posted on a host of forums and comment threads across the internet. For a start most football grounds would be empty as nearly all the posters on football message boards would have been banged up years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty tricky subject IMO which hasn't been handled spectacularly well by the law so far.

I'm not sure I want an internet or any form of media where anyone can say anything they like, equally I don't want what you can say to be controlled purely by the strength of reaction as appears to be the case now, this acts against the more tolerant majority.

If I don't really know what I want the law to be, I can't imagine I'm alone...

+ 1

The problem is the law is trying to police an area where simple good manners, decency and a sense of responsibility should apply

Unfortunately as my school teachers loved to intone as they removed some privilege - 'there are always a few idiots who want to spoli it for everyone else'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is grossly offensive in public, you bind them over to keep the peace. If they go on doing it, you take them down the nick to sleep it off.

Or at least, that's what happened in the era of Free Speech, running from the Enlightenment through to the end of the 20th century. Before Blair set out to reverse the enlightenment, and Cameron jumped on the same bandwagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is grossly offensive in public, you bind them over to keep the peace. If they go on doing it, you take them down the nick to sleep it off.

Or at least, that's what happened in the era of Free Speech, running from the Enlightenment through to the end of the 20th century. Before Blair set out to reverse the enlightenment, and Cameron jumped on the same bandwagon.

binding them over under common law involves arresting them and taking them before the earliest sitting of the local Magistrate.

its all over in up to 3 days, if arrested on a Friday night.

That has worked for centuries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? What's the worst that can happen by saying something?

A large, angry crowd assumes that it's true that you're a paedophile, and burns your house down with you in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? What's the worst that can happen by saying something?

A large, angry crowd assumes that it's true that you're a paedophile, and burns your house down with you in it.

Thankyou, I was looking for a succinct answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there is a clear line between freedom of speech and abusive language, we don't know the contents of the tweets and I do agree there have been some heavy handed things going on but I personally don't think you can send abusives tweet about the death of a person you don't know and claim free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about binding people over to keep the peace is a good one. I think the malicious communication nonsense needs to be repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A large, angry crowd assumes that it's true that you're a paedophile, and burns your house down with you in it.

I think a line could be drawn between "offensive" and "liable" (which you could take up as a civil matter for damages anyway).

I'm not sure there were any/more cases in the days of pre-internet censorship of the example you describe compared to now (sounds a little like scaremongering).

I accept I am very much in favour of free speech so I'm probably biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there were any/more cases in the days of pre-internet censorship of the example you describe compared to now (sounds a little like scaremongering).

There wasn't any way that most people could communicate something to such a wide audience either. Say the same thing in a private email, or the pub, or similar and you won't get the police bursting through the door. Publish it in a newspaper and you always would've.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a line could be drawn between "offensive" and "liable" (which you could take up as a civil matter for damages anyway).

I think there's a distinction (not always made) between words themselves and the motivations, ideas and intentions that they represent.

I tend towards the view that there should be complete freedom of speech, but that does rely on a mature society/species (which we are not) where offensive words are universally ignored (and therefore probably not used because what'd be the point?) and libellous allegations would simply be responded to by all and sundry with a challenge to 'prove it or drop it'.

It seems to me that 'bad words' can only be irrationally challenged (i.e., that's a bad word because we say so--which is why I don't think it makes sense for any words to be considered bad in themselves), whereas ideas (good and bad) can be subject to rational challenges, which they always should be.

In my ideal world, one could say anything because there would never be an angry mob ready to burn yours (or someone else's) house down because of it.

That doesn't appear to be the world we live in, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A large, angry crowd assumes that it's true that you're a paedophile, and burns your house down with you in it.

Oh, the old 'incitement to hatred' nugget.

If im a hate preacher, 1000 young males have gathered to watch me preach jihad. 999 of them go about their daily business afterwards, but one decides to blow himself and a dozen commuters up, can that really be considered my fault?! 999 Obviously didnt take further action. Clearly there's something different about that individual.

No such thing as inciting hatred. Only individuals who allow themselves to be incited. If there was, it would mean humans in general do not have self control over their actions, and as such those human should be considered a danger to the public and sectioned under mental health.

FWIW ive felt extremely angry about what the lab-con parties have done to this country and wouldn't shed a single tear if someone shot Cameron, Brown or the rest of them. In fact Id happily dance on their graves. I still have enough self control to not do it myself.

Its not even on this level though. Its not threats of violence oneself, its not even so called 'incitement' of other people (as if anyone should ever be accountable for the actions of a third party anyway), its a bunch of mildly insulting comments.

I find the trial of Abu Hamza and his buddies disgraceful enough, ugly populism, this is just persecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about binding people over to keep the peace is a good one. I think the malicious communication nonsense needs to be repealed.

Already liebour want to bring in the same 'civil rights' laws (that have the nasty tendency of violating basic human rights at the same time) that racial and religious groups get to the army.

Wont be long till criticizing the army is the same as daring to criticize the religion of peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is an area of both law and behaviour that's undergoing evolution.

There are a lot of people who are still struggling to understand that the standards that they would apply to themselves in a real-world situation also should apply online.

All these cases involve a statement like this:

"He is mortified by his own behaviour and he apologises for any upset that may have been caused to everybody."

I may be being optimistic, but I tend to believe them.

Bottom line, the same standards that apply to speech in any public space should apply on-line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the old 'incitement to hatred' nugget.

If im a hate preacher, 1000 young males have gathered to watch me preach jihad. 999 of them go about their daily business afterwards, but one decides to blow himself and a dozen commuters up, can that really be considered my fault?! 999 Obviously didnt take further action. Clearly there's something different about that individual.

No such thing as inciting hatred. Only individuals who allow themselves to be incited. If there was, it would mean humans in general do not have self control over their actions, and as such those human should be considered a danger to the public and sectioned under mental health.

FWIW ive felt extremely angry about what the lab-con parties have done to this country and wouldn't shed a single tear if someone shot Cameron, Brown or the rest of them. In fact Id happily dance on their graves. I still have enough self control to not do it myself.

Its not even on this level though. Its not threats of violence oneself, its not even so called 'incitement' of other people (as if anyone should ever be accountable for the actions of a third party anyway), its a bunch of mildly insulting comments.

I find the trial of Abu Hamza and his buddies disgraceful enough, ugly populism, this is just persecution.

Do you think that if Derren Brown persuaded someone to commit a crime using his mix of NLP and hypnotism and whatever else he uses, he would have no responsibility for that person's actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my ideal world, one could say anything because there would never be an angry mob ready to burn yours (or someone else's) house down because of it.

That doesn't appear to be the world we live in, though.

I guess sometimes you have to legislate to deprive the majority to punish the minority. It's a bit depressing though.

Perhaps I'm a social idealist.

  • When people talk of the freedom of writing, speaking, or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists; but I hope it will exist. But it must be hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that if Derren Brown persuaded someone to commit a crime using his mix of NLP and hypnotism and whatever else he uses, he would have no responsibility for that person's actions?

Absolutely. People consent to have Derren brown to 'hypnotize' them. He has never coerced anyone into being hypnotized. Of course, if the trance was performed under duress, thats another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.