[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.
Who is deciding what is edgy but still funny, vs what’s over the line?
What is valid criticism of people who happen to be part of a minority group, vs what is hateful and racist?
The only reason you are ok with this, is because all of your beliefs fall within the boundaries of acceptability set by the censors. And you want to be protected from the speech of people who might think or believe differently.
There is a world of difference between these two things. To my knowledge death threats are illegal in every American state. Insulting people is generally legal, just like it should be.
1) the US government attacks people for their opinions, and so does the UK government. Same with civil asset forfeiture. And it doesn't stop there. Treatment of immigrants/asylum seekers, military actions outside of the country, protection of corrupt officials, ...
2) People who defend the US government actions, whether related to freedom of speech or forfeiture, are described as unfairly naive or pro-state by Europeans.
3) People who criticize the UK government actions, essentially the same, except much lesser known, are unfairly criticizing their "trustworthy state". Forfeiture without recourse, check. Speech attacks. And let's just not investigate what the UK government has done to immigrants, because ...
To just take one particularly vile action taken by the UK government, which I challenge defenders to defend as "just" here's one:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/20/child-asylum-seek...
Or how about having cops deceive members of environmental groups into sex, going so far as to father children with them, then (of course) walking away. To make matters worse, the UK government decided (again, obviously) to protect the officers from normal legal responsibility requirements.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/deceived-lovers-...
Yeah, I can see why this organization doesn't want to be criticized publicly ... that's, as they say, going to go down poorly.
I don't understand this attitude in people. The US people criticize their government. This seems like a very, very good thing. Europeans, in my experience, largely have worse governments with better reputations ... They're different in various ways, although much less so in the case of the UK.
For instance, the royal house of the Netherlands has an insanely good reputation ... as long as you don't speak to people who so much as live close to them. Then they're moral abominations who constantly abuse their position in the state for utterly banal reasons (they've -literally- ordered people arrested because their children did better on a test in school than their children). And yet, fantastic reputation. But look up articles actually about them, and you will quickly realize what monsters these people are.
To judge the quality and trustworthiness of the UK police force, I encourage you to check out the exams they have officers take before entering, and realize that many officers actually fail these tests once or twice before joining. Let's just not pretend that half these people are even smart enough to know the difference between acting trustworthy and not, because that actually requires a very, very, very basic level of intelligence that clearly is not required and in many cases not present for those joining the police force.
Sometimes you can explain this through politics. For instance, US people often have a good opinion of the NHS. The NHS ! Yes, really, that NHS. WTF ? Ok, they don't charge much, true. They do seem to get accused constantly of not doing much else either and in cases ... they deserve that criticism. But OK, the US has a problem the NHS does not impose on UK'ers. So sure let's focus on the good. (Although what baffles me a bit about UK people is that they still think that something like 20 pounds or so is a lot for complex medical procedures, enough to convince many of them not to do them)
But many, many things in Europe are incredibly bad. Very little criticism, leading to good reputations which are, in quite a few cases, rather less accurate.
The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. And it's really not that different, is it?
Wrong.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
>...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States.
It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.
(IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder)
Well, the article discusses the origin of the idea that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is illegal. It also points out that Brandenburg v. Ohio is the actual relevant decision.
For more context on the Brandenberg decision:
>...Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law.
>...Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.
>With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."
>So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.
http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...
Literally shouting fire in a crowded theater in an attempt to cause a panic and perhaps kill people, would not be protected speech, but pretty much anything less would be protected speech.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-n...
> Almost 100 people were murdered over the last five years by registered users of Stormfront, the largest racist Web forum in the world, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
How did free speech carry out terrorist murders?
You can shout grammatically correct, sensible and lawful speech from the public street corner ("eat right! exercise! wash behind your ears!"), but if a cop simply tells you to move along and you refuse, you're still looking at being jailed.
I mean, extending on that statement, you probably also think sexual harassment, as long as it stays verbal, is OK to have in the name of freedom. As a guy you probably don't have to worry there anyways. People are driven into suicide through harassment.
And why don't you feel the same about the right to just shoot anyone at will? Clearly your government is strongly restricting your freedom there, but we probably don't Need to argue why this is a good thing.
But doesn't, unless you say something reprehensible that the society you live in agrees that you stepped way over the line.
All except for terrorist attacks, which are considered part and parcel of living in a big city[1] like London (but strangely not Tokyo which has 4-5m more citizens!).
[1]https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/new-york-explosion-sad...
> Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives.
Seems sensible to me.
Living in a city, you must be prepared for terror.
This is not how things should be.
Being prepared for these things is not the same as saying these things are unavoidable certainties. There is quite a big distinction, along the lines of having a gun for self defense Vs having a gun to shoot someone.
He is basically saying support the police in their counter terrorism work, and report anything suspicious if you see it. Pretty much what you hear over the airport tannoys every time you fly.
>but it's [terrorist attacks] what decades of incredibly poor middle Eastern foreign policy gets you.
You believe terrorist attacks are deserved as a result of what your government has done in the past?
>I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.
Which is it? Your government is taking measures to assure your protection, or is actively provoking foreigners to kill you on your own soil?
Nobody deserves to get hit by a car, but if you're running across a highway then what do you expect.
> Which is it? Your government is taking measures to assure your protection, or is actively provoking foreigners to kill you on your own soil?
Why are those mutually exclusive?
I would also tack on that it's mostly the USA's foreign policy that got us here (which our government decided to jump in bed with to be fair, but yours nonetheless). It's just you have a nice Atlantic ocean to buffer you from many of the concequences.
So you support the disarming of all US citizens, because living in fear of crime isn't how things should be?
That's quite the argument!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I03IKr2TWDM
"It's part and parcel of living in a great global city..."
>Seems sensible to me.
You keep using that word...
The occasional terrorist attack seems better than starting a world war that invited retaliatory firebombing and nuclear bombing.
USA is taking its turn at feeling the consequences of colonial imperialism.
Wasn't London bombed too? What's your point? Terrorist attacks are better than world wars?
We've reached peak Poe's law.
Not everyone values free speech quite as highly as the USA. It's important, sure, but it's not live or die. There are limits and spreading vile hate speech is one of them.
I also like the complete focus on the free speech aspect, completely ignoring the "we actually deal with racists here" aspect. How narrow minded.
[0] “As we have seen, during the days of slavery and later segregation, laws suppressing free speech were often aimed at abolitionists and civil rights advocates, not at slave owners or Jim Crow advocates. This reflected social and political power in local states and communities where attitudes towards race were very different than today.“ https://www.hoover.org/research/harm-hate-speech-laws
The government cannot just arbitrarily expand hate speech to include something which is patently not hate speech. The courts would not uphold it, neither would the judiciary or the public at large.
As someone who values free speech, even one fine is abhorrent.
Everyone values speech they like. Valuing Free Speech means valuing the speech you don't like, too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/29...
> It’s illegal in Britain to report the details of some trials before they conclude
> Robinson was convicted of breaking that law last year
> He showed up with his cameraman again Friday — this time outside a restricted child-sex-abuse trial at Leeds Crown Court, for what he inaccurately announced was the verdict.
So not only was he not arrested for broadcasting generally (rather for breaking a law forbidding reporting on of trials before they conclude) but this trial was also not "public".
The other day, I saw a bizarre talk on Youtube about this case by a UK and Canadian activist sitting together in the same room. At one point, the UK citizen stops talking and the Canadian takes over to tell some information. Then the UK person continues. Why? Because he could be arrested if he said it himself so he needed someone who wasn't going to the UK to say it for him.
He had a previous suspended sentence for filming inside a court a couple of months earlier. He then thought "hey, you know what's a good idea? Disobeying a judge's direct no-reporting order (to maintain the integrity of the trial) literally right outside the freaking courthouse.
I consider not giving him a slap on the wrist pretty sensible.
Restrictions on what can be reported while a trial is happening are common, and not unusual in England. It should be obvious that you cannot, before someone has been convicted, call them a Muslim Paedophiles or Muslim child rapists, and you can't threaten to go round their house.
After being convicted for contempt of court, and given a very clear warning not to do the samething again he does exactly the same thing again.
For a good summary of the Yaxley Lennon situation there's this from a barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-...
Here's what the judge says (but please do read the entire document):
---begin ---
The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.
MR. KOVALEVSKY: Your Honour, may we extend our thanks for the patience with which you have heard us this afternoon.
JUDGE NORTON: I am very sorry that we have gone on so late. Thank you very much for bearing with this rather lengthy case. Thank you both very much indeed for your help. Finally, can I just say this to Mr. -- I don't know whether it is Robertson or Robson who has just left the court, or indeed to anybody in the public gallery: I hope they have heard what I have said. There are real risks in publication and there are real risks in what is put online, and I hope that everybody will respect the judgment of this court and will not be tempted to do anything which might frankly, unwittingly or otherwise, either impede this trial or might land Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, or indeed themselves, in even more trouble.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-calle...
I would check where you are getting your facts from.
Did I mention that his entire video is still on Youtube? Still sitting their "jeopardizing" the case and it hasn't been taken down. Not only that, but anybody else outside the UK could repeat the same things and publish them anywhere on the internet without a problem. The UK no-talking-about-the-trial-in-public law completely fails without draconian China-scale internet censorship.
He threatened witnesses; he called defendants before they were convicted "muslim child rapists"; his actions nearly caused the collapse of the trial.
He used "alleged" as all media does for people who haven't been convicted.
Here are public details of the trials already published in the UK. It includes the names, charges, and effectively the description "child rapists". How does this not risk collapsing the trial but when Tommy Robinson said it, it did? Is it simply because he said they were Muslim while the newspaper only listed their obviously Muslim-sounding names?
https://www.examiner.co.uk/news/trial-dates-set-29-people-13...
Furthermore, he had already received a suspended sentence for doing the same thing. He wasn't immediately jailed without warning.
Also a chunk of those 13 months was from the previous suspended sentence for doing pretty much the same thing.
So yeah, I would definitely check where you get your facts from.
The judge quite sensibly didn't want that case, sure to get lots of attention, to rub off on his ongoing court case which has existing reporting restrictions.
I'm also sure America could teach us a lot about gag orders though. Stick national security infront of it and then all freedom goes out the window?
After he was sentenced and in jail.
Love the coarse metric of British "sensibility"! Sounds like we need a "sensibility spectrum" to measure this all against. Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice!
... As he should be, for breaking a court order in the most ridiculous manner. Twice.
> Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice!
You are aware that you're commenting on a post about how a citizens freedom and property where taken without any due process? And how that happens a lot? And how it's legal?
I feel like you're just looking to be triggered by something, and this man breaking two court orders gets you going, so we might as well end it here.
Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online, covers up child-rape gangs, arrests people for reporting on those cover ups, and mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die, regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country.
Your government took 1984 and used it as a blueprint. Your government see you as an actual human, they see you as their property.
Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening.
> covers up child-rape gangs
Mostly local government and the police, not central government (who organised an inquiry into it).
> mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die
For the NHS, _maybe_, and even then it is only limiting care on the very fringes. Nothing is stopping you going private.
> regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country
I assume you are referring to Ashya King, a child whom was moved from the country against medical advice (which is completely different to _you_ deciding to decline treatment--the decision is being made by the parents on behalf on the child). Furthermore, when the case was decided by the high court, it was ruled that the parents _did_ have the right to pursue that line of treatment:
> Having considered the evidence, I concluded that there was no reason to stand in the way of the parents’ proposal. In some cases, this court is faced with a dispute between medical authorities and parents who are insisting on a wholly unreasonable course of treatment, or withholding consent to an essential therapy for their child – for example, a blood transfusion. This is manifestly not such a case. The course of treatment proposed by Mr and Mrs King is entirely reasonable. [...] Both courses are reasonable and it is the parents who bear the heavy responsibility of making the decision. It is no business of this court, or any other public authority, to interfere with their decision.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/judg...
I don't see how that supports the notion that the government can mandate your treatment.
> Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening.
A British teenager was arrested and charged for posting on Facebook that UK soldiers should go to hell.[0]
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/201...
Furthermore, his final sentence is "Azhar Ahmed must do 240 hours of community service"[1]. Whilst I disagree with him being charged at all, that doesn't seem _grossly_ disproportionate.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/09/community-sentenc...
Is it? It just seems redundant to me. Redundancy may be offensive, but it shouldn't be illegal!
I suggest you visit sometime and expand your world view.
No, this is incorrect.
Alfie Evans was going to die. There was no treatment available for him. No-one, not even foreign doctors, were offering treatment other than end of life care.
Alfie is a human, and has human rights, and the paramountcy principle used in English courts mean that his rights are more important to the courts than the parents' rights. Everything has to be done in his best interest, and it wasn't in his best interest to take him abroad to die.
The parents had excellent top tier legal advice provided for free. They went through seven legal firms because they weren't being told what they wanted. They eventually got sucked into the Christian Legal Center - an organisation whose advice was so piss-poor they face regulation.
https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu...
Here's a useful blog post about what actually happened: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/alfie-evans-best-inter...
(This is written by a mix of people, some of them represent children and families against the state.)
Note that an important difference between the US and UK law is that in the UK the doctors propose a plan, and if the parents disagree the doctors need to go to court to get permission. This is reversed in the US. The doctors propose a plan, and if the parents disagree it is they who need to go to court to stop the doctors.
It sparked 5+ inquiries, including a parliamentary one, numerous reforms and national outrage. I hope we learn from those mistakes.
I never said England was perfect, and I'm not sure why this invalidates any of the points I've made.
I could pick a few things that have happened in America that have not triggered universal outrage and a senate hearing. Like weekly school shootings.
Get a clue, man. Denying this kind of thing doesn't help anyone, even minority groups you might fear getting tarred by association. If you can ignore the rape of thousands of children because the political ramifications of it make you uncomfortable, you're part of the problem.
You have a very funny definition of "ignore".
> If you can ignore the rape of thousands of children because the political ramifications of it make you uncomfortable, you're part of the problem.
If everyone who disagrees with your framing "ignores child rape", you're part of the problem.
For example you have to comply with the spirit of a law, not the exact text. Also our QC's are pretty level headed and the same goes for our police force. Nobody is overly nitpicky about things, and when they are it's sensible. At least in my experience, YMMV.
US could learn a lot if they looked outward, but I don't think that's in their nature.