The normalisation of the far-right continues

[Antlion]

15 minutes ago, Tutankhamen said:

There's a difference between Breach of the Peace/causing fear and alarm and Free Speech.

And free speech is what we’ve never had. The UK has some of the strictest libel and slander laws in the world. Injunctions and super injunctions can be taken out to prevent certain things being said publicly or written about. A whole raft of laws cover the arts (dictating what can be shown in cinemas and on TV). There are laws protecting religions and races.

As soon as anyone starts grumbling about “free speech”, they need to be directed to any history of UK and English censorship, libel law, and licensing. They’re essentially whining about losing something that had literally never existed on these islands.

[The OP]

39 minutes ago, Antlion said:

We’ve never had free speech here. Try going out onto your nearest high street and telling everyone who passes that your boss is a rapist and see how free your speech is.

Defamation is not a criminal breach so you’d need to cause fear or alarm through your actions - then it’s breach of the peace. Difficult to say whether that behaviour would, but it is mighty oddball so it is arguable. Nothing to stop your boss suing you and the onus of proof would be on you but it’s difficult to see why defaming people without proof of your allegations should be unchallengeable or uncompensatable. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by The OP

[Antlion]

5 minutes ago, The OP said:

Defamation is not a criminal breach so you’d need to cause fear or alarm through your actions - then it’s breach of the peace. Difficult to say whether that behaviour would, but it is mighty oddball so it is arguable. Nothing to stop your boss suing you and the onus of proof would be on you but it’s difficult to see why defaming people without proof of your allegations should be unchallengeable or uncompensatable. 

Not criminal, but civil. Go out and say whatever you like about people and you’re likely to find yourself sued for it under civil law if not arrested for causing a breach of the peace (depending on what you’re saying). As far as I know, no one has argued for “free speech” in the UK, but rather for freedom of expression (particularly political expression). To argue as though we’re a people who are having our once inalienable right to free speech eroded is disingenuous.

[The OP]

38 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Not criminal, but civil. Go out and say whatever you like about people and you’re likely to find yourself sued for it under civil law if not arrested for causing a breach of the peace (depending on what you’re saying). As far as I know, no one has argued for “free speech” in the UK, but rather for freedom of expression (particularly political expression). To argue as though we’re a people who are having our once inalienable right to free speech eroded is disingenuous.

Yes of course various human rights are balanced by other rights. If we had an absolute right to liberty there’d be no prisons, if we had absolute freedom of assembly trespassing wouldn’t be a thing and if the right to a private life was unrestricted there would be no newspapers or criminal investigations (and conversely if we had complete freedom of the press no one would have the right to a private life).

Just because the right to freedom of speech is limited to prevent harm to others doesn’t mean we don’t have it. It strikes me as a specious point you are making.

Edited June 30, 2020 by The OP

[Antlion]

40 minutes ago, The OP said:

Yes of course various human rights are balanced by other rights. If we had an absolute right to liberty there’d be no prisons, if we had absolute freedom of assembly trespassing wouldn’t be a thing and if the right to a private life was unrestricted there would be no newspapers or criminal investigations (and conversely if we had complete freedom of the press no one would have the right to a private life).

Just because the right to freedom of speech is limited to prevent harm to others doesn’t mean we don’t have it. It strikes me as a specious point you are making.

We don’t have the right to freedom of speech is the point I’m making. It’s a fallacy. It has never been enshrined in UK law at any level. We are not the US. What we have is freedom of expression, which is different.

It might seem specious and I would concede that it is if it weren’t for the fact that so many people (often but far from limited to the far right) seem to carp about attacks on free speech when racist or inflammatory stuff is curtailed, even by private companies who don’t want it on their platforms. They seem to make political hay out of something being supposedly taken from them that they never actually had, often suggesting at the same time that the UK is becoming some kind of leftie PC state.

[welshbairn]

I don't think you should have the right to publish deliberate falsehoods, or claims you have no evidence for without making that clear. So about 95% of Trump's twitter feed. Saying "A lot of people are saying X is a murderer, someone should look into it." shouldn't be a get out, like saying "allegedly".

[The OP]

17 minutes ago, Antlion said:

We don’t have the right to freedom of speech is the point I’m making. It’s a fallacy. It has never been enshrined in UK law at any level. We are not the US. What we have is freedom of expression, which is different.

It might seem specious and I would concede that it is if it weren’t for the fact that so many people (often but far from limited to the far right) seem to carp about attacks on free speech when racist or inflammatory stuff is curtailed, even by private companies who don’t want it on their platforms. They seem to make political hay out of something being supposedly taken from them that they never actually had, often suggesting at the same time that the UK is becoming some kind of leftie PC state.

Expression is not different. Expression includes speech. The US just has a weird formulation where they treat things like porn as “speech”.  Furthermore, citizens of the US don’t have an unfettered right to freedom of speech, it is just less fettered than here.

It is enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR to which the UK is signatory and is enshrined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which is primary legislation.

The US has lower restrictions on free speech but if (in the US) you publicly falsely accused your boss of being a rapist and they can prove your claims are false they can sue you for defamation in the US.

It seems like an incidental point to this discussion and we’re both singing from the same hymn sheet but we do have freedom of speech in this country and that right is balanced by other rights. Other countries will place a greater emphasis on one right or another.

Edited June 30, 2020 by The OP

[Antlion]

29 minutes ago, The OP said:

Expression is not different. Expression includes speech. The US just has a weird formulation where they treat things like porn as “speech”.  Furthermore, citizens of the US don’t have an unfettered right to freedom of speech, it is just less fettered than here.

It is enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR to which the UK is signatory and is enshrined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which.

The US has lower restrictions on free speech but if you publicly falsely accused your boss of being a rapist and they can prove your claims are false they can sue you for defamation.

It seems like an incidental point to this discussion and we’re both singing from the same hymn sheet but we do have freedom of speech in this country and that right is balanced by other rights. Other countries will place a greater emphasis on one right or another.

We have (rightly, I think) a limited right to speak (and publish) freely enshrined under freedom of expression legislation - on that I agree with you. What we don’t have is a legal right to “free speech” that is being threatened by (for example) private companies clamping down on hate speech.

Article 10 of the ECHA is notoriously woolly. It says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The second clause then clarifies and curtails this, as it recognises the “duties and responsibilities” we have to respect the “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals and for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”

Therefore that freedom to express ourselves is recognisably subject to a whole host of legislation - again, I think rightly. It is not the lazy “free speech” right that I think many seem to feel either exists, has existed, or should exist.

All of this complexity, caveating, and cautionary legal nicety is frequently reduced to “what happened to free speech!!!??!” often barked by far-right cretins who probably want the EHRC to have no authority in the UK anyway.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Antlion

[Baxter Parp]

I don't agree with these people who are being banned, but I don't take pleasure in seeing free speech supressed.

It doesnt impinge on anybody's right to free speech. Nobody has the right to amplification of their speech.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It never has.

The regurgitation of this defence every time bigoted viewpoints collide with criticism is merely a tactic used to avoid accountability.

We are all free to say whatever we like, but it doesn’t automatically follow that what we say will be received positively and nor does anybody have an automatic right to be given a ‘platform’ to air their views.

[welshbairn]

We've never had the right to get letters published in newspapers, or books published unless we pay for it ourselves. The internet which started off as a free Utopian dream has been shanghaied by data miners and c***s taking the pish out of "freedom of speech" to ooze out bile, lies and hatred knowing they're very unlikely to be held to account, like they would be if published in print. Thankfully the internet publishers are beginning to force them out of the mainstream into bubbles where they can shit on each other rather than the rest of us.

[Detournement]

On 30/06/2020 at 15:24, MixuFruit said:

Nobody's stopping these people saying whatever they like, it's just YouTube, Reddit, Twitter etc have decided they don't want them to say it on their platforms. Nobody is having their free speech attacked.

Social media has become the commons though despite being privately owned which is a combination for disaster. The idea that the social media companies have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms is handing huge power to a bunch of libertarian silicon valley billionaire sociopaths. 

Lots of indigenous Bolivian accounts supporting MAS the party of Evo Morales were banned off Twitter last week for no apparent reason. 

[Detournement]

14 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

I suppose it depends on whether you view getting kicked off twitter as retribution. I don't. We're all free to go and sign up to Parler or Mastodon or whatever and read their stuff if we so wish and if they get thrown off there they can host their own IRC network and we can all dust off mIRC and see what they're saying there etc etc etc. I don't buy the idea because certain social media sites are popular that this makes it a free speech issue.

I would make it comparable to electricity, gas or broadband. They are private companies which aren't allowed to blacklist people for political beliefs. 

 

[Baxter Parp]

Just protesting, like.

[JMDP]

The guy who attacked Owen Jones got put away for three years the other day. The thread about it on Jones twitter is an interesting, yet disturbing read. 

[NotThePars]

54 minutes ago, JMDP said:

The guy who attacked Owen Jones got put away for three years the other day. The thread about it on Jones twitter is an interesting, yet disturbing read. 

It was class when he got attacked and a load of the commentariat decided it was more important to stress that Jones was not a journalist but a political activist.

[Bairnardo]

Finding it perplexing that a guy who otherwise looks about 12 years old has a full beard

And..... a hand grenade with wings tattooed across his chest

[Bairnardo]

4 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Is that from SomethingAwful or somewhere else? They used to be bad for permitting fascism but have since clamped down quite hard.

No idea. Dont even know who the laddie is just find it odd that a grown up would want to be scarred for life by a grenade with wings. 

[Bairnardo]

8 minutes ago, Tynierose said:

He is clearly cerebrally challenged the racist piece of shit.

Just reading that a winged grenade is often got by soldiers to commemorate fallen comrades. Think that particular punter can be written off as having any combat experience. 

Have to assume based on looks alone that the closest he has come to battle is routinely having his lunch money taken from him

 

[tongue_tied_danny]

17 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Just protesting, like.

Frankie Boyle has let himself go...