I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
Everything in life has caveats and conditions. It it how a society lives and behaves.
Am I free to do and say what I want, of course not.
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
It's not conditional - it's more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I'm amazed that anyone would think it shouldn't.
For those wanting restrictions on free speech, go back in history and look at times when restrictions on free speech have been implemented before over thousands of years, and who it was who did it and the ultimate consequences. You'll find yourself in the company of some pretty despicable characters in history. Brutal dictators, murderers, xenophobes, genocidal maniacs, the most despicable people ever produced by the human race. Feree speech may have the potential to offend occasionally but that is a far better thing to manage than the impossibility to manage any sort of restrictions on free speech. So yes freedom of speech has consequences and people should show an element of care and responsibility bt by the same token no topic or subject is free from open debate or challenge. The consequences of anything different are far more dangerous.
So no. No if you value freedom, the power of the people to hold their governments to account, the fight for justice and against tyranny around the globe then be very very careful about your desire to curtail free speech.
The attack on free speech that we're currently seeing has nothing to do with duty of care for people being offended. its a political movement designed to disrupt and derail our way of life and structure of government thinly veiled as a moral endeavour.
True freedom of speech is something that is still quite rare in this world and certainly before about 100 years ago didn't exist on the planet. We shouldn't take it for granted and protect it as an absolute priority.
It’s not conditional – it’s more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I’m amazed that anyone would think it shouldn’t.
^^This^^
In fairness this is the way we've operated as a society for many years. Transgress the bounds of accepted good taste or acceptable opinion and you'll see some degree of backlash either challenge by others in speech and print, protest or yes ultimately challenge in court...
It's simply that the internet has made this whole process quicker and broader. Those who cry "cancel culture" are simply trying to pre-empt the backlash they know their exercising of free speech will inevitably draw.
As for all the "whataboutery" WRT people using their free speech to bully or throw about various forms of bigotry? Well Yes, people can and do, but as said above there are consequences to that choice, people lose their jobs or friends...
Nobody said free speech was perfect, but it's preferable to "over-regulation" or suppression, if you're arguing for more limits on free speech, you are essentially arguing for suppression and playing into the hands of those "cancel culture" claimants...
For those wanting restrictions on free speech blah blah blah....
No-one has advocated for restrictions on free speech.
For those wanting restrictions on free speech
As several people have pointed out, every "right" to free speech in national and international law has caveats on it. It's how society works. In the same way that you (theoretically at least) have to abide by certain standards to have the right to drive a car.
No one is saying free speech should be restricted further, I'm pretty sure no one is unaware of the risks and slippery slope that would lead to.
1. It’s not a new law - it’s been around since 1988 (although it’s scope may have been modernised in 2003 the nature of the offences has not). It’s used dozens of times a year in Scotland for people who send abuse by text, Twitter, Facebook - to the extent that it’s not “news” unless it was linked to a story that was news (like Cap. Tom).
2. The requirement is not just for offence the message must be “grossly offensive or obscene”, it’s the job of the court to determine what that means in the circumstances. Is the job of the prosecutor to bring a prosecution wherever there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest.
3. If the tweet was as per the OP imagine replacing Brit with German, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Politician, policeman, soldier, etc - would that be “worse”? Now imagine a world in which an “anti British” message is permitted within a political landscape dominated by the SNP and you potentially will have claims that the Government are not clamping down on such behaviour.
4. For anyone who believes in unlimited freedom of speech - this has never been the case, we have a common law offence of “Uttering Threats”, I’m not quite sure if this offence would meet the definition but it probably does.
5. Those saying the answer is to remove anonymity from Twitter etc: a) this person was clearly not that anonymous if they were detected and charged; so clearly it doesn’t prevent it. b) there are plenty of people worried about abuse on Twitter who don’t think removing anonymity is a good idea - and I guess if you have anti-government; anti-employer or are in a likely “target group” you might subscribe to that concern.
It’s not conditional – it’s more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I’m amazed that anyone would think it shouldn’t.
As others have said I really don't get why people can't grasp this simple concept. Yes you can say what you want BUT, if that's deemed to have broken the rule of law expect consequences. If someone wants to argue "free speech" should be free from repercussions that's clearly wrong.
On the radio this morning, Trump is apparently going to use the First Amendment (right to free speech) as defence in his Senate trial...
Slight aside - I wonder if this is why people enjoy putting anti-cyclist views out there... because their racist/sexist/homophobic views would get them in trouble, but we're one minority group that's not protected.
The attack on free speech that we’re currently seeing has nothing to do with duty of care for people being offended. its a political movement designed to disrupt and derail our way of life and structure of government thinly veiled as a moral endeavour.
🤔
The attack on free speech that we’re currently seeing has nothing to do with duty of care for people being offended.
Is there one?
Can't say I noticed.
Slight aside – I wonder if this is why people enjoy putting anti-cyclist views out there… because their racist/sexist/homophobic views would get them in trouble, but we’re one minority group that’s not protected.
I think there is definitely an element of this - if you are a divisive clickbait hate merchant then your targets are pretty limited. Cyclists are fair game.
Catch all terms like "migrants" can also be used as a dog whistle.
Yes you can say what you want BUT, if that’s deemed to have broken the rule of law expect consequences
That's precisely not freedom of speech - legal consequences imposed by the government are limitations on speech, with government-sanctioned force behind it. It's not the same as getting banned from Twitter / mocked on social media / ending up losing your job cos your employer thinks you're a liability.
I think there is definitely an element of this – if you are a divisive clickbait hate merchant then your targets are pretty limited. Cyclists are fair game.
I think if you replaced "Brits" with "Cyclists" in the tweet the OP quotes (I don't know if that is the real tweet - I don't follow people who are idiots - so generally don't see this stuff!), and post if from an identifiable account in Scotland you should not be surprised to get a visit from the boys in blue. All the more so, if it was said in response to a high profile news story following a cyclist death, and attracts a large number of views (although I don't believe a post has to be viewed by anyone to make it grossly offensive).
Wobbliscott: Do you really believe that there should be no legal consequences for writing/saying/tweeting that "all [religious group] are vermin and we should all go to [place of worship], barricade the doors shut and then set it on fire. If any of the filthy [religious group] try to climb out of the windows then we'll be waiting to get them as they come out. In fact, John Doe, I know that you're [religious group] and I'm coming for you. I know you live at 123 Acacia Avenue. I'm going to follow you home tomorrow night and kill you and your family as step one of wiping out [religious group]."
It's just speech, I haven't actually *done* anything. Yet. You can't punish me for that, what is this, 1984? Why can't John Doe just have a robust debate with me and if he changes my mind with his well reasoned arguments then I won't set his house on fire or encourage other people to do it.
for the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe any of the above!
think if you replaced “Brits” with “Cyclists” in the tweet the OP quotes (I don’t know if that is the real tweet
It was allegedly something like "the only good Brit soldier is a dead one".
If you replace "Brit" with another nationality I wonder what the response would have been.
Also, I think you've got a minimal chance of getting in trouble if you write something like that about cyclists. You see it often enough on social media with comments along the lines of "should run them all over".
Slight aside – I wonder if this is why people enjoy putting anti-cyclist views out there… because their racist/sexist/homophobic views would get them in trouble, but we’re one minority group that’s not protected.
I've challenged people "joking" about attacking cyclists and asked them to replace "cyclist" with black or Jew. They back down pretty quickly.
Also, I think you’ve got a minimal chance of getting in trouble if you write something like that about cyclists. You see it often enough on social media with comments along the lines of “should run them all over”.
Have you ever reported them to the police and have they had identifiable UK (or preferably Scottish - so we are comparing police forces and prosecutors) posters? Someone will have reported the tweet in the OP to the police, they aren't sitting monitoring twitter. I'm pretty certain that a sensibly worded report with an easily identifiable offender will get a follow up. Now whether that results in charges may depend on many things - e.g. if the knock on the door is met with "I only meant it in jest, surely nobody thought I was serious, I'll delete it right now" that might get a different degree of discretion from "its twitter, I've got a right to free speech" or "they don't even pay road tax, they hold me up adding to pollution" or even "that's not offensive - its funny; you need to get a life. Haven't you got better things to do like arrest criminals". And of course, if someone has previously been warned about their conduct, or has a history of threatening or aggressive behaviour that is also likely to be a factor.
If you've been reporting threats against cyclists and not getting follow up I think you should escalate that to more senior ranks, PCC, MP etc.
I think the best example of why the absoluteness of "freedom of speech" doesn't work, is Alex Jones and his ongoing campaign of torturing the families of murdered children, egged on by a pro gun right wing media. Even the disagreement was weaselly framed in the pathetic "I don't agree with him but defend his right to say it" rather than call him out for the scum that he is. I am sure many of those parents and victims of his abuse would rather have received physical violence rather than the mental torture he profited from.
And lets face it, the most blatant example of cancel culture in the past few years, occurred when a black man knelt during the national anthem.
There's a few people on this thread who would do well read up on what 'freedom of speech' means before leaping to it's attack or defence or otherwise voicing an opinion on it. It is not the freedom to say whatever the hell you want.
The UK falls under the Human Rights Act, which grants "freedom of expression" but crucially this does not trump other laws around hate speech because why would it? The wording states that it “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”. As bails eloquently demonstrates, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain why Isis or whatever they're called this week creating a Facebook group called "plans to blow up London" might be problematic.
In the US, freedom of speech (and a few other freedoms) is protected by the First Amendment but this too has exemptions. Incitement, hate speech, obscenity, maybe others? Of course, defining those things can be a little more tricksy.
5. Those saying the answer is to remove anonymity from Twitter etc:
The problem with this concept, aside from some people in protected groups actually needing anonymity, is that other platforms are available. If you enforce ID verification on Twitter then Titter will spring up in an afternoon and those not wanting to divulge their identity will jump ship. We saw exactly this when the trumpers stormed the Whitehouse a couple of weeks back.
Incidentally, is "social meeja" the new "Microsoft Windoze"? I'm not sure what point it's supposed to prove other than to be needlessly condescending, if it's a joke then it's about as funny as genital herpes. Plus, a web forum is a social medium so, y'know, irony and all.
And lets face it, the most blatant example of cancel culture in the past few years, occurred when a black man knelt during the national anthem.
If it were possible here, this older white chap would upvote this (more than once too).
The trend seems to be if someone is saying [outlier group/minority] is doing this [action/boycott], it is usually the person making the noise that is carrying out [action/boycott] and is trying to project.
See also the gammon outcry and petition calling for sacking when a (gay, black) priest suggested the Sir Tom movement was a white nationalist cult. Apparently cancel culture is ok sometimes.
Hmm. So if I was to say the only good Nazi/racist/rapist is a dead one would that fall under hate speech? I mean, if you swap any of those for a religion, gender or race...
Or is that another example of the absurdity of dealing in absolutes?
It's almost as though complicated questions demand complex answers, isn't it.
If nothing else, it's good that we're discussing it.
Hell, if nothing else, it's good that (because of freedom of speech) we can discuss it.
If someone chose to report it, probably yes.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, they—
(a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Loughan
Free MemberI am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
I think anyone with half a brain knows it does tbf. "Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right so shout fire in a crowded theatre". Libel, fraud, confidentiality, incitement.
One thing I was thinking about just now in reference to what Wobbliscot said and Bails response.For a more realistic example if there should be no repercussion from "free speech" is the suggest from Wobbliscot that Trump should not be facing the charges hes facing now? After all be basically incited a bunch of people to storm capitol hill
In offended by your blatant disregard for basic grammar and proofreading.
#muttleys**** #pot #kettle 🤣
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
it’s more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I’m amazed that anyone would think it shouldn’t.
there’s a natural law which expresses this, I believe; “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
Hmm. So if I was to say the only good Nazi/racist/rapist is a dead one would that fall under hate speech? I mean, if you swap any of those for a religion, gender or race…
But would you swop any of those ?, they're not really comparable. I mean racist, cannot be compared to religion or gender or race, unless you think someones race is the equivalent of being a nazi or someones sexual orientation is the equivalent of being a rapist.
Maybe some other examples might be more akin.
It's a law that comments on use of grammar will have a basic error within them.
Muphry's law. ^^^^
I found a cure to getting offended on social media, stay the **** off of it!
On a more serious note a mate is currently facing prosecution for a facebook comment he made towards a politician. It wasn't overly horrible in the context of things I've seen on the internet but he is now in serious trouble over it
I couldn't possibly comment on whether the scumbag racist **** of a jobsworth politician deserved it or not but my mate's comment was obviously more harmful than the xenopohbic decisions and neo-nazi groups the victim is involved in
Anyone else seen the 'safe space' South Park episode? I'm surprised you can't already hire someone to filter your social media comments. Or maybe you can
But would you swop any of those ?, they’re not really comparable. I mean racist, cannot be compared to religion or gender or race, unless you think someones race is the equivalent of being a nazi or someones sexual orientation is the equivalent of being a rapist.
You're missing the point, someone already compared cyclists to Jews in exactly that same context so I simply took it a step further. Using their logic it would be a hate crime to say death to Nazis in the same way as saying death to Jews.
FWIW I don't think it would be a hate crime nor would I consider a similar statement applied to cyclists, joggers or dog walkers. None of those are protected characteristics nor are they likely to be. Where it is a protected characteristic then I see no issue with hate crime protections being applied. As Cougar said, it's a complicated question with complex answers.
On a more serious note a mate is currently facing prosecution for a facebook comment he made towards a politician. It wasn’t overly horrible in the context of things I’ve seen on the internet but he is now in serious trouble over it
Your mate needs to collect lots of evidence showing the racism by the 'victim' and go full Marquess of Queensbury on him in court. (Wilde type hatchet job, trash the 'victim' with their own bile).
Your mate needs to collect lots of evidence showing the racism by the ‘victim’ and go full Marquess of Queensbury on him in court. (Wilde type hatchet job, trash the ‘victim’ with their own bile).
Unfortunately for him this isn't in the UK, it's somewhere where the racism issue is very well rooted into the institutions. One of the reasons I now live in the UK again! Also unfortunately for him when the police broke into (yes, they broke in, they did it to me once as well) his house they found alot of stuff they weren't keen on. Not dead bodies, more literature and posters etc
Have you actually seen that video? I have to admit it made me laugh and my Nan is a holocaust survivor.
Just out of interest, the hospital I work at has just received £23,000 from the fund.
Bloody marvellous. 🙂
Where's Gina Carano when we need her...?
Unfortunately for him this isn’t in the UK, it’s somewhere where the racism issue is very well rooted into the institutions.
Sadly, nationalist, populist governments that have recently come to power in a number of countries are either resurrecting or passing laws of this nature, I’m thinking of Poland, Hungary, India, where Modhi’s government is now being openly referred to as Fascist!
