Free speech in the UK

[RoadKingLarry]

Wow...

I sat here for over 15 minutes trying to figure out what to say.

You are a seriously beaten people if you can't really understand why freedom of speech needs to be a near absolute. Or wonder that such a person or his comments are even a worthy use of the state's time and resources even if you don't accept the first premise.

They'd probably lock you up I the UK for saying that. Beaten people indeed.

[Balog]

Agricola: what's your opinion on jailing religious leaders for preaching the parts of their holy scrips that are offensive to others? Canada has a good history of it, not sure about England. How offensive do I have to be before I can be thrown in jail?

[RevDisk]

How offensive do I have to be before I can be thrown in jail?

I suspect you merely have to be sufficiently unpopular, or particularly truthsome. 

[Balog]

I suspect you merely have to be sufficiently unpopular, or particularly truthsome. 

No giving away the answers Rev...

[HankB]

I don't think there's ever actually been free speech under English law - kings and queens don't like to be contradicted by mere mortals.

I remember reading about a case a couple of hundred years ago in Colonial America - John Peter Zenger was arrested and charged with seditious libel for printing critical but true stories about the Crown-appointed Governor of New York Colony. The court asserted that "Truth is no defense!" on the grounds that true stories were worse than lies, since truth would hurt the reputation of the Governor more - but the feisty Colonial jury still refused to convict. (Colonial juries regularly thwarted bad law from the Crown, which retaliated by curtailing trial by jury and other rights for those pesky Colonials, who eventually had the temerity to write a Declaration of Independence - and we all know where that led.)

[agricola]

Wow...

I sat here for over 15 minutes trying to figure out what to say.

You are a seriously beaten people if you can't really understand why freedom of speech needs to be a near absolute. Or wonder that such a person or his comments are even a worthy use of the state's time and resources even if you don't accept the first premise.

What do you mean by "near absolute", then?

[Doggy Daddy]

What do you mean by "near absolute", then?

I won't speak for AJ, but the common example here for that would be you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theater.

DD

[roo_ster]

What do you mean by "near absolute", then?

Actively inciting a riot or lynch mob.  There has to be a mob handy, though.  Saying, "Let us lynch George Zimmerman and the 13YO witness!" on Twitter is not sufficient.

More broadly, speech that will have immediate consequences of death or physical harm and is done for evil intent.

That's about it.

[Perd Hapley]

I remember reading about a case a couple of hundred years ago in Colonial America - John Peter Zenger

Didn't we all read about that one in public school?

[longeyes]

Imams go unmuzzled--and they should--for telling you that England does not belong to the English, but this is where you choose to fight?

[CypherNinja]

I won't speak for AJ, but the common example here for that would be you can't falsely holler "fire" in a crowded theater.

DD

FIFY

[Doggy Daddy]

FIFY

Picker of nits! 

DD

[SADShooter]

What do you mean by "near absolute", then?

With illustrative examples provided above, the operating principle is bias in favor of the "offensive" speaker/speech, requiring direct harm or threat of harm to be actionable.

For me, this is analogous to individual liberty. Yes, there is a social compact, and regulation in the community interest may be necessary, but the decision should be biased as far as possible in favor of individual freedoms.

[White Horseradish]

Surely its a bit much to dignify a load of drunken comments on Twitter with the word "opinion"? 

If they can be dignified with a conviction, they can certainly be dignified with a word.

[makattak]

You know, I came here to make the same argument the rest of you are making, but I was struck by a realization.

Speech codes like this are a necessary result of outlawing other forms of punishment. If you value free speech, you ought to legalize and value even physical reprisals to offensive speech.

People don't care for grave dancing. Nor many other offensive things that are "merely words." In the founder's time, such boorishness would get you beaten and tossed out of town (possibly even tarred and feathered with the implicatation that you are not welcome to return without abject apologies) or challenged to a duel.

This is a part of the idea that "An armed society is a polite society" because you may have to back up your impolite words in a test of arms. Thus, people tended to be more polite as impoliteness could lead to your death.

When we decided that boorish louts were not allowed to be dealt with physically, it inevitably lead to speech codes like this because people don't like boorish louts and desire an enforcement mechanism to deal with them.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am VERY much opposed to speech codes and am well aware that many of my beliefs would get me in trouble in the politically correct speech codes of Great Britain and Canada. I am simply saying that I can understand reasons that likely have led to their existence.

[roo_ster]

You know, I came here to make the same argument the rest of you are making, but I was struck by a realization.

Speech codes like this are a necessary result of outlawing other forms of punishment. If you value free speech, you ought to legalize and value even physical reprisals to offensive speech.

People don't care for grave dancing. Nor many other offensive things that are "merely words." In the founder's time, such boorishness would get you beaten and tossed out of town (possibly even tarred and feathered with the implicatation that you are not welcome to return without abject apologies) or challenged to a duel.

This is a part of the idea that "An armed society is a polite society" because you may have to back up your impolite words in a test of arms. Thus, people tended to be more polite as impoliteness could lead to your death.

When we decided that boorish louts were not allowed to be dealt with physically, it inevitably lead to speech codes like this because people don't like boorish louts and desire an enforcement mechanism to deal with them.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am VERY much opposed to speech codes and am well aware that many of my beliefs would get me in trouble in the politically correct speech codes of Great Britain and Canada. I am simply saying that I can understand reasons that likely have led to their existence.

Huh, lack of self discipline and outlawing of vigorous social sanction leads to discipline being imposed by gov't force.  I wonder that no one noticed such a relationship before...

[AJ Dual]

I won't speak for AJ, but the common example here for that would be you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theater.

DD

Yep, that about covers it. And the riot/mob situation, and as stated. The mob has to be present and ready to go. And you pretty clearly need to be the guy standing on top the burning car with the bullhorn too. 

We do have libel and slander laws in this country, however they're civil redress for damages caused by 'speech'. There is no criminal peril to anyone involved.

[MicroBalrog]

You know, I came here to make the same argument the rest of you are making, but I was struck by a realization.

Speech codes like this are a necessary result of outlawing other forms of punishment. If you value free speech, you ought to legalize and value even physical reprisals to offensive speech.

People don't care for grave dancing. Nor many other offensive things that are "merely words." In the founder's time, such boorishness would get you beaten and tossed out of town (possibly even tarred and feathered with the implicatation that you are not welcome to return without abject apologies) or challenged to a duel.

This is a part of the idea that "An armed society is a polite society" because you may have to back up your impolite words in a test of arms. Thus, people tended to be more polite as impoliteness could lead to your death.

When we decided that boorish louts were not allowed to be dealt with physically, it inevitably lead to speech codes like this because people don't like boorish louts and desire an enforcement mechanism to deal with them.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am VERY much opposed to speech codes and am well aware that many of my beliefs would get me in trouble in the politically correct speech codes of Great Britain and Canada. I am simply saying that I can understand reasons that likely have led to their existence.

No. That is nonsense. Quite a few countries have neither speech codes of this sort, nor physical reprisals for them. They are not necessary in any way.

[Perd Hapley]

No. That is nonsense. Quite a few countries have neither speech codes of this sort, nor physical reprisals for them. They are not necessary in any way.

Such as?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

a return to the code duello

[MicroBalrog]

What, are physical reprisals for tasteless insults common in the US? Funny how all those people wishing for thw heinous death of differwnt political figures or mocking their deaths rwmain free and unhurt.

[purequackery]

Surely its a bit much to dignify a load of drunken comments on Twitter with the word "opinion"? 

Surely it's a bit much to dignify anything except the Queen's English as protected speech?

[Perd Hapley]

What, are physical reprisals for tasteless insults common in the US? Funny how all those people wishing for thw heinous death of differwnt political figures or mocking their deaths rwmain free and unhurt.

Yeah, OK, good point.

[AJ Dual]

What, are physical reprisals for tasteless insults common in the US? Funny how all those people wishing for thw heinous death of differwnt political figures or mocking their deaths rwmain free and unhurt.

No, but if someone is screaming that stuff right in your face, there is some body of American judicial precedent that the bar for proving criminal assault and battery under such provocation is higher. Not enough to get you off from punching someone out, but it can be sufficient to remove the factors of intent, or premeditation etc. from an assault and battery case. And with such factors removed, the odds the prosecuting attorney would allow a plea deal to a lesser charge, or just decline to prosecute the case are pretty high.

Essentially, legalese for "Them's fighting words." http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/

Is it applied often? No. Does it take some extraordinary provocation on the part of the speaker? Yes.

But it does exist. And the speaker could themselves be charged and tried with assault.

In essence, standing six inches from their nose and saying how they're going to grind you to a pulp, your wife, your kids too... etc.