[Rushy]

What does some random guy who worked for Twitter have to do with UK policy re: Elon shitposts?

He's a rich executive that lives and works in the UK, him calling for the UK to prosecute foreigners is relevant to the discussion.

I agree. I think we should do something to stop him from publishing opinion articles in the press. That'll do the trick.

We should prosecute him for posting his opinion online. Tell the king.

[AATW]

Britain and the UK has never had freedom of speech.

Coincidentally, neither does the US

Right. This is the point I was trying to make but you have done much better than me.

Real freedom of speech - in the sense that you can literally say anything you want - doesn’t exist in the US or the UK or anywhere. And nor should it, actually. All societies are governed by rules, and they have to be because in a society my actions affect others. So I can’t drive as fast as I like because I might kill someone. You can’t just do or say anything you want in the context of a society. All those Americans trumpeting their “freedom” must scratch their heads every time they get a speeding fine. In the US you can’t even cross the road until the little man tells you. They’re so free!

[Rushy]

Real freedom of speech - in the sense that you can literally say anything you want - doesn’t exist in the US or the UK or anywhere. And nor should it, actually. All societies are governed by rules, and they have to be because in a society my actions affect others. So I can’t drive as fast as I like because I might kill someone. You can’t just do or say anything you want in the context of a society. All those Americans trumpeting their “freedom” must scratch their heads every time they get a speeding fine. In the US you can’t even cross the road until the little man tells you. They’re so free!

The US has freedom of speech. It's verbatim in our bill of rights as "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". What "freedom of speech" is, therefore, is defined by the US legal system. The US has freedom of speech and what freedom of speech there is to be had is had by the US. Since your court system does not reference the US legal system, it does not have freedom of speech. In fact, you have no bill of rights at all, and your government is a chaotic cacophony of nonsense that involves sending people to jail for tweets.

What you've done is create a personal straw man ("real freedom of speech") then declared no one has it. This is, again, an incorrect understanding of what freedom of speech is. Once again, unsurprisingly, a foreigner cannot comprehend the idea of a right enshrined by the government, because they don't have any rights! Your government doesn't trust you to tweet your own thoughts or to own a weapon. You don't even trust each other to own them, either! A true nightmare of a civilization. I bet in response to this you'll begin explaining why it's healthy and natural to have a country full of people who cannot be trusted to tweet their own thoughts. After all, you just got done doing it in the very post I've quoted!

[Pongo]

Y'all, the Brits don't even know what freedom is. It's like listening to a border collie's opinions on language theory. Sure they can learn a few words and some of them can even understand a full sentence, but any complexity is completely lost on them. Sadly, this is where the comparison breaks down. You see, it's not the dogs fault they they cannot understand language, but it is the Brit's fault that they continue to live in willful ignorance of freedom.

At some point in every Brit's life they have to look across the pond and say, "No sir, that's not for me. I'll just take another scoop of beans for breakfast and continue to kowtow to my imperial overlords." The Torres are making a good run at waking up the masses but at the end of the day they'll never be able to attain the level of freedom that their former colonies have wrestled away from them. They are simply still to entrenched in the system.

[AATW]

The US has freedom of speech.

You keep telling yourself that, fella.

your government is a chaotic cacophony of nonsense that involves sending people to jail for tweets.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election

Well this is awkward...

[AATW]

Y'all, the Brits don't even know what freedom is.

Yeah. You just keep on standing on the side of the road waiting till a little man tells you that you can cross, lest you get fined, while congratulating yourselves on how free you are.

[Rushy]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election

Well this is awkward...

Yes, that's why it's called New England. They like to take influence from British law and use your wacky ideas to change our laws. It's why your country is a danger to freedom everywhere. This is also, coincidentally, why New York keeps trying to break the 2nd amendment as well. They, deep down, want to be British, as horrible as that is.

Yeah. You just keep on standing on the side of the road waiting till a little man tells you that you can cross, lest you get fined, while congratulating yourselves on how free you are.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this. Are you suggesting the freedom to jump in front of a moving vehicle and die is similar to the freedom of getting jailed by tweets? Your poisonous influence is damaging the entire world.

[Pete Svarrior]

The US has freedom of speech. It's verbatim in our bill of rights as "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". What "freedom of speech" is, therefore, is defined by the US legal system. The US has freedom of speech and what freedom of speech there is to be had is had by the US. Since your court system does not reference the US legal system, it does not have freedom of speech. In fact, you have no bill of rights at all, and your government is a chaotic cacophony of nonsense that involves sending people to jail for tweets.

In reality, the inverse is the case. The European Convention on Human Rights clearly defines both the right to freedom of expression and its limitations. Meanwhile, Americans enjoy their mythology - a constitutional amendment which makes grandiose promises, but which has to be "interpreted" through the lens of a bunch of old unelected bureaucrats. Oh, wanna know what speech is allowed in America? Easy, you just need to read the 1st Amendment... and McDichael vs The People of Hamburgersburg, Francis vs The Greater Cherokee Commune, and Nevada vs Nevada. Oh, and all of that might change on a whim because as soon as the partisan balance of the unelected bureaucrats changes, they can just say "no lmao the law should be read differently now, we're not changing the law, we're just changing all practical implications of it, trust us".

Nice scam.

[Roundy]

Y'all, the Brits don't even know what freedom is.

Yeah. You just keep on standing on the side of the road waiting till a little man tells you that you can cross, lest you get fined, while congratulating yourselves on how free you are.

If this is the crowning jewel of your argument (this is at least the second time you've brought it up) you should think about finding something else. NOBODY in this country gets fined for jaywalking anymore, I believe it's not even technically a crime in most places anymore.

[Rushy]

In reality, the inverse is the case. The European Convention on Human Rights clearly defines both the right to freedom of expression and its limitations. Meanwhile, Americans enjoy their mythology - a constitutional amendment which makes grandiose promises, but which has to be "interpreted" through the lens of a bunch of old unelected bureaucrats. Oh, wanna know what speech is allowed in America? Easy, you just need to read the 1st Amendment... and McDichael vs The People of Hamburgersburg, Francis vs The Greater Cherokee Commune, and Nevada vs Nevada. Oh, and all of that might change on a whim because as soon as the partisan balance of the unelected bureaucrats changes, they can just say "no lmao the law should be read differently now, we're not changing the law, we're just changing all practical implications of it, trust us".

Nice scam.

As is quite obvious, the limitations are extreme. I would go to jail in the UK for having a bike wheel in my personal inventory or, god help me, a poster. Going to jail for a tweet is the least egregious example of the lack of freedom the in the UK. It's only the beginning in a grand journey of British insanity.

If this is the crowning jewel of your argument (this is at least the second time you've brought it up) you should think about finding something else. NOBODY in this country gets fined for jaywalking anymore, I believe it's not even technically a crime in most places anymore.

Don't be rude, Roundy, just because he watched some show where someone gets fined for jaywalking doesn't mean there aren't cops hiding in the bushes, waiting for you to jump into traffic without permission from the crossing light. It's not his fault that his country doesn't produce enough media for him to consume.

[AATW]

If this is the crowning jewel of your argument (this is at least the second time you've brought it up) you should think about finding something else. NOBODY in this country gets fined for jaywalking anymore, I believe it's not even technically a crime in most places anymore.

It was an example. I also mentioned speeding. Can we agree that you're not free to go whatever speed you like on your roads? We aren't here either. These are examples intended to make you consider that "the land of the free" doesn't give its citizens absolute freedom to do whatever they like. Nor does any other country. Freedom isn't a binary thing, it's a sliding scale. In any society there are laws which constrain freedoms. There has to be because in a society our actions affect each other - we have speed limits because there are idiots who would go way too fast and kill people. Part of the societal contract is you give up some freedoms in the interest of keeping the society functioning.

Some attempts at quantifying how free our respective countries are:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores

Both of these actually claim the UK is marginally more free than the US
Overall the US is a free country but so is the UK. Freedom doesn't mean you can literally do whatever you like and free speech doesn't mean you can literally say whatever you like - the first amendment has caveats and exceptions, Pete has mentioned some of them. So yes, people have been jailed for their online activity in the UK and they have in the US too.

If you want to pretend to yourself that you live in a free country and I don't then go nuts, but it isn't true.

[AATW]

I would go to jail in the UK for having a bike wheel in my personal inventory or, god help me, a poster.

Go on then, I'm intrigued. What the utter fuck are you talking about here?

[Rushy]

I would go to jail in the UK for having a bike wheel in my personal inventory or, god help me, a poster.

Go on then, I'm intrigued. What the utter fuck are you talking about here?

These are examples of what the average British police officer considers to be weapons.

[Rushy]

As a blast from the past, reminder that the UK has been arresting people for making dark jokes on the internet for a decade or more: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/glasgow-crash-tweet_n_6371428.html

This nice man went to jail for saying mean things to the police: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sutton-man-61-chanted-f-151500758.html

So, the question becomes, was the UK ever okay?

[Pete Svarrior]

I would go to jail in the UK for having a bike wheel in my personal inventory or, god help me, a poster. Going to jail for a tweet is the least egregious example of the lack of freedom the in the UK. It's only the beginning in a grand journey of British insanity.

This Guy Consumes Media

But yes, UK cops on social media are extremely funny - but that's just because they're cops. Check out this one, where they successfully seized some very dangerous drugs:

https://www.twitter.com/MPSWForest/status/1627196844446035969

EDIT: lol, they deleted it. Here's a Wayback Machine link instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20230220004610/https://twitter.com/MPSWForest/status/1627196844446035969

This nice man went to jail for saying mean things to the police: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sutton-man-61-chanted-f-151500758.html

I dunno, I think I honestly prefer rioters (read beyond the lede my man) being arrested over letting them raid and loot the community and/or take over the Capitol. Y'all just ineffective, despite trying to be more oppressive. Sad!

[Rushy]

But yes, UK cops on social media are extremely funny - but that's just because they're cops. Check out this one, where they successfully seized some very dangerous drugs:

It's also, more specifically, because they are British. They are a funny people.

I dunno, I think I honestly prefer rioters (read beyond the lede my man) being arrested over letting them raid and loot the community and/or take over the Capitol. Y'all just ineffective, despite trying to be more oppressive. Sad!

And other fun facts you can tell yourself. Just treat the whole thing like a create-your-own-ending novel and all of your dreams can come true!

[Pete Svarrior]

And other fun facts you can tell yourself. Just treat the whole thing like a create-your-own-ending novel and all of your dreams can come true!

But that's what you guys are doing. Just have a read through this thread. Tom is at least funny about it, but you and Saddam......

[Rushy]

And other fun facts you can tell yourself. Just treat the whole thing like a create-your-own-ending novel and all of your dreams can come true!

But that's what you guys are doing. Just have a read through this thread. Tom is at least funny about it, but you and Saddam......

I have done nothing but link articles of real UK news and pointed out the absurdity of it. I leave the interpreting for the reader to decide, unlike you. You prefer to tell people what to think and to lick bobby boots, while I let the reader decide. That's the American way. Which is one of the reasons why we have freedom of speech and you do not.

[Tom Bishop]

Britain and the UK has never had freedom of speech.

Coincidentally, neither does the US - it does much worse than most of Europe on that front, including the UK. After all, incitement to riot is illegal under US federal law, and "incitement to imminent lawless action" (lmao nice specificity, good job guys) is also exempt from first-amendment protections. This is fairly sensible (if asininely phrased, but we're not expecting competence here, are we?). Discussing this would be as pointless as pointing out that water makes your skin dry.

This is wrong though. America is generous in its free speech. Speech related to advocating illegal actions is in general legal. The Supreme Court ruled that the speech related to advocating illegal actions is only illegal if the speech is part of a specific criminal conspiracy. You can indeed call for burning everything down, or death to the infidels or almost anything you want. The limitations only start when you start planning out a specific murder to occur at a specific time with your comrades.

https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-is-incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action/

What is incitement to imminent lawless action?
There have been instances in U.S. history where the government has attempted to ban speech that people used to advocate for societal change. In some past cases, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld punishment of expression that advocated for change, especially if the speaker called for a revolution or other forms of illegality.

Much broader protection exists for the freedom of expression today. There are exceptions for speech that incites people to violence, but they are very narrow. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Subsequent Supreme Court cases have clarified that speech advocating illegal action at some indefinite future time is protected by the First Amendment, if it does not constitute criminal conspiracy. These rulings ensure that people can advocate for different forms of societal change, free from government reprisals.

But that's not the only reason the US lacks free speech. Unlike civilised countries, "obscenity" is considered an acceptable excuse to crack down on speech, and neither is "commercial speech".

Incorrect.

I'm glossing over the meme that is your defamation laws, because... y'know, low-hanging fruit. Oh, and not to mention the US's poor standing in press freedom benchmarks. Gosh, you guys really can't speak very freely, can you?

Defamation law uses the same logic as the laws related to advocating illegal actions. You can in general say negative things that fall under opinion or even insults and aggravation. However, if your speech is found to be part of a criminal plot to try to defame a restaurant's public reputation by claiming that they served you expired chicken and overcharged your card by $100, when you have never even visited the restaurant, then a court will establish that you have lied and you will face punishment.

You only lose your freedom of speech when your word are no longer words and they become part of a deliberate and specific action to physically or financially harm others.

All of this is also consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution outlines that crimes exist such as counterfeiting, piracy, and high treason. Some of the actions in those crimes or in setting up the crimes involve words to further the crime, so therefore words that are integral to a specific premeditated crime are part of the crime.

[Pete Svarrior]

See, Rushy? This is how you do it. That's funny.