The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on August 10, 2024, 11:57:10 PM
-
“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.
https://nypost.com/2024/08/10/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-to-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-online-posts-well-come-after-you/
There are powerful people in the UK that are so far gone they think they can jail people who are in other countries for saying mean things online. A bit odd, innit? For those wondering, the "crimes" this commissioner refers to are, yes, tweets. This man is busy trying to prosecute people for saying "hate speech" online, both in the UK and abroad. What a world!
-
I don't think that's right. I think "committing crimes further afield online" is opposed to "committing crimes on the street," not "in this country committing crimes on the streets." The "in this country" part is meant to qualify the whole of what he's saying, not simply the part about the streets. Britain has a lot of silly laws, and I don't agree with criminalizing hate speech at all, but I really don't think this guy is so delusional that he thinks he can extradite and prosecute other countries' citizens for doing something that's illegal in Britain but legal in their countries.
-
I don't think that's right. I think "committing crimes further afield online" is opposed to "committing crimes on the street," not "in this country committing crimes on the streets." The "in this country" part is meant to qualify the whole of what he's saying, not simply the part about the streets. Britain has a lot of silly laws, and I don't agree with criminalizing hate speech at all, but I really don't think this guy is so delusional that he thinks he can extradite and prosecute other countries' citizens for doing something that's illegal in Britain but legal in their countries.
Did you even read the article? He goes on to further clarify:
"Rowley answered by telling the reporter, “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.”"
“You can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material,” he said.
He is blatantly referring to speech offenses online. This is not about physical crimes, as he further emphasizes:
“All of those offenses are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are taking — who are causing the problems for communities.”
He is delineating between being at the riots physically and supporting them online. This entire exchange happened in response to Musk tweeting about civil war. So, in reality, the commissioner would like to see Musk extradited and prosecuted. This isn't something that happened in a vacuum, so saying he's only referring to people inside the UK is nonsense.
-
Did you even read the article? He goes on to further clarify:
"Rowley answered by telling the reporter, “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.”"
“You can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material,” he said.
He is blatantly referring to speech offenses online. This is not about physical crimes, as he further emphasizes:
“All of those offenses are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are taking — who are causing the problems for communities.”
He is delineating between being at the riots physically and supporting them online.
This has nothing to do with what I said.
This entire exchange happened in response to Musk tweeting about civil war. So, in reality, the commissioner would like to see Musk extradited and prosecuted.
No, this entire exchange did not happen because of what Musk said. Even the British police have better things to do than give the media interviews revolving around Elon Musk. He was simply mentioned as an example of a high-profile figure stirring shit up. As disingenuous as it is, the article does make this clear.
This isn't something that happened in a vacuum, so saying he's only referring to people inside the UK is nonsense.
By that logic, anyone who ever promises to crack down on any type of online crime is therefore threatening to extradite and prosecute citizens of other countries, because no illicit online activity happens in a vacuum. It's generally understood that when people talk about prosecuting online crimes, they're only talking about prosecuting people within their borders whom it's within their jurisdiction to prosecute. I don't think the commissioner needed to explicitly point out the obvious fact that British laws only apply in Britain for a reasonable person to intuit that he's not planning on extraditing and prosecuting citizens of other countries for breaking British laws.
-
No, this entire exchange did not happen because of what Musk said.
Yes, it did. The rest of what you said is irrelevant, because it incorrectly veers from the context of the article.
-
I had to look up the Sky News video of Rowley since the article linked does not show it. From the way Rowley said it, I can only conclude that he did mean people outside the UK, although to extrapolate 'US citizens' from that is a bit of a stretch. He's more than likely referring to UK citizens who are currently outside the UK, like Tommy Robinson, who is alleged* to have played a major role in instigating the riots.
Rowley is asked about Elon Musk but he doesn't say anything about Musk specifically, nor does he say anything specifically about foreign nationals, US based or otherwise, only that 'keyboard warriors' are not protected from incitement laws.
NY Post is full of shit as usual, but Saddam's interpretation is also lacking imo.
*if you want a better example of how fucked UK speech laws are, I can't even say something obvious without qualifying it as an allegation that I heard somewhere else because libel suits are so easy to file and win
-
Britain and the UK has never had freedom of speech. At this point it would be like complaining that water makes things wet. It is one of the reasons America seceded and why freedom of speech is the very first amendment.
-
No, this entire exchange did not happen because of what Musk said.
Yes, it did. The rest of what you said is irrelevant, because it incorrectly veers from the context of the article.
No, it didn't. Read again:
Riots have broken out across the United Kingdom in recent days over false rumors spread online that an asylum seeker was responsible for a mass stabbing at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded.
The murders, allegedly committed by a now 18-year-old British citizen born to Rwandan parents, sparked a series of violent protests that tapped into broader concerns about the scale of immigration in the U.K.
Footage of the violent clashes involving anti-immigration protesters and the groups of counter-protesters, some of whom have been seen waving Palestinian flags, has gone viral on social media, and the government is warning that sharing such content may have serious consequences.
They're clearly talking about widespread social media activity, not simply Elon Musk alone posting something. There's more than enough wiggle room for Rowley to be threatening legal consequences without assuming that he's specifically threatening Musk. If we look up the relevant part of this interview (https://www.facebook.com/skynews/videos/met-police-commissioner-sir-mark-rowley-is-asked-whether-offenders-arrested-at-r/2411792035676954/?_rdr), which I could unfortunately only find on Facebook, we can see a bit more context. The interviewer asks, after first mentioning Musk specifically, "What are you considering when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind a keyboard, maybe in a different country?" That's a two-part question, or at least it could be reasonably interpreted as one, even if the interviewer didn't mean it to be. The first part asks what the police are planning to do about people inciting chaos online, and the second part asks what the police are planning to do about people inciting chaos online who are in another country. I believe that Rowley deliberately sidestepped the second part of the question and focused on answering the first, probably because he figured that stopping to clarify that there's nothing he can do about citizens of other countries would have sucked the energy out of the interview. He certainly said nothing about Musk or extraditing anyone. Maybe Crudblud is right that he was talking about British citizens who are out of the country, but if that had been the case, I feel like he would have been clear about it and specifically made a point of calling out British citizens who think they can get away with inciting chaos if it's done in another country.
Besides, let's use some common sense. Do you really, really think that the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police thinks that British laws apply to citizens of other countries, and that they have the right to extradite and prosecute them for that? Is that really what you think is going on here, and not simply that there's a bit of ambiguity in his wording that could mean something nonsensical like that if interpreted a certain way? Why assume that this guy is saying something ridiculous when you could just as easily assume that he's not saying something ridiculous?
-
Britain and the UK has never had freedom of speech.
Care to elaborate on that, chief?
-
Britain and the UK has never had freedom of speech.
Care to elaborate on that, chief?
The British Empire were totalitarians who were wielding maniacal uncompromising rule over speech, culture, taxes, and so on. As such, almost all of its once-expansive colonies and colonial lands have broken away, leaving it as a pathetic little island.
See what happened in India, for instance. Mahatma Gandhi himself was the leading opposition against the unreasonable rule of the British Empire.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/04/pernicious-messaging
In fact, historically the British state was far more comfortable as an agent of censorship than as an enabler of speech. Nowhere was this more obvious than in the Empire. The history of British politics is unavoidably the history of British imperialism: the Empire overseas and the British at home were co-constitutive. Empire was the space in which the British state’s urges to discipline and control went most unchecked.
There is an enduring idea that imperialism was somehow motivated by a desire to spread democracy and other freedoms, but British rule in India, for example, was marked by constant censorship of the press. The Gagging Act, passed during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, regulated printing presses and the ‘tone’ of published material; the Vernacular Press Act of 1878 controlled any writing considered ‘seditious’ written in a ‘vernacular language’ (i.e. any language other than English); the Press Act of 1910 sought to control rising support for Indian nationalism by forcing publications to deposit large financial securities with the government, which could be confiscated if anything was published that was critical of the British Empire, army, or ruling class, or that incited violence or contempt of government. During the Second World War, and particularly after the Quit India campaign, press freedom was even more tightly curtailed, with any coverage of political parties forbidden.
Today they are still at it with the people is has left and who are too weak to resist, censoring internet memes and political speech.
-
Besides, let's use some common sense. Do you really, really think that the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police thinks that British laws apply to citizens of other countries, and that they have the right to extradite and prosecute them for that?
The same one who thinks people should go to jail for a tweet? Yes. You keep acting like I should expect this to be a sane man and not a delusional moron.
-
No, he's not personally deciding that people should go to jail for tweets. As Tom pointed out, Britain does not have the same freedom of speech that America does, and people are regularly prosecuted there for saying things that would be protected here. And just to head off what I'm sure you're about to say next, no, I don't think that means his arresting people for tweets is okay or morally justifiable. That's not what we're talking about. He's not delusional for talking about doing something that's regularly done in Britain, regardless of how objectionable you and I find it. It would, however, be utterly delusional for him to think that British laws somehow apply to citizens of other countries, and there's no evidence to believe that he does think that outside of some ambiguity in his wording which could mean that if interpreted a certain way, but could also just as easily mean that he doesn't think anything so ridiculous if interpreted a different way.
-
No, he's not personally deciding that people should go to jail for tweets.
Yes, he is.
As Tom pointed out, Britain does not have the same freedom of speech that America does, and people are regularly prosecuted there for saying things that would be protected here. And just to head off what I'm sure you're about to say next, no, I don't think that means his arresting people for tweets is okay or morally justifiable. That's not what we're talking about. He's not delusional for talking about doing something that's regularly done in Britain, regardless of how objectionable you and I find it. It would, however, be utterly delusional for him to think that British laws somehow apply to citizens of other countries, and there's no evidence to believe that he does think that outside of some ambiguity in his wording which could mean that if interpreted a certain way, but could also just as easily mean that he doesn't think anything so ridiculous if interpreted a different way.
I didn't realize he was a robot that the government uploads the latest laws into and then he enforces them rabidly with no will of his own. I think you're missing the pattern of obvious power-hungry psychopathic behavior by sending people to jail for tweets, then failing to see how a man who does such a thing is obviously delusional enough to think he can oppress people across the planet as well. Don't underestimate the egotistical delusions of a random British man working for one of the most ego-driven governments on the planet.
You're asking me to assume the best-case-scenario for a man who already espouses insane beliefs. "No, you don't understand, it's normal for him to be insane in Britain!" is not a very good argument, honk.
-
He's not a psychopath for enforcing laws that you don't agree with, let alone laws that are pretty much standard fare in every first-world country that isn't America, and even if he were, that wouldn't make the case that he was insane. Being a bad person who enforces unjust laws and being crazy enough to think that your own country's laws somehow apply to the citizens of other countries are two completely different things.
-
As Tom pointed out, Britain does not have the same freedom of speech that America does, and people are regularly prosecuted there for saying things that would be protected here.
You’re making it sound like we can’t say what we like over here. People aren’t routinely rounded up and sent to the gulag for saying Starmer is a poo-poo head or whatever.
There are limits to free speech, but I think there should be. In the wake of the incident in Southport, which seems to have died down now, one bloke was jailed for tweets which encouraged people to burn down a hotel which had asylum seekers in. He was actively encouraging people to burn down a building which had families and children in. Fuck that guy, he should be in prison.
Freedom is not absolute in any society, otherwise it would be anarchy.
-
You’re making it sound like we can’t say what we like over here.
That is, in fact, the case. You can't say what you like over there. You even go on to say, in the very same post, that some people shouldn't be able to say certain things! Once again, a foreigner gets upset that Americans say he has no freedom of speech, then he goes on to specify his complete lack of understanding what freedom of speech even is...
He's not a psychopath for enforcing laws that you don't agree with
Honk, do you really think the classic "I'm just following orders" justification is relevant here?
let alone laws that are pretty much standard fare in every first-world country that isn't America
I keep forgetting that you believe normalized injustice is acceptable (you'll claim you don't, then bring this exact point of argument up in some other unrelated thread).
Being a bad person who enforces unjust laws and being crazy enough to think that your own country's laws somehow apply to the citizens of other countries are two completely different things.
They're not completely different and they are fundamentally related. Power hungry enforcement of insanely authoritarian laws all have the same foundation. His thinking that he can use his wacky powers to extradite people from across the world is not remarkably different from the idea that he can punish people for mean tweets in the first place.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/12/elon-musk-should-face-arrest-if-he-incited-uk-rioters-says-ex-twitter-chief
“In the short term, Musk and fellow executives should be reminded of their criminal liability for their actions under existing laws. Britain’s Online Safety Act 2023 should be beefed up with immediate effect.”
Is the UK okay?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/12/elon-musk-should-face-arrest-if-he-incited-uk-rioters-says-ex-twitter-chief
“In the short term, Musk and fellow executives should be reminded of their criminal liability for their actions under existing laws. Britain’s Online Safety Act 2023 should be beefed up with immediate effect.”
Is the UK okay?
What does some random guy who worked for Twitter have to do with UK policy re: Elon shitposts?
-
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.
-
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.
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". 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?
For what it's worth, it's been great following the UK police's effective response to the riots and terrorist attacks. The US has been left in the dust, despite their police departments being so much bigger and better-equipped. Someone should look into that, y'all are being scammed out of your tax dollars.
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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.
-
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... :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/Lc3fZiM.jpg)
-
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?
-
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!
-
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!
-
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......
-
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.
-
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.
-
See, Rushy? This is how you do it. That's funny.
-
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.
Tell me you’ve never been to America without telling me you’ve never been to America.
-
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.
Tell me you’ve never been to America without telling me you’ve never been to America.
Been there a bunch of times.
I was being a bit facetious. As I said, it was an example. There are better ones. If you want to keep pointing and laughing at the UK and all the silly laws we have which restrict our freedoms while following all your silly laws which restrict your freedoms and telling yourself how free you all are then you crack on, fellas.
-
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.
Tell me you’ve never been to America without telling me you’ve never been to America.
Been there a bunch of times.
I was being a bit facetious. As I said, it was an example. There are better ones. If you want to keep pointing and laughing at the UK and all the silly laws we have which restrict our freedoms while following all your silly laws which restrict your freedoms and telling yourself how free you all are then you crack on, fellas.
When it was pointed out to you that the jaywalking argument was outdated and no longer applicable you brought up speeding as an alternative and went into a long ramble about that. Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?
-
When it was pointed out to you that the jaywalking argument was outdated and no longer applicable you brought up speeding as an alternative and went into a long ramble about that. Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?
I don’t think it’s a silly law.
But I do think it’s a law. Laws pretty much by definition restrict your freedom. They dictate what you must or must not do. There are laws in the UK which restrict what you can say and do, there are laws in the US which do the same. As there has to be in any functioning society. Freedom doesn’t mean you can literally do anything you like. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can literally say anything you like. The US is, by and large, a free society but so is the UK. If you want to keep pretending that you lot are free and we aren’t then go nuts. But it isn’t true. If your argument is “someone was jailed for some tweets” then I’ve provided an example where that happened in the US. An old boss of mine used to talk about “freedom within a framework” which I’d say sums up both the US and UK pretty well.
Anyway, I must go. It’s nearly past curfew. The patrols will start soon shooting anyone they see outside ;)
-
Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?
Speeding is actually a good example, I'll bite. For it to be analogous, we have to describe it as "fining people for driving their own cars", though. Driving cars is more socially acceptable than inciting murderous riots (just about), so fining people for driving cars seems, on the whole, much sillier than what OP is complaining about.
America is so un-free. It fines people for driving their own cars. What's next, requiring a license to make toast in your own DAMN toaster?! :(
-
Speeding is actually a good example, I'll bite. For it to be analogous, we have to describe it as "fining people for driving their own cars", though. Driving cars is more socially acceptable than inciting murderous riots (just about), so fining people for driving cars seems, on the whole, much sillier than what OP is complaining about.
America is so un-free. It fines people for driving their own cars. What's next, requiring a license to make toast in your own DAMN toaster?! :(
Pete, I know it's hard to comprehend, because your mind has been poisoned by the serious lack of freedom of speech, but angrily yelling at a police officer and making rude gestures is actually not equivalent to murdering him.
There are laws in the UK which restrict what you can say and do, there are laws in the US which do the same.
The laws in the UK that restrict what you can say and what you can do are far more vague, far more oppressive, and far more, dare I say, silly than the ones in the US.
-
Pete, I know it's hard to comprehend, because your mind has been poisoned by the serious lack of freedom of speech, but angrily yelling at a police officer and making rude gestures is actually not equivalent to murdering him.
Right, but we've already established that that premise of your argument is largely just your imagination, so repeating it for emphasis doesn't change much.
The laws in the UK that restrict what you can say and what you can do are far more vague, far more oppressive, and far more, dare I say, silly than the ones in the US.
Right, but we already showed you why the inverse is the case, so you're gonna have to do a little more than just repeat your idea.
It's a good scam though - America keeps dipping lower and lower in Freedom House benchmarks while obsessively muttering "land of the free, home of the brave, land of the free, home of the brave" to itself. A nation whose very mythos is on life support. Wake up, y'all.
-
I’ll just leave this here
https://www.onelegal.com/blog/funny-us-laws-that-might-surprise-you/
#landofthefree
-
Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?
Speeding is actually a good example, I'll bite. For it to be analogous, we have to describe it as "fining people for driving their own cars", though. Driving cars is more socially acceptable than inciting murderous riots (just about), so fining people for driving cars seems, on the whole, much sillier than what OP is complaining about.
I mean...
40,990 people
The agency estimates that 40,990 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2023, a decrease of about 3.6% as compared to 42,514 fatalities reported to have occurred in 2022. The fourth quarter of 2023 represents the seventh consecutive quarterly decline in fatalities beginning with the second quarter of 2022.Apr 1, 2024
https://www.nhtsa.gov › press-releases
NHTSA Releases 2022 Traffic Deaths, 2023 Early Estimates
So 41,000 lost lives due mostly to people disobeying traffic laws. How many deaths were there in "murderous riots" in the US last year? Or if you prefer, almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured in the UK in traffic fatalities last year. What's the equivalent number that died or were seriously injured in "murderous riots" last year?
Lol, what a silly argument you tried to make to defend a silly law! Actually I'd say that given the numbers it's a tragedy that speeding is considered more socially acceptable than inciting "murderous riots"!
-
Laws pretty much by definition restrict your freedom. They dictate what you must or must not do.
No, many laws grant freedoms. In the States there are multiple amendments that grant freedoms as well other Federal and State laws. The fact that you think laws "by definition restrict your freedom" speaks volumes about the views you've developed under an oppressive regime.
-
So 41,000 lost lives due mostly to people disobeying traffic laws. How many deaths were there in "murderous riots" in the US last year? Or if you prefer, almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured in the UK in traffic fatalities last year. What's the equivalent number that died or were seriously injured in "murderous riots" last year?
Damn, so you're pointing out that your preferred law doesn't even effectively prevent deaths, while incidents where BLM and/or anti-immigration fascists set people on fire are largely handled preventatively. That sure is a take, if you wanted to make your argument a little weaker.
And, of course, that is before you remember that speeding is not the sole cause of all traffic accidents, or before you remember that more people drive cars than set immigrants on fire, so your metrics are a crime against data science. Yes, I mean crime. You're under arrest, and we're sending you to Rwanda.
Thank the Lord™ we don't take cues from the likes of you when deciding our laws - things would get real bad real quickly! It's so silly that you want to literally arrest poor, innocent sixty-somethings for just driving their cars. ;(
-
So 41,000 lost lives due mostly to people disobeying traffic laws. How many deaths were there in "murderous riots" in the US last year? Or if you prefer, almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured in the UK in traffic fatalities last year. What's the equivalent number that died or were seriously injured in "murderous riots" last year?
Damn, so you're pointing out that your preferred law doesn't even effectively prevent deaths, while incidents where BLM and/or anti-immigration fascists set people on fire are largely handled preventatively. That sure is a take, if you wanted to make your argument a little weaker.
And, of course, that is before you remember that speeding is not the sole cause of all traffic accidents, or before you remember that more people drive cars than set immigrants on fire, so your metrics are a crime against data science. Yes, I mean crime. You're under arrest, and we're sending you to Rwanda.
Thank the Lord™ we don't take cues from the likes of you when deciding our laws - things would get real bad real quickly! It's so silly that you want to literally arrest poor, innocent sixty-somethings for just driving their cars. ;(
Interesting... You are literally saying that the circumstances are too different to even try to compare them, and somehow you think that helps YOUR argument that wholly depends on us comparing the two. Way to undermine your own argument!
-
Laws pretty much by definition restrict your freedom. They dictate what you must or must not do.
No, many laws grant freedoms
So many that you couldn’t name one.
Even if you are right, many laws say what you must or must not do. They restrict your freedom. But if you’re so free then sure, you just drive how you like and see how that goes.
-
So many that you couldn’t name one.
Did you think that was a checkmate? There are so many laws that grant freedoms that it felt silly listing a few. If you had taken even the smallest bit of time to look you could have saved yourself this embarrassment:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=laws+that+grant+freedoms
-
Interesting... You are literally saying that the circumstances are too different to even try to compare them, and somehow you think that helps YOUR argument that wholly depends on us comparing the two. Way to undermine your own argument!
Congratulations - you are beginning to understand the OP! You're not quite there yet with mine, though - mine doesn't rely on comparing the two as if they were equal or comparable, but rather on inverting the inequality for rhetorical effect. You'll get there, eventually.
-
I can't think of a proper response that would validate my inflated sense of superiority so I'm just gonna insult your intelligence.
Oh, ok. Please let me know if you do think of something.
-
Well, no - I told you exactly what your error is, and me using your own tone shouldn't be a surprising to you after all these years. But I do undersand why you'd like to play the fallacy fallacy card at this stage. You really did stuff it up. :(
-
There are so many laws that grant freedoms that it felt silly listing a few.
Your continued inability to list one is noted.
But you are trying to avoid the point - even if it's not true of all laws, you have many laws which restrict your freedoms. So do we. So does any functioning society. Overall I would say the US is a fairly free country but so is the UK. According this attempt to quantify things we actually do a bit better than you in that regard:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world/2024
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-world/2024
Your mistake is that while you're waving your little flags, chanting "U-S-A" and celebrating your freedom you believe yourself to be somehow exceptional in this regard. You are not. You're not the most free country in the world, you're not even in the top 10
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
-
Right, but we've already established that that premise of your argument is largely just your imagination, so repeating it for emphasis doesn't change much.
Alright, so since I'm the one imagining things and you are the harbinger of truth, do you have anything to back up your claims? And since I'm generous, let's focus just on this one man. Did you read something in the news to indicate that he went around doing something violent (and no, a police report doesn't count!)? I haven't seen any and you obviously have, but you keep not linking it, so I think that's a bit curious.
I have a sneaking suspicion that your claim is based only on the output of your corrupt justice system and, coincidentally, contains further claims only put forward by people who are incentivized to make them. That would also be quite a bit curious, wouldn't it? Authoritarianism always has a funny way of self-justifying with that sort of circular logic. "Well the police said he's a big meaniehead and the police wouldn't lie about that!"
So many that you couldn’t name one.
Even if you are right, many laws say what you must or must not do. They restrict your freedom. But if you’re so free then sure, you just drive how you like and see how that goes.
So, am I to assume you've given up on debating about freedom of speech and you've moved on to... whatever this is?...
-
So, am I to assume you've given up on debating about freedom of speech and you've moved on to... whatever this is?...
Freedom of speech is just one aspect of living in a free society. Your argument seems to be that we don’t have freedom of speech in the UK because people can be jailed for things they say online. Which is both true and rare. And when I provided an example of that exact same thing in the US your response was along the lines of “well that doesn’t count”. So…
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can literally say anything you like. Both the US and the UK have protections for free speech and limits to that too. Your claim is:
The laws in the UK that restrict what you can say and what you can do are far more vague, far more oppressive, and far more, dare I say, silly than the ones in the US.
Far more vague is incorrect - Pete has gone in to some detail about how they are defined.
Far more oppressive is incorrect too according to the freedom indexes I have linked to.
Far more silly - I disagree. There have been occasional silly cases (look up the heil Hitler dog thing). But those are very much the exception not the rule.
In general we do have a pretty high level of freedom of speech over here. The trouble with you lot thinking you are “THE land of the free” is it implies you’re the only one. You aren’t.
-
Freedom of speech is just one aspect of living in a free society. Your argument seems to be that we don’t have freedom of speech in the UK because people can be jailed for things they say online. Which is both true and rare. And when I provided an example of that exact same thing in the US your response was along the lines of “well that doesn’t count”. So…
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can literally say anything you like. Both the US and the UK have protections for free speech and limits to that too. Your claim is:
I already explained what freedom of speech is. You keep inventing in your own definition, then getting upset that no country on the planet matches up to the definition you invented. I'm not sure what else to tell you in that regard. Should I start incessantly repeating myself? That seems to be your favorite activity.
Far more vague is incorrect - Pete has gone in to some detail about how they are defined.
Pete didn't reference laws in the UK at all.
Far more oppressive is incorrect too according to the freedom indexes I have linked to.
This just in: Freedom index produced by horrid authoritarians perceives authoritarian nanny state as "more free" than libertarian society. There are also tankies in the US who think the USSR was "more free" than the US. Are you going to start citing them as well?
Far more silly - I disagree. There have been occasional silly cases (look up the heil Hitler dog thing). But those are very much the exception not the rule.
A legal system is defined by its exceptions, not its rules.
In general we do have a pretty high level of freedom of speech over here. The trouble with you lot thinking you are “THE land of the free” is it implies you’re the only one. You aren’t.
We are, actually. We literally invented freedom.
-
I already explained what freedom of speech is.
No you haven't. You went on some weird ramble on page 2 where you tried to define it in terms of itself.
Pete didn't reference laws in the UK at all.
He said "The European Convention on Human Rights clearly defines both the right to freedom of expression and its limitations"
These are adopted into UK law in the Human Rights Act of 1998.
This just in: Freedom index produced by horrid authoritarians
Who are the "horrid authoritarians"? Are you just doing what you did when I showed you that US Citizens have been jailed for Tweets and just going "well that doesn't fit very well with my argument so it doesn't count. So there!"
A legal system is defined by its exceptions, not its rules.
Those certainly are all words. I'm not sure they make any sense in that order.
We are, actually. We literally invented freedom.
Maybe if you wave that little Stars and Stripes hard enough and shout U-S-A loudly enough then that will become true. Back in the real world, nah. If you did invent freedom then you're doing it wrong:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/guantanamo-bay-human-rights
Locking people up for FB posts, locking people up without fair trial.
We were codifying things like right to a fair trial in the Magna Carta centuries before we even invented your country.
-
No you haven't. You went on some weird ramble on page 2 where you tried to define it in terms of itself.
Of course its defined in terms of itself, it's a legal term defined by a legal framework. What you're doing is nonsense. You might as well tell me you define "freedom of speech" to be a purple elephant, and so therefore no one meets your requirements.
These are adopted into UK law in the Human Rights Act of 1998.
In other words, they're not UK law, which is why coincidentally the UK doesn't actually follow them. You might as well reference some old EU laws. The UK didn't follow those either, even while it was in the EU!
Are you just doing what you did when I showed you that US Citizens have been jailed for Tweets and just going "well that doesn't fit very well with my argument so it doesn't count. So there!"
The only example you had was someone that posted copyrighted style material from an official campaign in order to impersonate a campaign official. That's not remotely as egregious as someone posting racial slurs and getting arrested in the UK. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between "I got arrested in a conspiracy to strip voting rights from people" versus "I got arrested because I made a rude gesture in the general direction of a police officer". It's comedic that you would compare the two at all.
Maybe if you wave that little Stars and Stripes hard enough and shout U-S-A loudly enough then that will become true. Back in the real world, nah. If you did invent freedom then you're doing it wrong:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/guantanamo-bay-human-rights
Guantanamo bay isn't in the US and the prisoners there were not US citizens. "The US is mean to its enemies" is not particularly relevant to this discussion.
Locking people up for FB posts, locking people up without fair trial.
We were codifying things like right to a fair trial in the Magna Carta centuries before we even invented your country.
For some definition of "fair trial", certainly.
-
This thread began with a fundamentally correct premise, which its own proponents then proceeded to systematically demolish by basing their argument on a comparison with an even worse country. This is a remarkable state of affairs because now all sides of the argument are equally inane. To get back to the topic: the UK is not okay.
-
. To get back to the topic: the UK is not okay.
If that is true then it’s certainly also true of the US, no matter how loudly they pretend otherwise.
-
The UK is a monarchy with a King who is above the law. He is much further left than his mother was, and it's not a coincidence that the administration is further left as well. He does influence the government and has all the royal powers and protections from medieval times, despite the claims that he is only a ceremonial king. He has not just been hanging around with the WEF 'you will own nothing and be happy' elites for the fun of it.
The government of the the UK does not grant free speech in any comparison to the free speech in the US. At some points in history they have at least pretended that they did. In recent times they have reverted to the role of authoritarians of speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1uXt8PX8VY
-
This is what I get for waiting too long before responding. Now I have to answer posts from several pages ago.
Honk, do you really think the classic "I'm just following orders" justification is relevant here?
Given the stakes, yes, I do. But don't worry, I'll have a different take if and when this guy starts committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.
I keep forgetting that you believe normalized injustice is acceptable (you'll claim you don't, then bring this exact point of argument up in some other unrelated thread).
I've already told you that I don't think enforcing these laws is morally right. That doesn't make him a monster or even someone of poor moral character overall. There's a wide gulf between doing a bad thing and therefore fundamentally being a bad person who can always be counted on to do bad things.
They're not completely different and they are fundamentally related. Power hungry enforcement of insanely authoritarian laws all have the same foundation. His thinking that he can use his wacky powers to extradite people from across the world is not remarkably different from the idea that he can punish people for mean tweets in the first place.
There's a major difference between those two ideas. People are regularly punished for mean tweets in the UK, whereas extraditing citizens of other countries to punish them for breaking laws of a country they aren't subject to is a thing that has never happened and could never happen, and the chief of the Metropolitan Police can safely be assumed to know that. It makes perfect sense for Rowley to believe that he can do the former and not believe that he could do the latter.
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.
Yeah, but I don't think it's fair to really blame the UK for having a dumb rich executive who publicly says stupid shit detached from the reality of the law among its population. By way of a counter-example, there's a similar dumb rich executive who lives and works in the US who also publicly says stupid shit detached from the reality of the law - in his case, it's been repeated assertions over the years, including one quite recently, that people who burn or deface the American flag should be punished by the law. Never mind the fact that flag-burning is textbook free speech and laws prohibiting it have been explicitly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Still, I think you'd agree that it wouldn't really be fair to ask "Is the US okay?" as a general question simply because of this guy. Simply because of this guy's dumb take on flag-burning, I should clarify. I do think it's fair to ask "Is the US okay?" as a general question when we take into account that the guy I'm talking about is the former President of the United States, and has a good chance of being re-elected this November. But that's going off-topic. :)
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!
This sort of response - "Hey, I think your rules are bullshit." "Ah, but you have rules too! Hypocrite much?" - is so pedantic that it's not worth even discussing. What I especially object to about speech restrictions in Britain is that expressing certain opinions is punished, which is a thing that never happens in America. For example, let's look at the case (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/northampton-bbc-news-southport-defence-reform-b2594106.html) you mentioned earlier. This guy is being punished for expressing his opinion. Maybe things would be different if he were explicitly asking people to burn down a specific hotel, but he's really not. It's a shitty opinion from a shitty person, but an opinion nevertheless, and he should be free to express it. If the government has the power to decide which opinions are permissible and which ones aren't, I don't think that society is truly free. Sure, you agree with them now. But what happens in the future if your opinion is the one the government says isn't permissible? What happens if many years in the future, corrupt elements in the government are cracking down on political and social opposition to their policies by declaring those opinions impermissible?
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.
I think the "imminent" qualification is very important. It's the difference between yelling "Jump!" at a would-be suicide jumper and talking about how you feel that anyone who's ever had a suicidal impulse ought to go through with it, or the difference between yelling "They're going to kill you! Run, fight back, don't let them take you!" at someone whom the police are arresting and talking about how you feel that as a general principle, nobody should ever peacefully submit to being arrested - or, to return to the Tyler Kay case, the difference between leading an angry anti-immigrant protest to a hotel known for housing migrants and refugees and bellowing, "There it is, let's burn it down!" and expressing your anti-immigration opinion and saying you'd like to see the hotels that house immigrants be burned down.
Unlike civilised countries, "obscenity" is considered an acceptable excuse to crack down on speech
I strongly agree with you that obscenity laws are bullshit and have no place in a country that values free speech, and I remember making a thread on the subject many years ago on the old FES. In fact, I'll go further and say that what especially grinds my gears about obscenity prosecutions is that judges historically seem to interpret the final part of the Miller test that determines whether or not something should be concerned obscene, namely "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" as "Do I personally find this work to appeal to my own subjective taste?" which I don't think at all is what the Supreme Court meant by that! For example, George Carlin's hilarious routine about the seven words you can't say on television, an absolute comedy classic, was ruled by one court to lack artistic merit, although thankfully they didn't go so far as to declare it obscene.
That being said, though, do other countries not have or enforce obscenity laws? There's a whole section about the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity#United_Kingdom) on Wikipedia, but it doesn't exactly summarize the question we're discussing neatly. I'm sure you know more about it than me.
neither is "commercial speech"
"Commercial speech" is simply subject to more regulations than political or religious speech. For example, if you really want to put out a political ad that says something ridiculous about how every citizen will be given their own flying car if you're elected, you can. Nobody's going to stop you. But when you're promising goods and services in exchange for people's money, then there are more rules. You can't just outright lie about the benefits or lack of drawbacks that the drugs you're selling have, for instance. This is perfectly consistent with speech being free as a general concept, and I don't think that other countries do things especially different.
I'm glossing over the meme that is your defamation laws, because... y'know, low-hanging fruit.
I'm surprised to hear you say that, because I've always heard that Britain is the country that has the most memal defamation laws of all, ones that heavily favor plaintiffs and have been used many times by rich assholes (J.K. Rowling being one prominent example) to silence people they don't like in a way that would never be allowed in America. You really think that America has worse defamation laws?
Oh, and not to mention the US's poor standing in press freedom benchmarks.
Please explain. What's wrong with our press freedom?
For what it's worth, it's been great following the UK police's effective response to the riots and terrorist attacks. The US has been left in the dust, despite their police departments being so much bigger and better-equipped. Someone should look into that, y'all are being scammed out of your tax dollars.
There are a lot of things that Britain does much better than America when it comes to policing, but arresting and prosecuting people for expressing certain opinions is not one of them. It's fundamental to a truly free society, and without that, your freedom only exists at the government's pleasure.
-
I think the "imminent" qualification is very important. It's the difference between yelling "Jump!" at a would-be suicide jumper and talking about how you feel that anyone who's ever had a suicidal impulse ought to go through with it, or the difference between yelling "They're going to kill you! Run, fight back, don't let them take you!" at someone whom the police are arresting and talking about how you feel that as a general principle, nobody should ever peacefully submit to being arrested - or, to return to the Tyler Kay case, the difference between leading an angry anti-immigrant protest to a hotel known for housing migrants and refugees and bellowing, "There it is, let's burn it down!" and expressing your anti-immigration opinion and saying you'd like to see the hotels that house immigrants be burned down.
I have no fucking idea what you're talking about, nor do I have any interest in finding out. It sounds like you might be agreeing with me, but its obscured by layers upon layers of whataboutism.
I strongly agree with you that obscenity laws are bullshit and have no place in a country that values free speech
Then you disagree with me, because I think restricting obscenity is pretty sensible, within certain bounds. Nonetheless, it is a restriction on the American mythos of "freedom of speech". The question here isn't whether you or I think it's a good thing. The question is whether it's happening; and it is.
That being said, though, do other countries not have or enforce obscenity laws?
Entirely irrelevant. I'm not debating whether or not the restrictions are common in other places. I'm pointing out that the American myth of unrestricted freedom of speech is just that - a myth.
"Commercial speech" is simply subject to more regulations than political or religious speech. For example, if you really want to put out a political ad that says something ridiculous about how every citizen will be given their own flying car if you're elected, you can. Nobody's going to stop you. But when you're promising goods and services in exchange for people's money, then there are more rules. You can't just outright lie about the benefits or lack of drawbacks that the drugs you're selling have, for instance. This is perfectly consistent with speech being free as a general concept, and I don't think that other countries do things especially different.
Why do you care so much about other countries? What does that have to do with anything? Y'all are claiming to be unique bastions of freedoms unimaginable to other countries, but the moment that turns out not to be the case, you default to "b-but other countries do it too!!!"
I'm surprised to hear you say that, because I've always heard that Britain is the country that has the most memal defamation laws of all, ones that heavily favor plaintiffs and have been used many times by rich assholes (J.K. Rowling being one prominent example) to silence people they don't like in a way that would never be allowed in America. You really think that America has worse defamation laws?
Once again - what's that about "other countries"? How does that affect anything about America's freedom of speech being obviously restricted?
Please explain. What's wrong with our press freedom?
What do you mean by "wrong"? I'm not arguing right or wrong here. It just so happens that the USA stands fairly low in press freedom benchmarks. It is typically described as "problematic" or "flawed" by independent organisations that act as watchdogs for this kind of stuff, like RSF or UNESCO's WPFI.
There are a lot of things that Britain does much better than America when it comes to policing, but arresting and prosecuting people for expressing certain opinions is not one of them.
Right - but that's not a thing that actually happens. You could literally just read the articles the shitposters here provided to find that out.
-
What I especially object to about speech restrictions in Britain is that expressing certain opinions is punished
No it isn't.
which is a thing that never happens in America
Did you miss
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution
This guy is being punished for expressing his opinion.
Bullshit. It's not just a shitty opinion, it's dangerous incitement in the context of stabbings in which a 17 year old stabbed a bunch of kids, killing 2, following which a load of disinformation was spread online that the 17 year old was a refugee and/or a Muslim. Neither are true. That sparked a load of riots in which hotels housing refugees were sent on fire and people's lives were endangered. I have no issue with people involved in that either directly or indirectly being punished. To characterise those tweets as "just expressing an opinion" is a massive stretch.
But what happens in the future if your opinion is the one the government says isn't permissible? What happens if many years in the future, corrupt elements in the government are cracking down on political and social opposition to their policies by declaring those opinions impermissible?
That could potentially happen in any society. Neither the US or UK has ever had a particularly oppressive government and I don't expect them ever to have. The issue I have in this thread is some people trying to paint the US as a shining beacon of liberty and freedom and the UK as as cesspit of oppression and control. Obvious bullshit. The truth is both are fairly free societies and we both have freedom of expression which has certain caveats in both countries as it should.
-
Did you miss
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution
Do you bother reading your own articles?
"eventually prosecutors agreed to dismiss the charge in exchange for Peralta giving a presentation to youth about responsible social media use."
According to this you basically can get away with threatening to burn a Sherriff's house down in America. His charges were dismissed because the police didn't want to fight a first amendment suit.
-
Neither the US or UK has ever had a particularly oppressive government
Are you aware that a large part of the UK fought a war of independence against their oppressors barely a century ago?
-
Neither the US or UK has ever had a particularly oppressive government
Are you aware that a large part of the UK fought a war of independence against their oppressors barely a century ago?
Which war are you referring to?
-
Which war are you referring to?
The Irish War of Independence.
-
Which war are you referring to?
The Irish War of Independence.
Right. Not entirely sure how that’s connected to what I’m saying. We have behaved poorly historically towards other countries, no dispute there. But in general our government hasn’t been overly authoritarian - certainly not in modern times. They don’t in general interfere with people’s day to day lives. The claim that in the US you can say and do what you like and the UK is an oppressive dystopia just isn’t the reality.
-
His charges were dismissed because the police didn't want to fight a first amendment suit.
Do you know what “in exchange” means?
They came to a deal, but he was initially arrested and jailed for “things he said online”. What an oppressive nightmare you lot live in.
-
Right. Not entirely sure how that’s connected to what I’m saying. We have behaved poorly historically towards other countries, no dispute there.
Ireland was not another country until after the Irish War of Independence. That's what "Independence" in "War of Independence" means.
-
His charges were dismissed because the police didn't want to fight a first amendment suit.
Do you know what “in exchange” means?
They came to a deal, but he was initially arrested and jailed for “things he said online”. What an oppressive nightmare you lot live in.
Your article depicts the matter as a problem with overzealous police, not an issue with the laws. If the police are in the wrong then the person falsely arrested could take it to court and get financial compensation for wrongful arrest.
The rest of your article depicts that there is a great level of freedom of speech in America:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution
"Landon Davis, a San Francisco public defender, noted that the courts have granted citizens broad protections to criticize public officials, even if the comments are repulsive or shocking. Davis recently represented a man accused of making racist threats against a black police chief on Twitter, but ultimately convinced a judge to drop the charge on free speech grounds."
Navigating to the included link, the page is down, but I was able to bring it up on archive.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171012050053/http://www.sfexaminer.com/charges-dropped-man-allegedly-made-twitter-threats-acting-sfpd-chief/
All charges against a man who allegedly tweeted threats against Acting San Francisco Police Chief Toney Chaplin were dropped earlier this month, according to the Public Defender’s Office.
Donald Hoganson, 60, was arrested July 19 at his San Francisco home after the discovery of a series of tweets he allegedly posted calling for the beheading of Chaplin, among other violence.
...But on Aug. 8, Judge Edward Sarkisian found there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case, according to the District Attorney’s Office.
That finding was on free speech grounds, according to the Public Defender’s Office.
So in America you can call for the beheading of your local police chief by name and the courts will be on your side and say it is free speech.
-
Right. Not entirely sure how that’s connected to what I’m saying. We have behaved poorly historically towards other countries, no dispute there.
Ireland was not another country until after the Irish War of Independence. That's what "Independence" in "War of Independence" means.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Exactly what is considered a country is not well defined. I raised an eyebrow at Hong Kong having a separate Olympic team, that definitely isn’t a country. Scotland had a referendum on independence relatively recently, they are not truly independent of England but they are a separate country.
Lots of countries celebrate their independence from the UK, I was in India one year during their Independence day which as a Brit was somewhat embarrassing.
I think we can all agree that we have a somewhat patchy record when it comes to ruling other countries and somewhat reluctantly giving them back - often being forced to as the result of a war. I don’t think that’s quite the same issue as the day to day freedoms British citizens enjoy though.
-
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Exactly what is considered a country is not well defined.
It's perfectly well defined when you are talking about the borders of the UK, which included the entire island of Ireland between 1801 and 1922. We are not in the midst of a philosophical debate about what it means to be a country. If you want to deny that Ireland was part of the UK before 1922, then you must also argue that Northern Ireland is not currently part of the UK, since at no point in history did Northern Ireland join the UK separately from the rest of Ireland.
I don’t think that’s quite the same issue as the day to day freedoms British citizens enjoy though.
We are literally talking about literal British citizens living in the literal UK who started a literal war to escape. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
-
I don’t think that’s quite the same issue as the day to day freedoms British citizens enjoy though.
We are literally talking about literal British citizens living in the literal UK who started a literal war to escape. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
You are also talking about events of a century ago. Scotland didn't have to go to war to get independence, they just had a vote - turns out the majority of them didn't want it anyway. I don't think how we behaved as a nation a century ago is that relevant to how we behave today.
-
I don't think how we behaved as a nation a century ago is that relevant to how we behave today.
I'm not arguing that it is. This is a response to your claim that:
Neither the US or UK has ever had a particularly oppressive government
-
I don't think how we behaved as a nation a century ago is that relevant to how we behave today.
I'm not arguing that it is. This is a response to your claim that:
Neither the US or UK has ever had a particularly oppressive government
Well fair enough then. I would agree we have historically been fairly oppressive to other countries which we ruled - as we've established many have had to go to war or rebel to get rid of us. But in general the government has let us get on with our lives without undue interference. I'm always interested that people with a mindset say "you can't say anything these days..." while basically saying what they like.
-
I would agree we have historically been fairly oppressive to other countries which we ruled - as we've established many have had to go to war or rebel to get rid of us. But in general the government has let us get on with our lives without undue interference.
There is no difference between those two things in the case of Ireland. The Irish were part of "us" because Ireland was a part of the UK. You cannot simultaneously agree to the Irish having been oppressed and say that the citizens of the UK were never oppressed.
-
I think the "imminent" qualification is very important. It's the difference between yelling "Jump!" at a would-be suicide jumper and talking about how you feel that anyone who's ever had a suicidal impulse ought to go through with it, or the difference between yelling "They're going to kill you! Run, fight back, don't let them take you!" at someone whom the police are arresting and talking about how you feel that as a general principle, nobody should ever peacefully submit to being arrested - or, to return to the Tyler Kay case, the difference between leading an angry anti-immigrant protest to a hotel known for housing migrants and refugees and bellowing, "There it is, let's burn it down!" and expressing your anti-immigration opinion and saying you'd like to see the hotels that house immigrants be burned down.
I have no fucking idea what you're talking about, nor do I have any interest in finding out. It sounds like you might be agreeing with me, but its obscured by layers upon layers of whataboutism.
I don't think there's anything complicated or difficult to understand about this concept. Encouraging other people to commit a crime in America is only illegal when the potential crime is both imminent and likely to happen, in recognition of the fact that social pressure can put undue influence on someone in a heated moment. In Britain, however, people are arrested and prosecuted simply for saying things that might influence other people to commit a crime at some point in the future, or, even worse, for simply being offensive. Even if I accept that the Sutton case was because that guy was rioting and not simply for what he said, the OP leaves no doubt that people are being punished or threatened with being punished simply for expressing opinions online that might influence other people to go out and commit crimes at some point in the future.
You were the one who raised the point of all the other types of regulated speech and negatively compared them to how they're handled in other countries. If you don't want to follow through on your own argument...okay? Kind of weird, but it's your call. And if your whole point was just to say that America does technically have laws regarding speech and therefore they shouldn't criticize the laws that other countries have, then I'll just say the same thing that I did in my last post - it's beyond pedantic. Nobody in America thinks that there are literally no laws whatsoever that govern speech. What's being criticized are the specific laws governing speech in Britain and other countries, not the fact that they have laws to begin with. Of course they have laws regulating speech. Every country has laws regulating speech. Pointing this obvious fact out isn't a brilliant rebuttal.
Did you miss
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution
This is a story about a guy being prosecuted for making threats. As it happens, he was entirely innocent, and the police were overzealous at best and corrupt at worst, but there's nothing inherently wrong with prosecuting someone for making threats. Making threats should absolutely be illegal. The problem in this case lies with the police, not with the law.
Bullshit. It's not just a shitty opinion, it's dangerous incitement in the context of stabbings in which a 17 year old stabbed a bunch of kids, killing 2, following which a load of disinformation was spread online that the 17 year old was a refugee and/or a Muslim. Neither are true. That sparked a load of riots in which hotels housing refugees were sent on fire and people's lives were endangered. I have no issue with people involved in that either directly or indirectly being punished. To characterise those tweets as "just expressing an opinion" is a massive stretch.
Those people chose to riot. Nobody made them do it. Think about it this way - if a dumb racist guy saying dumb racist shit online is enough to spark these riots and hotel-burnings, then you should be a lot less concerned about the people who spread these opinions and a lot more concerned about the people who obviously share these opinions and are willing to act on them. I guarantee you that not a single one of these people rioting were anything other than deeply racist themselves, and more likely than not, most of them were probably regular criminal offenders too. Blaming riots on people expressing anti-immigration opinions as if they're somehow responsible for what all these other people did, as if all these rioters were fine upstanding citizens until racist shitposters corrupted them, is just avoiding the real problem, and doing so in a way that's fundamentally ugly for being so anti-free expression.
The issue I have in this thread is some people trying to paint the US as a shining beacon of liberty and freedom and the UK as as cesspit of oppression and control.
That is a very silly thing to say, yes. It's exactly because all governments are fallible organizations full of fallible people that I believe the right to free expression is so important. A government doesn't have to be marching stormtroopers down the street to be untrustworthy. The points that xasop raised about colonialism certainly aren't wrong, but we don't even need to go that far back to find good examples. Just twenty years ago, the U.S. government infamously lied about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq and launched a catastrophic, destructive war for the purposes of their own political goals and enriching their cronies in the oil business. As part of their efforts, they aggressively smeared and tried to discredit anyone who questioned the facts or didn't enthusiastically support the war, both before and after the invasion. If there was a way to arrest and prosecute people for expressing their opinions, they absolutely would have done it, and figured out a way to spin their charges as somehow being "hate speech" or "incitement" after the fact. It's precisely because a government won't always have good, trustworthy people in positions of power that we need strong restrictions on what they can or can't do. To me, free expression is one of those things that should always be protected. The ability to restrict it is simply too powerful a tool for any government to be trusted with.
-
In Britain, however, people are arrested and prosecuted simply for saying things that might influence other people to commit a crime at some point in the future, or, even worse, for simply being offensive.
This literally doesn't happen outside of the American far right's fantasies, and you're the last person I'd expect to have difficulty realising this.
Even if I accept that the Sutton case was because that guy was rioting and not simply for what he said, the OP leaves no doubt that people are being punished or threatened with being punished simply for expressing opinions online that might influence other people to go out and commit crimes at some point in the future.
I'm sorry to hear you fell for it. I'm not really going to invest the energy in convincing you of something so obvious. The OP says "if you commit crimes, we'll use extradition treaties to extradite you where appropriate". It refers to people who ran away abroad after committing crimes on British soil, and who continue to commit crimes - it's an extremely milquetoast statement, and perhaps it confuses you that it's a statement at all. I encourage you to take a deep breath and examine where you got your reading of the situation from - after all, you already pointed out it makes zero sense.
There may be a cultural difference here. Americans like to (but only sometimes) be very prescritpive in their wording, so they would say something like "we will prosecute to the FULLEST!1!!! extent of the law". Europeans tend to omit obvious statements like these, because they're obvious. We don't feel the need to caveat our statements with something like "we'll enforce the law unless it's illegal to do so", because we don't have a culture of cops breaking laws when it suits them.
You were the one who raised the point of all the other types of regulated speech and negatively compared them to how they're handled in other countries.
Negatively? Not at all. America's free speech laws are roughly sensible, as I've said multiple times already. Though it is telling that you perceived these statements as negative...
They're largely similar to those of Europe, with some minor pros and cons, but that's not really a negative, that's just normality. For example, you guys seem to value freedom of the press much less than Europe does, but this is just a cultural difference - you like your propaganda mills strong, but leave individuals to repeat whichever propaganda outlet they prefer. We prefer our media free, but Germany won't let you fly NSDAP flags in your back yard, and England won't let you directly call on your followers to commit genocide or storm government buildings. Different solutions for different problems. Now, that does clash with your extremely funny mythos of "free speech", which doesn't occur in reality, but that's neither here nor there.
In fact, the press freedom aspect is very visible here. Y'all are losing your shit because a guy with no influence over anything at all published an opinion piece that you dislike in a leftie tabloid. The American mindset cannot comprehend that people will express themselves freely through this medium.
Blaming riots on people expressing anti-immigration opinions as if they're somehow responsible for what all these other people did, as if all these rioters were fine upstanding citizens until racist shitposters corrupted them, is just avoiding the real problem, and doing so in a way that's fundamentally ugly for being so anti-free expression.
I mean, okay, but that's not a thing that anyone is doing. I think your problem is that you're focusing very hard on trying to explain why something is a very bad thing, without stopping to wonder whether the bad thing has taken place in recent history.
What's being criticized are the specific laws governing speech in Britain and other countries
No, what you're criticising is Rushy's rather deliberate fantasy around free speech in Britain - something you should have been well prepared to spot and react to appropriately - except you're treating it as if it held any water. If that's the level of discussion you want, then making fun of America by blatantly exaggerating its restrictions on free speech is exactly par for the course. If you'd like a better discussion, up your standards first, and then we can have a chat about the realities of both countries. Until then - haha, you guys have to say the pledge of allegiance in school, what a silly restriction on free speech! Gosh, is America okay?
-
Europeans tend to omit obvious statements like these, because they're obvious. We don't feel the need to caveat our statements with something like "we'll enforce the law unless it's illegal to do so", because we don't have a culture of cops breaking laws when it suits them.
It's amusing that Pete's argument requires we take his word for it, after all, Europeans are too enlightened to state details about things. Therefore, we must accept vague allusions to reality. Reminder: I asked Pete for a link to prove his point and he stopped responding to me entirely. This isn't unusual for Pete, but it is still disappointing.
You see, honk, you incorrectly took a European's word at face value. You should have simply played mental gymnastics until they actually said something completely different. Europeans do this so often they think it's not abnormal to do so. It's also, coincidentally, why Europe keeps falling for memes like fascism and communism. They're uniquely, culturally prone to such things. You need to look no farther than modern day Hungary to be reminded of that.
-
Reminder: I asked Pete for a link to prove his point and he stopped responding to me entirely.
You specifically asked for proof of what the law enforcement is doing without referencing law enforcement. Of course you didn't get a response - after all, you never troll. :)
It's also, coincidentally, why Europe keeps falling for memes like fascism and communism.
Careful, friend - your current options are Kamala and Trump.
-
You specifically asked for proof of what the law enforcement is doing without referencing law enforcement. Of course you didn't get a response - after all, you never troll. :)
I don't think it's a big ask for proof that the police are doing what they say they're doing without asking the police directly. Otherwise this becomes:
"Hello officer, are you currently heckin' illegalin' right now?" 'no' "wow, have a good day!"
Careful, friend - your current options are Kamala and Trump.
Listen here, buddy.
-
I don't think it's a big ask for proof that the police are doing what they say they're doing without asking the police directly.
As much as I dislike cops, I'm going to hold on to my mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" - if the cops are demonstrably lying about what they're doing, then we need some evidence of that.
-
I don't think it's a big ask for proof that the police are doing what they say they're doing without asking the police directly.
As much as I dislike cops, I'm going to hold on to my mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" - if the cops are demonstrably lying about what they're doing, then we need some evidence of that.
You mean like an article saying they arrested someone just for making rude gestures?
-
You mean like an article saying they arrested someone just for making rude gestures?
But it doesn't say that, though. It lists a bunch of other issues, such as him being from Sutton, breaking out of the police cordon, and inciting disorder.
If we look beyond tabloids, we'll find that the man pleaded guilty to violent disorder: https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/rioters-who-admitted-taking-part-london-unrest-are-sentenced
-
I'm sorry to hear you fell for it. I'm not really going to invest the energy in convincing you of something so obvious. The OP says "if you commit crimes, we'll use extradition treaties to extradite you where appropriate". It refers to people who ran away abroad after committing crimes on British soil, and who continue to commit crimes - it's an extremely milquetoast statement, and perhaps it confuses you that it's a statement at all. I encourage you to take a deep breath and examine where you got your reading of the situation from - after all, you already pointed out it makes zero sense.
There may be a cultural difference here. Americans like to (but only sometimes) be very prescritpive in their wording, so they would say something like "we will prosecute to the FULLEST!1!!! extent of the law". Europeans tend to omit obvious statements like these, because they're obvious. We don't feel the need to caveat our statements with something like "we'll enforce the law unless it's illegal to do so", because we don't have a culture of cops breaking laws when it suits them.
I agree with you that Rowley wasn't threatening to extradite and prosecute citizens of other countries, and also that it was reasonable for him to not bother spelling out the obvious point that of course British laws don't apply to citizens of other countries. Nevertheless, he was very clearly talking about prosecuting people for the crime of "inciting" people to commit crimes by posting online. He was asked "What are you considering when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind a keyboard, maybe in another country?" and he responded with "Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law. You can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding publishing of material. All of these offenses are in play in people on provoking hatred and violence on the streets. And we'll come after those individuals..." I'm not misunderstanding him or taking him out of context. He's talking about prosecuting people for expressing opinions online or calling for actions that rile up other people or encourage them to commit crimes. There are at least (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/09/two-men-jailed-for-social-media-posts-that-stirred-up-far-right-violence) three people (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9elrjpry0o) who have been punished for this already. And I think it's been pretty well-documented that Britain does have a long history of prosecuting people for hate speech or simply saying offensive things online. I wish I could find more timely examples, but there's a guy who dressed his dog up as a Nazi (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925), and there's a guy who ranted about Muslims online (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-49799502). According to this article (https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d), there was even a huge anti-hate speech crackdown some years ago, with thousands of people being arrested over the course of a year.
Negatively? Not at all. America's free speech laws are roughly sensible, as I've said multiple times already. Though it is telling that you perceived these statements as negative...
There did appear to be a certain negative connotation to phrasing (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20426.msg287428#msg287428) like "it does much worse than most of Europe," "unlike civilized countries," "the meme that is your defamation laws," and "the US's poor standing in press freedom benchmarks," at least in my view. But that's just a quibble. More importantly, American schoolchildren are not required to say the pledge of allegiance. They only have to stand during it. That changes everything.
-
But it doesn't say that, though. It lists a bunch of other issues, such as him being from Sutton, breaking out of the police cordon, and inciting disorder.
For some definition of "inciting disorder".
If we look beyond tabloids, we'll find that the man pleaded guilty to violent disorder: https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/rioters-who-admitted-taking-part-london-unrest-are-sentenced
Well, I can't compete with that. It's impossible to plead guilty to something you didn't do. Case closed.
-
Nevertheless, he was very clearly talking about prosecuting people for the crime of "inciting" people to commit crimes by posting online.
Right - and that's illegal in the USA, so collaborating with US law enforcement shouldn't surprise you.
He's talking about prosecuting people for expressing opinions online or calling for actions that rile up other people or encourage them to commit crimes.
I don't understand your point. Like I said, if people committed crimes in the UK, then fucked off and carried on committing crimes in other countries, typically those two countries will work together to track the individual down and have them face the consequences. I'm not sure why you're saying this all serious-like: No, I'm not misreading this, I'm not taking it out of context, law enforcement really do be enforcing laws. Chilling stuff.
There are at least (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/09/two-men-jailed-for-social-media-posts-that-stirred-up-far-right-violence) three people (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9elrjpry0o) who have been punished for this already.
Right. But that's identical to the USA. I don't understand how you're only now discovering that inciting violence is not acceptable in the West.
Some pertinent quotes from your first example:
Jordan Parlour, 28, was jailed for 20 months after pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred with Facebook posts in which he advocated an attack on a hotel in Leeds as part of the violent public disorder that swept England last week.
In Northampton, Tyler Kay, 26, was given three years and two months in prison for posts on X that called for mass deportation and for people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.
For what it's worth, I'd strongly suggest not posting "Dagnabbit, those there immigrant hotels, we should burn these sonovaguns down! Come join me on <date> at <time>! Load my guns and horn my swaggle, we're goin' a' killin' tonight!" It's not gonna go well for you.
Also, out of curiosity - do you know who Wayne O’Rourke is, or did you just bring him up because you thought the short article supported your position?
I wish I could find more timely examples, but there's a guy who dressed his dog up as a Nazi (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925)
Once again, I'm assuming you have no idea who "Count Dankula" is, and outside of "haha wow silly Britain arrested a guy for a Nazi dog!!!!!" you have no awareness of his long history with law enforcement?
The lengths you've been going to defend actual neo-Nazis here are impressive. I know this is out of extreme incompetence and not malice, but I'm not sure I'll be able to take you seriously the next time you claim to not be racist, or to support anti-racist movements.
and there's a guy who ranted about Muslims online (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-49799502).
I'm not sure how you can see a man who posted photos of himself holding a gun and threatened to kill people based on their religion and decide that it was "ranting about Muslims". It really surprises me that you see no difference between making credible threats on people's lives and "ranting". Then again, I understand you've got a mythology to defend here.
According to this article (https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d), there was even a huge anti-hate speech crackdown some years ago, with thousands of people being arrested over the course of a year.
Have you read that article? Did you follow up on what happened after it was published? It's talking about law enforcement overstepping its boundaries, and it has since led to significant adjustments. Like, yea, things went badly eight years ago when the government was trying to respond to a rise in violence. Lessons were learned, changes were implemented, and now things are going less badly. This is a good thing - it shows that our system works, and self-corrects when needed. I think y'all could learn from that, and it's not the big "gotcha" you were looking for.
There did appear to be a certain negative connotation
Nah, c'mon, both sides here are doing a bit. Just as Rushy and Roundy are grossly exaggerating for comedic effect, so am I. Cue one of them pointing out that they're not exaggerating at all, and me confirming that America is literally North Korea in turn.
More importantly, American schoolchildren are not required to say the pledge of allegiance. They only have to stand during it. That changes everything.
I stand (🥁) corrected.
-
Right - and that's illegal in the USA
...
Right. But that's identical to the USA. I don't understand how you're only now discovering that inciting violence is not acceptable in the West.
Like I told you, incitement has to be in regard to imminent illegal action to be against the law in America. As in, it needs to be in the heat of the moment, right then and there. Posting on social media, "People should commit this crime," and someone else reading the post and thinking to themselves, "Hmm, this person makes a good case. I think I will go commit that crime!" would not be illegal in America, while it evidently is in Britain.
Some pertinent quotes from your first example:
Jordan Parlour, 28, was jailed for 20 months after pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred with Facebook posts in which he advocated an attack on a hotel in Leeds as part of the violent public disorder that swept England last week.
In Northampton, Tyler Kay, 26, was given three years and two months in prison for posts on X that called for mass deportation and for people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.
For what it's worth, I'd strongly suggest not posting "Dagnabbit, those there immigrant hotels, we should burn these sonovaguns down! Come join me on <date> at <time>! Load my guns and horn my swaggle, we're goin' a' killin' tonight!" It's not gonna go well for you.
It would be entirely legal for me to call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down in America. If I said that I was going to do it, it would become a threat, which is not protected speech, and if I called for people to join me at a certain date and time, it would become planning an attack, which is also not protected speech. But none of these guys threatened to do these things themselves, much less planned an attack out, so that's not really relevant. All their charges came down to simply encouraging other people to commit crimes, which is protected speech in America outside of the imminent factor.
Also, out of curiosity - do you know who Wayne O’Rourke is, or did you just bring him up because you thought the short article supported your position?
I don't know who he is outside of what the article says, and I don't think it really matters. The point is that nobody in America could ever be prosecuted for "stirring up racial hatred" or "anti-Muslim rhetoric."
Once again, I'm assuming you have no idea who "Count Dankula" is, and outside of "haha wow silly Britain arrested a guy for a Nazi dog!!!!!" you have no awareness of his long history with law enforcement?
You're right again, but I also don't see why that matters. Free speech has to be for everyone, regardless of their criminal record or how shitty they are as people, to truly mean anything.
The lengths you've been going to defend actual neo-Nazis here are impressive. I know this is out of extreme incompetence and not malice, but I'm not sure I'll be able to take you seriously the next time you claim to not be racist, or to support anti-racist movements.
Oh, come on, do you really think this huhuhuh you must agree with him then! bullshit is going to work on me? Really? That's a Babby's First Free Speech Debate-tier fallacy if I've ever heard one, and it's beneath you.
I'm not sure how you can see a man who posted photos of himself holding a gun and threatened to kill people based on their religion and decide that it was "ranting about Muslims". It really surprises me that you see no difference between making credible threats on people's lives and "ranting". Then again, I understand you've got a mythology to defend here.
Was he actually making threats, though? Because he wasn't charged with making threats, and neither the prosecutor nor the judge described what he said as being a threat. The whole case seemed to revolve entirely around him saying "offensive" things and stirring up hatred. I think it would be a higher priority to take down an armed man who's threatening to go out and kill minorities (and prosecute the case as such) than it would be simply to take down a guy saying racist stuff online, even in Britain, and the fact that this didn't happen suggests that the authorities didn't view this as a threat at all. The gun can easily be explained as just a prop to make himself look tougher and more badass.
Have you read that article? Did you follow up on what happened after it was published? It's talking about law enforcement overstepping its boundaries, and it has since led to significant adjustments. Like, yea, things went badly eight years ago when the government was trying to respond to a rise in violence. Lessons were learned, changes were implemented, and now things are going less badly. This is a good thing - it shows that our system works, and self-corrects when needed. I think y'all could learn from that, and it's not the big "gotcha" you were looking for.
I was just Googling around for examples of Britain punishing people for speech that would be protected in America. I should have guessed that I'd land on some outdated results. I do still feel that governments policing the expression of opinions like this is both fundamentally wrong and far too much power for them to be trusted with, but I'm glad that improvements are being made.
-
It would be entirely legal for me to call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down in America.
Do you regard that as a good thing? I'm don't think I do - and particularly not in the recent context where some stabbings led to disinformation about it being "one of them immigrants" who did it which led to hotels hosting families of asylum seekers to be set on fire, endangering the people inside. People Tweeting stuff encouraging that sort of action directly contributes to people's lives being put in danger.
I think we all agree that freedom doesn't mean you can literally do anything you like and freedom of speech doesn't mean you can literally say anything you like.
Both countries have limitations on these things. Are the UK's more oppressive than the US's? If you can "call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down" in the US then I guess so, but I don't think that we're the ones who have got that wrong.
I think in the era of the internet where people can quickly reach a large audience there has to be some adjustment in laws and I'm not saying we have got it entirely right. But people aren't being rounded up and sent to the salt mines in the UK simply for expressing opinions. So to answer the question in the OP yes, the UK is OK. And I think the US is too. Both countries have their issues but neither is an oppressive dystopia.
-
Do you regard that as a good thing?
Alright, as an example, let's say instead of immigrants, I say "the homes of fascists should be burned down." Is that illegal to say in the UK? Would I go to jail for tweeting it?
Usually, when someone says a "call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down" is bad, they end up believing that some other group should not receive similar protection. Think of every possible noun I could replace "immigrants" with. If there are some people you can aim speech towards, and some you cannot, then that is obviously not freedom of speech. That's speech for some, none for others.
People Tweeting stuff encouraging that sort of action directly contributes to people's lives being put in danger.
Do you have any evidence that tweeting a general call for violence actually results in violence? Are violent actions some kind of thought-virus that only occur if you read about them on popular social media platforms?
-
America's Freedom of Speech is really Freedom of Belief, and the freedom to state those beliefs. This is why US speech is only illegal if it constitutes part of a specific illegal action of intent. Once you start planning out the intricacies of a detailed murder plot, it stops becoming a belief.
Unlike the UK, I can have and state beliefs without government intervention. Yes, I think I should be able wish death upon you and suggest to people that they should burn your house down. In America you can believe as you wish and don't have to be nice to anyone.
-
Do you regard that as a good thing?
Alright, as an example, let's say instead of immigrants, I say "the homes of fascists should be burned down." Is that illegal to say in the UK? Would I go to jail for tweeting it?
Honestly, I'm not sure. My feeling is in general no-one would bother prosecuting even if it is technically illegal. But the context is important here - people's lives actually were being put in danger and the online disinformation and inflammatory Tweets were contributing to that.
Do you have any evidence that tweeting a general call for violence actually results in violence? Are violent actions some kind of thought-virus that only occur if you read about them on popular social media platforms?
Again, I think in general it probably doesn't result in violence and in general I don't think anyone would bother prosecuting someone for those sorts of Tweets. But the context of the unrest is key here. I do think the nature of social media changes the nature of free speech - when anyone has the ability to broadcast bile across the internet to a large audience I think there needs to be some thought about what people can use that for.
In some ways the UK isn't OK, but I'd suggest the same is true of the US. Both countries have their issues. But the UK isn't the dystopian nightmare some people are trying to claim.
-
people's lives actually were being put in danger and the online disinformation and inflammatory Tweets were contributing to that
Were they and was it? If I tweeted "the homes of immigrants should be burned down" and then it didn't happen, am I still breaking English law? It feels to me that this man is being held responsible because he agreed with someone's criminal actions, rather than actually performing a violent crime himself.
The UK has a long history of doing that, merely making an "offensive comment" about an incident often results in arrest: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-arrested-as-police-investigate-claims-of-offensive-twitter-message-about-glasgow-bin-lorry-crash-9942347.html
But the context of the unrest is key here. I do think the nature of social media changes the nature of free speech - when anyone has the ability to broadcast bile across the internet to a large audience I think there needs to be some thought about what people can use that for.
This makes it sound like you only think free speech applies when you're not speaking to anyone. It's like telling someone that they're free to travel anywhere they like in the country, as long as they don't travel more than 5 meters from their front door.
In some ways the UK isn't OK, but I'd suggest the same is true of the US. Both countries have their issues. But the UK isn't the dystopian nightmare some people are trying to claim.
I think routinely creating news articles that are something to the tune of "local police arrest man for making rude comments about the local police" sounds pretty dystopian to me. You're not living in 1984 just yet, but you're not in a shining beacon of modern governance, either.
-
Here is an article that was written by a University of Baltimore Law Professor in 1989, which compared speech freedoms in the US vs. UK. In summary, there is no protection of free speech in the UK.
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1516&context=lf
In the 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota the United States Supreme Court struck down an injunction which prohibited a newspaper from publishing any "malicious, scandalous or defamatory" material. The only remedy for a libel victim in the United States is to sue for damages after the publication. In the United States, the public's right to know is held paramount over the danger of irreparable harm that might be done to an individual.
The British system, on the other hand, is more concerned with the right of the individual, since a person's reputation might be irreparably harmed by a libelous publication which he was powerless to prevent because of the restrictions on prior restraint. In Britain, a hearing could be required before publication in order to determine if the article were libelous. If a hearing did find the article libelous, the article could be enjoined, and it could be argued that no harm is done in suppressing an article clearly found to be defamatory and untrue. If the article were found not defamatory or were found to be true, publication would be allowed. Thus, an article deserving of publication might be delayed, but could be published eventually. Under the British system, therefore, an individual's right to an undamaged reputation is viewed as more important than the immediate right to publish the article.
...
The most important difference between the two countries is the much greater difficulty there is in the United States to restrain, rather than punish, publication, regardless of the grounds. If one is willing to take the risk of punishment, an individual will always be able to communicate his or her ideas. The public will have the benefit of the information even if the speaker is eventually punished. It is also important to note that any punishment (either criminal or in the form of civil damages) will be meted out by a jury, whereas injunctions are granted by judges. One should not lose sight of the fact, however, that there is some cost to the system used in the United States. If an individual is punished for speech that could not be restrained, this means that someone's rights may have been violated by the speaker. Unlike the British, America is willing to take this risk in order to maximize the free exchange of ideas.
Given that Britain does not have a protection for free speech akin to a first amendment, it is noteworthy that Parliament has chosen not to impose more controls than it has in the area of free speech. The first amendment is still important, however, even though the United Kingdom, without one, does not suffer significantly less rights of free speech than the United States. It is important to remember that just because Parliament has chosen to exercise self-restraint in this area, there is no guarantee that it will continue forever to do so.
-
the United Kingdom, without one, does not suffer significantly less rights of free speech than the United States.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
-
the United Kingdom, without one, does not suffer significantly less rights of free speech than the United States.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
That was 1989. This is today:
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1832793896524665318
-
the United Kingdom, without one, does not suffer significantly less rights of free speech than the United States.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
That was 1989.
It was your article, dude.
This is today
And what's he talking about here? What's the context and how does that feed in to this conversation about freedoms?
(SPOILER: It doesn't, he's talking about economic decisions)
-
It was your article, dude.
Correct. The article said it was from 1989 and I did as well.
This is today
And what's he talking about here? What's the context and how does that feed in to this conversation about freedoms?
(SPOILER: It doesn't, he's talking about economic decisions)
Sure, around that time stamp they were talking about his heinous policy of reducing winter heating money to pensioners (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13827471/Labours-plan-strip-million-pensioners-winter-fuel-payments-KILL.html) (who tend to be conservative), but the statement that he doesn't care if his policies are unpopular is relevant considering that it was given as a general statement that he repeated with the words 'policies' and 'things' as plural and there is existing controversy over his unpopular censorship.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240903022814/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/02/2tk-readers-condemn-keir-starmer-war-on-free-speech/
"Barely two months into his role as Prime Minister and Sir Keir Starmer has wasted no time showing us the kind of leader he is and the kind of Government he runs.
Telegraph readers have collectively argued that he is authoritarian, runs a two-tier society that shuts down dissent and gives a free pass to people who are politically and ideologically aligned with Labour.
Following a spat with tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, who criticised Sir Keir’s handling of the UK riots and publicly embarrassed him by popularising the “two-tier Keir” (2TK) epithet, the Prime Minister has vowed to introduce controls on social media to limit “fake news” and he has scrapped the incoming cancel culture law that would have protected free speech at universities.
Telegraph readers are in agreement that Sir Keir’s moves to place controls on free speech is an over intrusion by the Government and that he is ignoring the underlying issues of the civil unrest, instead focusing on waging war against ordinary people with “unacceptable” opinions.
-
Correct. The article said it was from 1989 and I did as well.
Yes. But you posted it to make a point, you claimed that it said "In summary, there is no protection of free speech in the UK."
The part you quoted actually concluded that "the United Kingdom, without [a protection for free speech akin to a first amendment], does not suffer significantly less rights of free speech than the United States."
So although in theory what you said is correct, in practice there's little difference to our freedoms. That's what the article you posted concludes.
So you posted it to make a point, you even quoted the part of the article which says in practice it makes no significant difference and when I pointed that out you're now just saying the article is out of date. You're the one who posted it, dude.
Now, obviously without a first amendment one could argue that our government could impose greater restrictions. But so could yours. Amendments can be changed - they're literally called amendments. You may have heard of the Eighteenth Amendment. Is that still in effect?
Sure, around that time stamp they were talking about his heinous policy of reducing winter heating money to pensioners
I don't know what I think about that. It's certainly unpopular, although has been misrepresented by some people with a certain agenda. They're not talking about scrapping this benefit, they're just talking about stopping the payment for pensioners who are above a certain threshold in terms of income. I don't think in principle that's a bad policy - if you're a millionaire pensioner then you don't need any more handouts. Exactly where the line should be is more debatable.
there is existing controversy over his unpopular censorship policies.
The Telegraph is a highly Conservative-biased paper. It's literally nicknamed the "Tory-graph" in the UK (Tory being a common name for the Conservative party).
It's another example of you citing incredibly biased sources which back up what you want to believe.
-
I didn't claim that 1989 was 2024. I posted it to describe that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech and that just because they weren't censor-heavy in 1989, it doesn't mean that they would continue down that path.
From the 1989 article: "It is important to remember that just because Parliament has chosen to exercise self-restraint in this area, there is no guarantee that it will continue forever to do so."
Today there is criticism that they are censoring speech. The UK Prime Minister has called for censoring social media and has arrested people for thought crimes, and everything else in that article you don't like. The same things mentioned in the Telegraph article are mentioned in this thread.
Perhaps if you come up with a real defense other than essentially saying "I don't like it" and "maybe they're lying" we would have more to discuss here. You should probably explain why you don't like it, and demonstrate that they're lying or misrepresenting the truth. I see that it is equally possible that any of the pro-labour journalists you like who claim that there is no censorship issue, and that their party is doing nothing wrong, are the ones who are lying.
-
I didn't claim that 1989 was 2024. I posted it to describe that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech and that just because they weren't censor-heavy in 1989, it doesn't mean that they would continue down that path.
Well fair enough. But as I said, that is true of any government including the US. All the Republicans hysterically screaming that The Democrats want to remove people's second amendment rights - that's an implicit acknowledgement that it can happen. Amendments and laws are not set in stone, they can be changed. I personally don't think either the US or UK will end up with authoritarian governments, but it's theoretically possible in both countries.
Today there is criticism that they are censoring speech.
There is. Some of it probably warranted. In any society where the government cares about the freedom of its citizens, individual freedoms have to be balanced with the fact we live in a society because our words and actions can affect other people. I guess it's like this place. You don't have freedom of speech on here - you can't call me certain things on here, definitely not in the uppers. Your right to free speech is limited by the rules of this society because the things you say affect others. I have some concerns about the UK's 'malicious communications' laws because one of the things which is mentioned there is "offensive" messages. Well what does that mean? Offence is subjective. So there is some legitimate concern there. But, overall, I think common sense is mostly shown. I don't think a vegan could go in to a police station and whine they were offended about adverts for sausages. I mean, they could go in but they're not going to get very far. The fact that the occasional silly instances gets into the news is because these instances are rare.
I've also noticed that the sort of people who tend to claim "you can't say anything these days" in the UK tend to go around pretty much saying what they like.
Both countries try to balance individual freedoms with the fact we live in a society which needs rules. You may think the UK errs towards the latter with too many rules intended to protect people's feelings. I think at times the US errs towards the former. I completely disagree, for example, that a person "should be able wish death upon you and suggest to people that they should burn your house down". While we're here, I don't think you should be able to own bloody great machine guns either. Most people in the UK can't believe that the US seems to value your "freedom" over the lives of your children who far too often get mown down in school shootings. In some senses neither country is OK, we both have our issues. In other senses both countries are ok and citizens are free to do and say what they want - within the rules of the societies we live in, but I don't believe those rules are overly officious and I have absolutely no issue with people whose online comments fuelled the (literal) fire of some of the recent unrest faced consequences.
-
In the UK the speech restrictions are vague and childish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom
"Current law allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace,[4][5][6] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety,[7][8][9] incitement,[10] incitement to racial hatred,[11] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism"
According to what I quoted above if I was in the UK and sent you an article that is likely to cause "distress" or "alarm" or "anxiety" in you, it could land me in legal hot water. Basically, anything that people could interpret as offensive or alarming or distressing can get punishment. Writing an article or book criticizing the Church of Scientology could run afoul of being behavior that is "likely to cause harassment" or cause "religious hatred" for exposing them.
Apparently, you can't even give the simple opinion that the Monarchy should be abolished, and you would face life imprisonment for such an opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry
(https://i.imgur.com/sGxfzwY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/h0LTEqb.png)
Regardless of whether people have been recently prosecuted for this, this looming threat shows that the UK is an authoritarian state which does not grant its people freedom of belief. Anyone who wants to express this belief that it is time for the Monarchy to go away would be in fear of their freedom should they do so.
Since I have more rights than you do, I am free to express that my system of government should be abolished and re-done without worry of prosecution. This is something you are not allowed to express about your Constitutional Monarchy. That makes me better and freer than you.
The rulers of your tiny pinched loaf of a country simply needs to stop acting like a bunch of petulant children and learn that there is a difference between words and actions. Parents teach their children not to hit people in response to words. Someone may have some displeasing words for you, but they remain as words until they are not. Going around policing beliefs is an absurdity.
I guess it's like this place. You don't have freedom of speech on here - you can't call me certain things on here, definitely not in the uppers.
The difference is, of course, when you get banned on this website there are no legal consequences. No one is going to jail like the UK has sent people on social media to jail, and Pete isn't threatening you with life imprisonment if you dissent against his rule. When you get banned here it is a closer analogy to someone kicking you out of their house. The rule you live under is a total joke.
-
Apparently, you can't even give the simple opinion that the Monarchy should be abolished, and you would face life imprisonment for such an opinion.
And in the US you can't even cross the road until the little man tells you. Except when I mentioned that earlier in this thread I was (correctly) informed that in practice that is almost never enforced. So sure, the UK has some silly and outdated laws. So does the US - I posted a link above of a silly laws, one for each State. But in practice in both countries these are rarely or never enforced. I know plenty of people who loudly say we shouldn't have a monarchy. None of them have been dragged off to the salt mines.
This looming threat shows that the UK is an authoritarian state which does not grant its people freedom of belief. Anyone who wants to express this belief that it is time for the Monarchy to go away would be in fear of their freedom should they do so.
No they wouldn't.
Since I have more rights than you do, I am free to express that my system of government should be abolished and re-done without worry of prosecution. This something you are not allowed to express about your Constitutional Monarchy.
Yes it is (I mean in practice - even if in theory you are correct, in practice you are not).
there is a difference between words and actions.
Right. So the words of the law may say one thing but in reality there is no action for some of the things you claim we should be afraid of stating an opinion about. Now you're getting it.
Parents teach their children not to hit people in response to words.
And how does that often go? Words can lead to actions.
The difference is, of course, when you get banned on this website there are no legal consequences.
A banning on this site is analogous to a jailing in real life. I was making the comparison to explain that any society in real life or online is governed by rules which limit what we can say or do.
No one is going to jail like the UK has sent people on social media to jail
Examples have been posted in this thread where that exact thing has happened in the US.
The rule you live under is a total joke.
If you say so. Lucky you don't live under it then.
I guess freedom, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You're free if you feel you are. People in the UK feel they're free enough.
Britons overwhelmingly believe that Britain is a free country. In fact, they consider it the freest in the world. The US only finishes 5th
https://cps.org.uk/media/post/2023/does-britain-care-about-freedom-new-survey-reveals-sharp-deep-political-divides
As I said, the people over here who I see moaning about "you can't say anything these days" generally go around saying what they like with no consequence.
So we appreciate your concern but overall yes, the UK is okay thanks for asking :)
-
I'd just like to interject for a moment: this website has more freedom of speech than the UK. If someone in the UK took a picture of some people in London and began tweeting a bunch of racial slurs, that tweet could be reported and that person could be arrested for making offensive comments online.
While we generally enforce a rule against personal insults in the upper fora, you are free to call whoever whatever you like in the lower forums (including calling mods racial slurs!). This is objectively superior to the freedom of speech laws in the UK. No one is going to send people to your home to arrest you for calling Tom rude names in Angry Ranting. Tom can't send you to jail for being mean to him.
I think, overall, the problem is that many people in the UK can't deal with banter without crying about it. Culturally, this erupts as an entire police force that punishes people for speech crimes.
-
Culturally, this erupts as an entire police force that punishes people for speech crimes.
No.
-
Culturally, this erupts as an entire police force that punishes people for speech crimes.
No.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act
Yes.
Woops! Arrested and sentenced for saying mean things online: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly
-
You said "entire police force". This is incorrect.
You have cherry picked a couple of examples - I have provided examples of similar things happening in the US.
If you want to keep believing that the UK is a dystopian authoritarian nightmare because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and allows you to shout U-S-A! U-S-A! and wave your little flags then you go right ahead :)
-
You said "entire police force". This is incorrect.
You have cherry picked a couple of examples - I have provided examples of similar things happening in the US.
You provided precisely one example where the person didn't face any consequences (other than wasted time). I have posted multiple examples where the person was tried and sentenced for saying mean things online. To put it another way, you posted an example of the US police doing something illegal and I posted examples of UK police following UK law.
If you want to keep believing that the UK is a dystopian authoritarian nightmare because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and allows you to shout U-S-A! U-S-A! and wave your little flags then you go right ahead :)
I don't see how "not okay" translated to "dystopian authoritarian nightmare". It seems that particular hyperbole has been invented by your own mind. I pointed out that this forum has objectively superior freedom of speech to the UK. Whether that makes it a dystopian nightmare is up to you.
Here, look, I found another one:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/black-twitter-racism-x-police-charged-b2582083.html
It isn't even that hard to find these. Surely if this was so rare, the UK wouldn't constantly have news articles about it?
-
It isn't even that hard to find these. Surely if this was so rare, the UK wouldn't constantly have news articles about it?
If it was that common it wouldn't be newsworthy, it would just be how things are.
As I said earlier in the thread, in some ways neither the US or the UK is OK. Both nations have their issues.
But in other ways, including the freedoms we enjoy, both countries are basically OK.
Organisations who attempt to objectively measure these things regard both nations as free, and people in the UK overwhelmingly feel they're free.
So yes, we're OK thanks.
-
I don't see how "not okay" translated to "dystopian authoritarian nightmare".
Yes, where did I get that idea?!
your government is a chaotic cacophony of nonsense that involves sending people to jail for tweets.
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.
-
If it was that common it wouldn't be newsworthy, it would just be how things are.
Ah yes, that's why it constantly appears in your major news outlets and not in a tabloid every now and then. It's because it's so rare and fascinating! I'm sure there's a BBC article detailing every single incident to rile people up about it! Oh wait, the BBC doesn't talk about it. How odd!
As I said earlier in the thread, in some ways neither the US or the UK is OK. Both nations have their issues.
This is cope. We aren't talking about how okay things tangentially related to the topic are. Are you going to start bringing up how okay Antarctica is?
But in other ways, including the freedoms we enjoy, both countries are basically OK.
You can't say rude things about people online without getting arrested for it in the UK and your response is "that's okay".
Organisations who attempt to objectively measure these things regard both nations as free, and people in the UK overwhelmingly feel they're free.
So yes, we're OK thanks.
That's because those same organizations also, without irony, believe the concept of "hate speech" exists. In fact, they believe the US government's lack of punishment regarding this so-called "hate speech" makes it less free.
Yes, where did I get that idea?!
Woah, the word "dystopian" and "authoritarian" appears in there a whole horrifying number of zero times. You did find the word "nightmare" though. Good job! Your claims were 33% accurate, which I assume is good enough for the average British citizen and worthy of a "gotcha!" post.
-
AATW concedes that UK laws are dystopian, but thinks that he doesn't live in a dystopia because the people in charge choose not to enforce the laws as much as they could.
Actually, this is a dystopia. If you look up the definitions of dystopia it involves a society which lives in fear.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dystopia
dystopia. noun. dys·to·pia. (ˌ)dis-ˈtō-pē-ə
- an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives
- an imaginary place where people are unhappy and usually afraid because they are not treated fairly.
Ignoring the "imaginary" part of this definition that comes from literature, it appears to accurately represent the present day UK, where the government has degraded and taken advantage of its citizens unfairly to the point of them responding with 29 anti-immigration demonstrations and riots in 27 towns and cities in 7 days (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/policing-response-to-the-2024-summer-riots/#:~:text=Between%2030%20July%20and%207,and%20cities%20in%20the%20UK.). Of course, AATW thinks that the protestors are wrong, and not the government for giving away their wealth and jobs and safety. AATW has commented several times in this thread that his UK friends are complaining that they are fearful to say anything these days, and for some reason he thinks this is acceptable. He also goes on unprompted rants about how he doesn't need a gun for safety, as if safety were a growing concern, and he makes desperate and laughable justifications for the government restricting speech such as a comparison to this site with the statement "A banning on this site is analogous to a jailing in real life."
All of this sounds like denialism and an admission that he lives in a dystopia. In the books 1985 and Brave New World, those governments were not necessarily sending people to prison en masse, but did impose a lot of restrictions in speech and behavior and the people lived in constant fear that they would be sent to prison if they displeased the government.
-
Ah yes, that's why it constantly appears in your major news outlets
It doesn't.
You can't say rude things about people online without getting arrested for it in the UK
Yes you can.
Woah, the word "dystopian" and "authoritarian"
The words I used were hyperbole, so were yours.
But to answer the OP once again - yes, the UK is OK, thanks for asking.
-
That's because those same organizations also, without irony, believe the concept of "hate speech" exists. In fact, they believe the US government's lack of punishment regarding this so-called "hate speech" makes it less free.
I'd love to hear which metric says that
-
In the books 1985
Is that the sequel to 1984? Is it any good?
-
These days if you say you're English you get arrested and thrown in jail.
-
It doesn't.
Incorrect.
The words I used were hyperbole, so were yours.
But to answer the OP once again - yes, the UK is OK, thanks for asking.
Nice opinion.
That's because those same organizations also, without irony, believe the concept of "hate speech" exists. In fact, they believe the US government's lack of punishment regarding this so-called "hate speech" makes it less free.
I'd love to hear which metric says that
You're free (haha) to look back in the thread and read AATW's "freedom ranking" links.
These days if you say you're English you get arrested and thrown in jail.
It's what the English deserve.
-
Nice opinion.
Of course it's an opinion. You literally just finished pointing out that the US Presidential Debate doesn't have an objective winner.
Now you're confused that this is a matter of opinion?
But as I said earlier, freedom is in the eye of the beholder. You're free if you think you are and we overwhelmingly believe we are.
Attempts to objectively measure this agree. So yes, we're OK thanks.
All you're doing is standing outside someone's house shouting through the window about how shit it is. Well ok, don't come and live here then. We do live here and we mostly think it's fine thanks. Not perfect, which house is - yours definitely isn't. But, as these things go, it's fine. Thanks for your concern though, obvs.
-
But as I said earlier, freedom is in the eye of the beholder. You're free if you think you are and we overwhelmingly believe we are.
Yes, well, obviously. If you think freedom is getting arrested for tweets then that is freedom. I'm sure North Koreans thank Kim for how free they are as well, but I don't see how that's a very good way to defend yourself as "okay".
-
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tory-councillors-wife-lucy-connolly-jailed-for-31-months-for-inciting-race-hatred-b1188513.html
Is the UK okay?
-
Yep.
-
It appears that the same judge in the story Rushy mentioned above also sympathizes with degeneracy. What a coincidence that the stereotype proves accurate.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/3194025/uk-judge-gives-31-months-prison-hate-speech-0-months-child-pornography/
UK judge gives 31 months prison for hate speech, 0 months for child pornography
October 18, 2024
"An English judge this week sentenced a woman who posted a hateful message on X to two years and seven months in prison. Lucy Connolly has no previous convictions. The same judge allowed a habitual child pornography offender to walk free from court without any prison time in 2021."
-
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/how-the-sun-will-set-on-the-british-empire-for-the-first-time-in-200-years
UK Status: Certain Lack of Okay
-
https://x.com/NewsWire_US/status/1872713941463515196
Damn, guys, I guess Joe Biden's America is literally the UK. Certifiably not OK :(
-
I wanted to ask the people of the UK their thoughts concerning Keir Starmer and free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER_0cM_lKy8
Is it true a person in Scotland can be arrested for praying in their house? (https://www.ncregister.com/news/scotland-cracks-down-on-pro-life-expression)
"What is clear is that in both Scotland and neighboring England, authorities consider it illegal to pray silently near an abortion facility."
-
I wanted to ask the people of the UK their thoughts concerning Keir Starmer and free speech.
Merging threads at A80's request
-
The UK does not have freedom of assembly or freedom of speech, so it's no surprise that you can be ordered to "pay more than £9,000 costs" for thought-criming in the wrong location.
-
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf
They include David Wootton, 40, who is appealing against a conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, for a Halloween party last year.
He had posted images on social media showing him wearing an Arabic-style headdress, and the slogan “I love Ariana Grande” on his T-shirt, and carrying a rucksack with “Boom” and “TNT” written on the front. Wootton was arrested and admitted sending an offensive message online. He faces up to two years in prison.
Oh my God, he wore a stupid Halloween costume. Imprison this man immediately!
-
As we type, crowds who are praying in public for a positive outcome for Wootton are also being arrested and thrown in the hoosegow.
-
As of today, UK users must show their ID to access NSFW material online.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k81lj8nvpo
UK users: at your earliest convenience, please DM me a picture of your passport so I can verify ✅ your age.
-
As of today, UK users must show their ID to access NSFW material online.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k81lj8nvpo
UK users: at your earliest convenience, please DM me a picture of your passport so I can verify ✅ your age.
Am I, a red-blooded and god fearing citizen of the American Corporate Conglomeracy, still allowed to look at British slags online or do I also need to DM you my employee ID?
-
In other news: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/28/man-allotment-gardening-tools-arrest-armed-police-manchester
Oi, you got your garden trowel loicence, m8?
-
Am I, a red-blooded and god fearing citizen of the American Corporate Conglomeracy, still allowed to look at British slags online or do I also need to DM you my employee ID?
Send it to me just in case. We wouldn't want to upset Ofcom, and you never officially legally seceded.