[Tom Bishop]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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

[AATW]

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)

[Tom Bishop]

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 (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.

[AATW]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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




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.

[AATW]

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

[Rushy]

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.

[AATW]

Culturally, this erupts as an entire police force that punishes people for speech crimes.

No.

[Rushy]

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

[AATW]

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

[Rushy]

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?

[AATW]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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. 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.

[AATW]

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.