4 ms·

I've spoken about this many times, and I'll say it again - it's a horrible violation of freedom of speech and expression to not be allowed to possess or create

by ue_ 10y ago

I've spoken about this many times, and I'll say it again - it's a horrible violation of freedom of speech and expression to not be allowed to possess or create certain drawings. There is no law that sickens me more than the one that criminalises drawings. It angers me far more than even modern copyright law. And the worst part is that nobody seems to care about it, even those who are libertarians in the UK who I've met are overcome with repulsion at the type of speech or expression, not caring for the violation of rights. It's a horrible law backed by no evidence of harm caused, and I think it is truly truly wrong that people ignore it. I am not exaggerating when I say that the principle is a motivating factor for me to leave the UK

J-dawg 10y ago
I didn't see that anyone had replied to my post until now. HN could really do with an inbox feature! I just wanted to say that I agree 100%. The UK's laws on obscenity and freedom of speech in general are a terrifying mess. You can be arrested and convicted for as little as wearing a t-shirt with an offensive slogan. [0] How do we define offensive? Well, nobody really knows. It basically depends on the magistrate or jury you find yourself in front of. When I discuss cases like this with people, they often say something along the lines of "but how can you defend this person... what they said was racist/homophobic/obscene/insulting to the dead etc". How many times will I have to explain, I'm not defending the person or their opinions, I'm defending the principle of freedom of speech. Nobody is willing to stand up for a cartoonist who draws creepy pictures, or a football fan with a terrible sense of humour. But really we should all be protesting in the streets over this stuff. How long before your t-shirt is deemed offensive? Or something you wrote? Or something you drew? Just like with the cartoons, there is zero evidence of harm caused. Just innocent people persecuted with no justification. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-36746018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-3674...
- ue_ 10y ago
  I agree, and in my opinion it's a sort of climb further and further down in which people decide what is offensive and not, what is acceptable or not, and they don't require evidence for it - they just legislate the problems. And it's not rare that it's done by the people who have good intentions. They want society to run smoothly and nicely - but by trying to ensure that with law, we lose individual liberties. I've noticed that people think of speech in the same way as "you should be allowed to say that" or "you shouldn't be allowed to say this" rather than in the way of "you should be allowed to speak" or "you shouldn't be allowed to speak". This kind of "particular" reasoning leads to examining the contents of speech rather than simply the right. A magistrate who ruled in a case about the cartoons I mentioned mentioned that "society has no need for these materials", or words to that effect. This really proves my point about taking society's use for something over the individual. Most laws usually considered to be unjust we find are related to protecting people from themselves or inadequate consideration for personal liberty.

by ue_ 10y ago

J-dawg 10y ago

I didn't see that anyone had replied to my post until now. HN could really do with an inbox feature! I just wanted to say that I agree 100%. The UK's laws on obscenity and freedom of speech in general are a terrifying mess. You can be arrested and convicted for as little as wearing a t-shirt with an offensive slogan. [0] How do we define offensive? Well, nobody really knows. It basically depends on the magistrate or jury you find yourself in front of. When I discuss cases like this with people, they often say something along the lines of "but how can you defend this person... what they said was racist/homophobic/obscene/insulting to the dead etc". How many times will I have to explain, I'm not defending the person or their opinions, I'm defending the principle of freedom of speech. Nobody is willing to stand up for a cartoonist who draws creepy pictures, or a football fan with a terrible sense of humour. But really we should all be protesting in the streets over this stuff. How long before your t-shirt is deemed offensive? Or something you wrote? Or something you drew? Just like with the cartoons, there is zero evidence of harm caused. Just innocent people persecuted with no justification. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-36746018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-3674...

ue_ 10y ago
I agree, and in my opinion it's a sort of climb further and further down in which people decide what is offensive and not, what is acceptable or not, and they don't require evidence for it - they just legislate the problems. And it's not rare that it's done by the people who have good intentions. They want society to run smoothly and nicely - but by trying to ensure that with law, we lose individual liberties. I've noticed that people think of speech in the same way as "you should be allowed to say that" or "you shouldn't be allowed to say this" rather than in the way of "you should be allowed to speak" or "you shouldn't be allowed to speak". This kind of "particular" reasoning leads to examining the contents of speech rather than simply the right. A magistrate who ruled in a case about the cartoons I mentioned mentioned that "society has no need for these materials", or words to that effect. This really proves my point about taking society's use for something over the individual. Most laws usually considered to be unjust we find are related to protecting people from themselves or inadequate consideration for personal liberty.