2 ms·
The above comment is being downvoted, but the UK actually arrests people for offensive speech. 625 arrests in 2010, for instance. [0] I'd note the caveat that
by alehul 8y ago
The above comment is being downvoted, but the UK actually arrests people for offensive speech. 625 arrests in 2010, for instance. [0]
I'd note the caveat that "aggressive" speech is included, but it also is simply meant to cover offensive speech. Maybe someone from the UK can chime in on whether section 127 is used for actual crime-inciting speech, or whether it's handled under a separate law.
Edit: And this is being silently downvoted, too...
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
- jon-wood 8y agoSubsection 4 is probably most relevant to this discussion, which I believe is effectively a press exemption: “Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service”
- alehul 8y agoSo there are freedoms of speech that are limited to the press? A collection of individuals in a corporation has more rights to speech than an individual alone? Thank you for making that distinction, and based on the interpretation of "a programme service" you may well be correct. I wonder whether this brings up a separate issue, as the post I responded to was rather rightly questioning how you can have limited rights to free speech and supposedly have a free press. If that is indeed a compatible notion, it seems worrying in a different way.