4 ms·

> arresting people for saying something the powers don't like You just described what's happening in the UK or Canada. Yet, I give it, neither have "free speec

> arresting people for saying something the powers don't like You just described what's happening in the UK or Canada. Yet, I give it, neither have "free speech", but moral point remain that what happened in the USSR is happening today in the western world.

n4r9 7y ago
We have hate crime laws in the UK under which you can get arrested for making statements which are grossly offensive towards someone's ethnicity, creed etc... . That's vastly different from arresting people for criticising the government.
- efdee 7y ago
  #lockherup #sendthemback
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Those laws don't define what grossly offensive is. And that's the problem - it's subject to interpretation. Anything than can be abused will be abused one day.
- smsm42 7y ago
  No it's actually not different. It's trivial to prove with a bit of motivated reasoning, here watch this: (for people not watching it closely, the following is not my opinion but a demonstration how one could prove censorship of political opinions is necessary if one is allowed to censor "offensive speech"). UK is a democratic country. In a democratic country, the government is elected by people, and can exist only while people support it. Not literally everybody, of course, but a significant part of people must support any government system for it to be able to function as a democratic society. By attacking the government, you offend these people and their deepest held beliefs, and imply that they are either not smart enough to figure out how the government should be, or are too lazy to go and vote for a proper government. Moreover, if you argue that a particular elected official is stupid, or corrupt, or bigoted, or criminal - you also imply people who voted for that person either are OK with these things or are too stupid to recognize them (at least if these things were known before the election). Both can be deeply offensive to people. Of course, some people would be OK with being called bigots or idiots, but many would take it as a gross offense. Similarly, calling their chosen representative such words would be possibly a less personal, but no less hurtful offense - after all, if somebody insults your friend, you'd be also hurt as if they'd have insulted you, wouldn't you? Maybe a bit less, but same goes for your representative. Thus, it is clear that political speech can be grossly offensive. Moreover, I would go further and claim that it is more offensive than, for example, a racial insult. You do not choose your race, so if somebody insults you on the base of your race, it has very little to do with you personally - it's not directed at you as a person, but at a vague concept of race which largely exists in the mind of the speaker and nowhere else. You could shrug it off as empty words having nothing to do with you specifically. Insulting your political creed goes much deeper to the core of your identity and hurts on much more personal level - it is offending part of your identity that you yourself chose and built! Thus, one can consider proven that criticizing the government is as much and maybe more hurtful than regular slurs and insults, and must be prosecuted at least as harshly. (for people not watching it closely, the above is not my opinion but a demonstration how one could prove censorship of political opinions is necessary if one is allowed to censor "offensive speech"). The solution of this problem is that government should not ban any speech (with obvious and well-known exceptions, blah blah) and not be allowed to determine what is "offensive" and prosecute people for that.
  - n4r9 7y ago
    This is something that has been discussed in the UK [0-2], with particular reference to the ambiguity around the definition of "grossly offensive" and the balance between freedom of expression and an individual's reasonable expectation of living without harassment or abuse. Weight is also given to the context, circumstances and intentions on a case-by-case basis. As with all law, a certain amount of interpretation is unavoidable. Your example doesn't prove anything because it relies on a particular meaning of "grossly offensive" which you have contrived to make it work. It is not generally a gross offense to merely object to or question someone's beliefs. "Gross" in this sense means that the communication must be a flagrant and obvious violation of acceptable language in a tolerant society. [0] http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article101.en.html http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article101.en.html [1] https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/files/20207198/Bliss%20-%20CPS%20Article.docx https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/files/20207198/Bliss%20-%20C... [2] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-guidelines-prosecuting-cases-involving-communications-sent-social-media https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-guideline...
smsm42 7y ago
I never claimed UK has free speech. It is obvious they do not for a while. I was talking about the US though. Canada is kind of borderline - their "human rights courts" are a travesty but afaik still not as bad as in the UK (though I've not been keeping tabs on that for a while so I may be wrong about Canada).

n4r9 7y ago

We have hate crime laws in the UK under which you can get arrested for making statements which are grossly offensive towards someone's ethnicity, creed etc... . That's vastly different from arresting people for criticising the government.

efdee 7y ago
#lockherup #sendthemback
cameronbrown 7y ago
Those laws don't define what grossly offensive is. And that's the problem - it's subject to interpretation. Anything than can be abused will be abused one day.
smsm42 7y ago
No it's actually not different. It's trivial to prove with a bit of motivated reasoning, here watch this: (for people not watching it closely, the following is not my opinion but a demonstration how one could prove censorship of political opinions is necessary if one is allowed to censor "offensive speech"). UK is a democratic country. In a democratic country, the government is elected by people, and can exist only while people support it. Not literally everybody, of course, but a significant part of people must support any government system for it to be able to function as a democratic society. By attacking the government, you offend these people and their deepest held beliefs, and imply that they are either not smart enough to figure out how the government should be, or are too lazy to go and vote for a proper government. Moreover, if you argue that a particular elected official is stupid, or corrupt, or bigoted, or criminal - you also imply people who voted for that person either are OK with these things or are too stupid to recognize them (at least if these things were known before the election). Both can be deeply offensive to people. Of course, some people would be OK with being called bigots or idiots, but many would take it as a gross offense. Similarly, calling their chosen representative such words would be possibly a less personal, but no less hurtful offense - after all, if somebody insults your friend, you'd be also hurt as if they'd have insulted you, wouldn't you? Maybe a bit less, but same goes for your representative. Thus, it is clear that political speech can be grossly offensive. Moreover, I would go further and claim that it is more offensive than, for example, a racial insult. You do not choose your race, so if somebody insults you on the base of your race, it has very little to do with you personally - it's not directed at you as a person, but at a vague concept of race which largely exists in the mind of the speaker and nowhere else. You could shrug it off as empty words having nothing to do with you specifically. Insulting your political creed goes much deeper to the core of your identity and hurts on much more personal level - it is offending part of your identity that you yourself chose and built! Thus, one can consider proven that criticizing the government is as much and maybe more hurtful than regular slurs and insults, and must be prosecuted at least as harshly. (for people not watching it closely, the above is not my opinion but a demonstration how one could prove censorship of political opinions is necessary if one is allowed to censor "offensive speech"). The solution of this problem is that government should not ban any speech (with obvious and well-known exceptions, blah blah) and not be allowed to determine what is "offensive" and prosecute people for that.
- n4r9 7y ago
  This is something that has been discussed in the UK [0-2], with particular reference to the ambiguity around the definition of "grossly offensive" and the balance between freedom of expression and an individual's reasonable expectation of living without harassment or abuse. Weight is also given to the context, circumstances and intentions on a case-by-case basis. As with all law, a certain amount of interpretation is unavoidable. Your example doesn't prove anything because it relies on a particular meaning of "grossly offensive" which you have contrived to make it work. It is not generally a gross offense to merely object to or question someone's beliefs. "Gross" in this sense means that the communication must be a flagrant and obvious violation of acceptable language in a tolerant society. [0] http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article101.en.html http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article101.en.html [1] https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/files/20207198/Bliss%20-%20CPS%20Article.docx https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/files/20207198/Bliss%20-%20C... [2] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-guidelines-prosecuting-cases-involving-communications-sent-social-media https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-guideline...

smsm42 7y ago

I never claimed UK has free speech. It is obvious they do not for a while. I was talking about the US though. Canada is kind of borderline - their "human rights courts" are a travesty but afaik still not as bad as in the UK (though I've not been keeping tabs on that for a while so I may be wrong about Canada).