4 ms·

> UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness. Citize

> UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness. Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse. Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.

vidarh 6y ago
> Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. > > Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace. While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly) [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-tshirt-police-black-lives-matter-protest-a9549911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...
- implements 6y ago
  I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite offensive) and I believe that the Officers concerned probably wouldn’t have arrested her if she had refused to cover up. If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? My point is our freedom of expression laws are aimed at creating an atmosphere where people don’t feel violence is necessary to defend their position or sensibility - it’s where we happen to draw the line in the paradox of tolerance.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.
    - amaccuish 6y ago
      The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.
      - Talanes 6y ago
        I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it. However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
      - vidarh 6y ago
        Public decency is not addressed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which was the act the police officer cited.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    "Fuck" in the context of "Fuck <name>" is really not particularly offensive in the UK. Furthermore, merely being offensive is insufficient under the law. Section 5 of the Public Order Act requires: > "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she: > (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], > within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." One might conceivably argue that these are "abusive" words. But case law also suggests that prosecuting merely on the behaviour of speech is only justified if it serves a need to maintain public order, so let's deal with your hypothetical: > If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? In principle, if the language had been bad enough, yes. In this case? No, I would not. It's not nearly offensive enough language that you won't hear far worse on a regular basis. If someone can't handle seeing a t-shirt like that, they would not last long in London. Here she'd be more likely to cause offence people by wearing a "Boris is great" t-shirt. Personally I'd find that horribly offensive (I'm not being facetious - the guy is a threat to life and liberty), but I wouldn't argue for it to be banned, because it's nowhere near bad enough for a reasonable person to disturb public order over. [This is especially true because Boris is a politician, and people need to expect coarser language used to express frustration] If an actual aggrieved party had been present and reported her, then they would have had a reason to intervene to at least consider the issue. But that aggrieved party is and was entirely hypothetical.

vidarh 6y ago

> Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. > > Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace. While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly) [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-tshirt-police-black-lives-matter-protest-a9549911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...

implements 6y ago
I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite offensive) and I believe that the Officers concerned probably wouldn’t have arrested her if she had refused to cover up. If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? My point is our freedom of expression laws are aimed at creating an atmosphere where people don’t feel violence is necessary to defend their position or sensibility - it’s where we happen to draw the line in the paradox of tolerance.
- Talanes 6y ago
  It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.
  - amaccuish 6y ago
    The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it. However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      Public decency is not addressed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which was the act the police officer cited.
- vidarh 6y ago
  "Fuck" in the context of "Fuck <name>" is really not particularly offensive in the UK. Furthermore, merely being offensive is insufficient under the law. Section 5 of the Public Order Act requires: > "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she: > (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], > within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." One might conceivably argue that these are "abusive" words. But case law also suggests that prosecuting merely on the behaviour of speech is only justified if it serves a need to maintain public order, so let's deal with your hypothetical: > If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? In principle, if the language had been bad enough, yes. In this case? No, I would not. It's not nearly offensive enough language that you won't hear far worse on a regular basis. If someone can't handle seeing a t-shirt like that, they would not last long in London. Here she'd be more likely to cause offence people by wearing a "Boris is great" t-shirt. Personally I'd find that horribly offensive (I'm not being facetious - the guy is a threat to life and liberty), but I wouldn't argue for it to be banned, because it's nowhere near bad enough for a reasonable person to disturb public order over. [This is especially true because Boris is a politician, and people need to expect coarser language used to express frustration] If an actual aggrieved party had been present and reported her, then they would have had a reason to intervene to at least consider the issue. But that aggrieved party is and was entirely hypothetical.