27 ms·

I mean, for decades you couldn't swear on TV (and still can't), so I feel like there's a "technically legal to possess, but illegal to send on the internet" ave

by dannyw 5y ago

I mean, for decades you couldn't swear on TV (and still can't), so I feel like there's a "technically legal to possess, but illegal to send on the internet" avenue.

pjc50 5y ago
Indeed. And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech; for years there was an opposition politician who was banned from speaking on television. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa... (granted that was in the context of links to a terrorist organisation, but it shows how different the landscape is to the US)
- sofixa 5y ago
  > And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech Come on now, no need to exaggerate. The UK has limits on free speech, as do most countries ( even the holier than thou US, if I'm not mistaken). You might consider them to be too much, but that doesn't mean there's no right of free speech. In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a terrorist organisation ( IRA) with which the UK was in what was basically a (civil) war?
  - pjc50 5y ago
    > there's no right of free speech I mean there's no encoded, constitutional right that cannot be superceded by ordinary legislation. There is the ECHR right to free speech, which has qualifications, but there is constant muttering from the Tory party about repealing ECHR. Which can be done by ordinary legislation. > In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a terrorist organisation ( IRA) with which the UK was in what was basically a (civil) war? Yes, I literally said that in my comment.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > I mean there's no encoded, constitutional right that cannot be superceded by ordinary legislation. There is the ECHR right to free speech, which has qualifications, but there is constant muttering from the Tory party about repealing ECHR. Which can be done by ordinary legislation. So there is a right, which might get repealed some day by ordinary legislation with ordinary quorum. But it's still there. > Yes, I literally said that in my comment. There's a slight difference between "links to a terrorist organisation", which is pretty vague and can mean lots of things, to literally the political wing of a terrorist group.
      - pjc50 5y ago
        Yes, but that's a strong contrast with the US, where he was invited to speak.
        foldr 5y ago
        He wasn’t trying to blow stuff up in the US, though. It’s also inaccurate to describe Gerry Adams as an “opposition politician”. The opposition in British politics is the largest party opposing the government, and has a semi-official status. Adams was not in the Labour party and never even attended Parliament. So to British ears, it’s very misleading to say that there was a TV ban on an opposition politician.

by dannyw 5y ago

I mean, for decades you couldn't swear on TV (and still can't), so I feel like there's a "technically legal to possess, but illegal to send on the internet" avenue.

pjc50 5y ago

Indeed. And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech; for years there was an opposition politician who was banned from speaking on television. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa... (granted that was in the context of links to a terrorist organisation, but it shows how different the landscape is to the US)

sofixa 5y ago
> And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech Come on now, no need to exaggerate. The UK has limits on free speech, as do most countries ( even the holier than thou US, if I'm not mistaken). You might consider them to be too much, but that doesn't mean there's no right of free speech. In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a terrorist organisation ( IRA) with which the UK was in what was basically a (civil) war?
- pjc50 5y ago
  > there's no right of free speech I mean there's no encoded, constitutional right that cannot be superceded by ordinary legislation. There is the ECHR right to free speech, which has qualifications, but there is constant muttering from the Tory party about repealing ECHR. Which can be done by ordinary legislation. > In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a terrorist organisation ( IRA) with which the UK was in what was basically a (civil) war? Yes, I literally said that in my comment.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > I mean there's no encoded, constitutional right that cannot be superceded by ordinary legislation. There is the ECHR right to free speech, which has qualifications, but there is constant muttering from the Tory party about repealing ECHR. Which can be done by ordinary legislation. So there is a right, which might get repealed some day by ordinary legislation with ordinary quorum. But it's still there. > Yes, I literally said that in my comment. There's a slight difference between "links to a terrorist organisation", which is pretty vague and can mean lots of things, to literally the political wing of a terrorist group.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      Yes, but that's a strong contrast with the US, where he was invited to speak.
      - foldr 5y ago
        He wasn’t trying to blow stuff up in the US, though. It’s also inaccurate to describe Gerry Adams as an “opposition politician”. The opposition in British politics is the largest party opposing the government, and has a semi-official status. Adams was not in the Labour party and never even attended Parliament. So to British ears, it’s very misleading to say that there was a TV ban on an opposition politician.