8 ms·

> freedom of press is quite limited there Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.

londons_explore 5y ago
The UK doesn't in general protect "free speech". While most things you can say, there are a bunch of things that will land you in prison, even if they are true.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?
  - fulafel 5y ago
    Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.
    - xdennis 5y ago
      I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask. Press freedom is important because it can keep in check the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free as to be able to publish known lies.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        Depends on if you think that freedom of speech should only be for multi-millionaires.
        xdennis 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I believe that individuals should have more freedom of speech protections than corporations or media companies because of the power imbalance.
        dghlsakjg 5y ago
        I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side. A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example. Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Even if we assume those are the best metrics, if something has to be shown to be in the public interest, rather than just not against the public interest, that's quite a high bar.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Publishing the contents of my diary is not against the public interest. I'd still be quite upset if you did that, especially if picked events to make me look bad. (Yet, you wouldn't need to be lying. I've done things I'm not proud of, that I try to hide.) If ever it becomes in the public interest to publish my secrets (e.g. if I'm claiming no affiliation with an organisation I used to work with, while awarding them grants) then go ahead. But until then, my private life is my private life.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        Well that's why I said "if we assume those are the best metrics". Privacy would be an additional one. I wasn't trying to make a full and ideal rule set, just pointing out that the one you said is extremely narrow and even really bad free speech rules could pass it. Like one that prevents me from talking about someone in a park playing with a kite.
  - drzaiusapelord 5y ago
    There really arent any. Hate speech isn't "true" regardless of your basement phrenologists Roganism's that this race or that ethnicity is "inferior" to a white person due to skull or brain size. Or doctored studies that purposely dont take poverty and other things into account. The other category is libel/slander which is properly protected in the UK where a real burden of proof is put on the person making the claim, meanwhile in the USA, "news" shows lie with impunity, and almost always for the benefit of the oligarchy. Its a better system than the USA's and by far. Right-wing types, who also dominate this forum, dislike it because it limits the lies and racism and islomaphobia they so deeply identify with, and is reinforced to them by the dishonest right-wing media they consume which has almost no limits on dishonest or hateful speech in the USA. So its an ugly cycle of extremists radicalizing new extremists for political gain (read: faithful GOP voters) by the billionaire owners of these media outlets who gain from these narratives both politically and economically.
    - legalcorrection 5y ago
      In the UK the cops will knock on your door if you misgender someone on Twitter.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Ah, "in the public interest". There's no such provision in thew USA, and it's a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions (a member of the government) to determine what is in the public interest. It is absolutely forbidden to report on family court proceedings; there is no public interest defence.
thedevelopnik 5y ago
I think the OP was trying to reference the difference between libel laws in the US and UK regarding who has the burden of proof.
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
They’re probably talking about the UK’s weirdly strong defamation laws. From what I understand, burden of proof for libel in English law is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. Once the claim of defamation is made, it’s on the defense to justify what they said. This makes the UK court system a popular venue for rich people to try and suppress negative press.
jdasdf 5y ago
Can you explain why you believe there is any form of free expression in the UK? I'm genuinely asking because looking on from the outside it is clear to me that nowhere in Europe is there anything even approaching freedom of expression and conscience.
- mxz3000 5y ago
  You must be trolling. European countries are considered the most free in the world. https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total%20Score%20and%20Status https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort...
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Not sure how useful that report is. Look at how they score.. Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? The US 3/4 Do laws, policies, and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population? Canada 3/4 - because Indigenous women went missing? Are there free and independent media? US 3/4 Canada 4/4 Switzerland 4/4 - Shouldn't these be reversed? Seems like randomly rating to get some predetermined result. What do many of these things have to do with press freedoms?
fulafel 5y ago
Maybe I generalized too wide from my impressions. It seems that on the freedom of press index the US scores lower (#44) than the UK (#33). But still the absence of constitutional protections and the high profile "libel tourism" cases (including Russian oligarchs suing UK book publishers) would make me give this kind of suit better odds in the UK than in the US.
smnrchrds 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
- fulafel 5y ago
  Interesting. It seems you better be pals with a member of parliament if you get one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_...

londons_explore 5y ago

The UK doesn't in general protect "free speech". While most things you can say, there are a bunch of things that will land you in prison, even if they are true.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?
- fulafel 5y ago
  Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask. Press freedom is important because it can keep in check the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free as to be able to publish known lies.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Depends on if you think that freedom of speech should only be for multi-millionaires.
      - xdennis 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I believe that individuals should have more freedom of speech protections than corporations or media companies because of the power imbalance.
        dghlsakjg 5y ago
        I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side. A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example. Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Even if we assume those are the best metrics, if something has to be shown to be in the public interest, rather than just not against the public interest, that's quite a high bar.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Publishing the contents of my diary is not against the public interest. I'd still be quite upset if you did that, especially if picked events to make me look bad. (Yet, you wouldn't need to be lying. I've done things I'm not proud of, that I try to hide.) If ever it becomes in the public interest to publish my secrets (e.g. if I'm claiming no affiliation with an organisation I used to work with, while awarding them grants) then go ahead. But until then, my private life is my private life.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      Well that's why I said "if we assume those are the best metrics". Privacy would be an additional one. I wasn't trying to make a full and ideal rule set, just pointing out that the one you said is extremely narrow and even really bad free speech rules could pass it. Like one that prevents me from talking about someone in a park playing with a kite.
- drzaiusapelord 5y ago
  There really arent any. Hate speech isn't "true" regardless of your basement phrenologists Roganism's that this race or that ethnicity is "inferior" to a white person due to skull or brain size. Or doctored studies that purposely dont take poverty and other things into account. The other category is libel/slander which is properly protected in the UK where a real burden of proof is put on the person making the claim, meanwhile in the USA, "news" shows lie with impunity, and almost always for the benefit of the oligarchy. Its a better system than the USA's and by far. Right-wing types, who also dominate this forum, dislike it because it limits the lies and racism and islomaphobia they so deeply identify with, and is reinforced to them by the dishonest right-wing media they consume which has almost no limits on dishonest or hateful speech in the USA. So its an ugly cycle of extremists radicalizing new extremists for political gain (read: faithful GOP voters) by the billionaire owners of these media outlets who gain from these narratives both politically and economically.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    In the UK the cops will knock on your door if you misgender someone on Twitter.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Ah, "in the public interest". There's no such provision in thew USA, and it's a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions (a member of the government) to determine what is in the public interest. It is absolutely forbidden to report on family court proceedings; there is no public interest defence.

thedevelopnik 5y ago

I think the OP was trying to reference the difference between libel laws in the US and UK regarding who has the burden of proof.

brendoelfrendo 5y ago

They’re probably talking about the UK’s weirdly strong defamation laws. From what I understand, burden of proof for libel in English law is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. Once the claim of defamation is made, it’s on the defense to justify what they said. This makes the UK court system a popular venue for rich people to try and suppress negative press.

jdasdf 5y ago

Can you explain why you believe there is any form of free expression in the UK? I'm genuinely asking because looking on from the outside it is clear to me that nowhere in Europe is there anything even approaching freedom of expression and conscience.

mxz3000 5y ago
You must be trolling. European countries are considered the most free in the world. https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total%20Score%20and%20Status https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort...
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Not sure how useful that report is. Look at how they score.. Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? The US 3/4 Do laws, policies, and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population? Canada 3/4 - because Indigenous women went missing? Are there free and independent media? US 3/4 Canada 4/4 Switzerland 4/4 - Shouldn't these be reversed? Seems like randomly rating to get some predetermined result. What do many of these things have to do with press freedoms?

fulafel 5y ago

Maybe I generalized too wide from my impressions. It seems that on the freedom of press index the US scores lower (#44) than the UK (#33). But still the absence of constitutional protections and the high profile "libel tourism" cases (including Russian oligarchs suing UK book publishers) would make me give this kind of suit better odds in the UK than in the US.

smnrchrds 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...

fulafel 5y ago
Interesting. It seems you better be pals with a member of parliament if you get one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_...